One of the reasons why of course Scotland want immigration, because the majority of UK immigrants choose to not live in Scotland.
I'm not sure this is the full picture. Without net migration, Scotland would have a falling population. But it still came as a surprise to me that over the ten years 2004-2014 English migration to Scotland has been higher than the other way around +72k! Scotland also had net migration from overseas (+152k). I'm not going to work it out but I suspect that per capita that's not so far different from England & Wales.
There are, too, some surprising migration patterns. Take Northern Ireland, (please take Northern Ireland), it too has net migration. Poland, Lithuania and Romania are regular "donors". But there's also a surprisingly high population of East Timorese. (As if NI doesn't have enough problems, these guys who are often connected with gangs are bringing the spectator sport of organised, broad daylight, street fighting to Mid Ulster!) The overriding truth though is that these guys go where the jobs are. The East Timorese are there doing meat processing and packing. My sister has a small house she rents out. She has been told in no uncertain terms that it will not go well for her should she rent her house to anybody from any of these immigrant groups. (Regular readers of mine will know that means the paramilitaries are directly threatening a police officer.)
I have argued on here before that there are too many people doing degrees who perhaps should have been directed else where in education & training and that too many degrees have been next to worthless in terms of what is actually needed, economically or culturally.
We can not blame young people for this, as a nation we have moved to being a service industry culture, have become short termist, have ripped out the regulations that require proper training and have promoted the belief that academic attainment is everything. I would also say that we have become more selfish or less communal in how we think we fit into the wider structure so people compete for a limited amount of desirable jobs which will always mean there are losers.
We do absolutely need more trained craftsmen, builders, electricians, mathematicians, scientists, engineers, carers etc. But we still need artists, actors, musicians, designers etc. as they bring vast amounts of wealth, culture and kudos to the country and bring skills that are used in other industries.
I have argued on here before that there are too many people doing degrees who perhaps should have been directed else where in education & training and that too many degrees have been next to worthless in terms of what is actually needed, economically or culturally.
We can not blame young people for this, as a nation we have moved to being a service industry culture, have become short termist, have ripped out the regulations that require proper training and have promoted the belief that academic attainment is everything. I would also say that we have become more selfish or less communal in how we think we fit into the wider structure so people compete for a limited amount of desirable jobs which will always mean there are losers.
We do absolutely need more trained craftsmen, builders, electricians, mathematicians, scientists, engineers, carers etc. But we still need artists, actors, musicians, designers etc. as they bring vast amounts of wealth, culture and kudos to the country and bring skills that are used in other industries.
You make the mistake of thinking that purpose of going to university and getting a degree is solely to help you get a job.
Living costs have increased particularly private housing, and I expect other costs too, plus public housing has become less available. Personal loans aren't that low, mortgages are though. Would be interesting to see research on real terms cost of living comparison vs wages over the decades
I think that would be very difficult to do. You can do broad comparisons but the famous "basket of goods" that makes up the CPI measure changes all the time. Take the last batch of changes earlier this year: in - gin, lactose-free drinks and bike helmets; out - spirit-based drinks, brake pads, child’s swings and the fee for stopping a cheque.
So, when I was a yoof, there was no central heating, mobile phones, subscription TV, broadband, home computers, etc, etc. Now there are no 8-track tape players, radiograms, velvet loons with 24" bottoms and not much mild ale. Oh, and no CPI, we had RPI.
So much of what is now considered essential just did not exist.
I have argued on here before that there are too many people doing degrees who perhaps should have been directed else where in education & training and that too many degrees have been next to worthless in terms of what is actually needed, economically or culturally.
We can not blame young people for this, as a nation we have moved to being a service industry culture, have become short termist, have ripped out the regulations that require proper training and have promoted the belief that academic attainment is everything. I would also say that we have become more selfish or less communal in how we think we fit into the wider structure so people compete for a limited amount of desirable jobs which will always mean there are losers.
We do absolutely need more trained craftsmen, builders, electricians, mathematicians, scientists, engineers, carers etc. But we still need artists, actors, musicians, designers etc. as they bring vast amounts of wealth, culture and kudos to the country and bring skills that are used in other industries.
You make the mistake of thinking that purpose of going to university and getting a degree is solely to help you get a job.
I think you misread me @se9addick, see the emboldened bit.
Unless you are coming from the angle that loads of students are doing it to laze around for three years and get pissed. If that is the case I would say that you are entitled to your opinion.
Personally I lived at home until I could afford to move out.
The increase in population is going to outstrip increase in housing for years to come through net immigration to the country, rising birth rates and general better health of the population.
Without curbing immigration or having compulsory euthanasia at 80 this ain't going to change.
With best will in the world we would not be able to build enough new houses to meet demand.
We have opposite views but As @Greenie has said about his son @Greenie Junior He has had to work hard to afford his deposit on a flat but he has not got a degree. He has got off his arse and despite suffering knock backs with his apprenticeship will be getting on the property ladder. In 15 years time I suspect we will need more electricians than graduates of art history or media studies.
Sorry for rambling
It is different if you grew up in care.
I know that subject is close to your heart. For those of us that don't know, can you tell us what happens once children in care reach adulthood? What systems are in place with regards to housing / job placements / further education etc ? If any !
Under new legislation those in care get some kind of support (which varies) until the age of 21, not 18 as it was in my day. There is supposed to be a needs assessment to help a person get started, maybe to find a bedsit or whatever. It varies according to local authorities and the individual. Crucially if 'something' is put in place, either adequate or inadequate, once that happens the person is then on their own. No ongoing support, let alone the kind of family support structure that would allow a person to stay at home and save for a deposit. Income is gone on rent and survival. AsIsaid above, not everybody has the same start in life,very often through no fault of their own. If some poor children are left orphans by the dreadful fire, this is the world they are plunged into.
Living costs have increased particularly private housing, and I expect other costs too, plus public housing has become less available. Personal loans aren't that low, mortgages are though. Would be interesting to see research on real terms cost of living comparison vs wages over the decades
I think that would be very difficult to do. You can do broad comparisons but the famous "basket of goods" that makes up the CPI measure changes all the time. Take the last batch of changes earlier this year: in - gin, lactose-free drinks and bike helmets; out - spirit-based drinks, brake pads, child’s swings and the fee for stopping a cheque.
So, when I was a yoof, there was no central heating, mobile phones, subscription TV, broadband, home computers, etc, etc. Now there are no 8-track tape players, radiograms, velvet loons with 24" bottoms and not much mild ale. Oh, and no CPI, we had RPI.
So much of what is now considered essential just did not exist.
But when I was young, you could expect that anyone with a reasonable education and a decent job would be able to find somewhere to live and have a family and children.
In other words you could assume that your bin man or your nurse had a home, a family and aspirations for their children (assuming they wanted to have these things - but most people do!).
I don't think this is true in our society anymore.
In this context IPhones, cars, gap years in Thailand etc. have very little value or meaning.
I'm 22 burdened with the debt of my tuition fees for the rest of my working life. Without getting a degree their is hardly any chance of me getting a job that would earn me enough money to rent anywhere near Charlton let alone buy. So the majority of my friends and me (the only ones who didn't could rely lie on the bank of mum and dad) voted Labour. It wasn't about wanting free stuff it was about wanting the potential to earn a real living and perhaps own a house. Something I legitimately doubt I will be able to do in my life time. I think that is a valid concern and is a bit harsh to say that we want life given to us on a plate. As a generation we are poorer, we rely more on the state and we have far less opportunities to become self sufficient. So when a manifesto says we will build more affordable houses, won't saddle you in debt for trying to earn a degree (that is necessary for a liveable wage in London now) and will raise wages we gobbled up. I don't think that is unreasonable. We are a generation that demands opportunity (provided by stable work/affordable housing/ decent public services), not free stuff.
I'm not going to echo much of what has already been said, and I'm not old enough to be able to pull numbers out of my memory from the 60s and 70s but I doubt that it is true that all you demand is opportunity.
I suspect that what you mean is opportunity to acquire many things that are out of your reach and many more that you take for granted that your grandparents would have loved to have had.
Firstly (and I am twenty years older than you so this might not apply to your grandparents) at 22 my grandfathers were fighting a World War and my grandmothers were bringing up children on their own and hiding under the dining table when the bombers came over. At 22 my parents used to hang their milk out of a window in a plastic bag as they had no fridge. They had no washing machine, no dishwasher, no colour TV, no video, no computer at home, a much lower life expectancy and poorer health conditions due to a much less advance NHS.
Only the very richest families had a car - and I mean one car, not one per adult. As has already been mentioned there were no foreign holidays, there were far fewer restaurants and takeaways. there were no shopping centers like Bluewater, no designer clothes, most people had one pair of shoes. I could go on.
I suspect that at 22 you have a smart phone, nice clothes, maybe a car, certainly would have had a PC, of some kind, while you were studying. Frankly, those in their 20s have never had it so good. No, really - never had it so good! Can you imagine what my grandparents would have said to you if, at 22, you had demanded opportunity while they were losing friends in a war and seeing their neighbors houses raised to the ground.
I agree that the cost of housing is an issue but that is just supply and demand. You want to live in Charlton and, maybe can't afford to. Most people have aspirations that they cannot meet. I don't know many people that would not like to move to a bigger or better located property. You have to work hard and hope to be a bit lucky, and be patient - you can't have it all now! It's just too easy to expect someone to 'give' it to you. You say that you don't want free stuff but if you are not, actually, paying for it what other definition is there? If you are not going to have University fees (irrespective as to what degree you get, or the career it helps you achieve) who is going to pay for the lecturers etc.?
Don't get me wrong I fully understand why you voted for Labour when you thought they were going to give you c. £25k and an affordable house to live in next door to one that someone paid £500k to buy, and I do sympathise with the fact that you want everything, and you want it right now, and can't have it. We are all a bit like that. However, just imagine how much you could afford if you were to save the money that you spend on all the things that those with nice houses didn't have at your age. It doesn't seem terribly fair for the generation above you to pay more tax to provide yours with things that they never had, does it?
However if all you want is opportunity then be grateful because you have it!
You have a degree, you are 22, the world is all there waiting for you to go and make something of yourself.
Clearly you need to have realistic expectations. If you managed two Ds at 'A' Level and went to a crappy Collage and managed a 2:2 then you might not find that there is a clamor for you to take a job on £50k with six figure bonuses, but there are still lots of opportunities out there.
I'll share with you what my Dad says when I joke about the outrageous lifestyle and holidays that he has. He says "I'd rather be 35!" He'd probably give you his house, his full investment portfolio and his pension to be 22 again. Stop worrying about what you don't have and go out and enjoy what you do.
I'm 22 burdened with the debt of my tuition fees for the rest of my working life. Without getting a degree their is hardly any chance of me getting a job that would earn me enough money to rent anywhere near Charlton let alone buy. So the majority of my friends and me (the only ones who didn't could rely lie on the bank of mum and dad) voted Labour. It wasn't about wanting free stuff it was about wanting the potential to earn a real living and perhaps own a house. Something I legitimately doubt I will be able to do in my life time. I think that is a valid concern and is a bit harsh to say that we want life given to us on a plate. As a generation we are poorer, we rely more on the state and we have far less opportunities to become self sufficient. So when a manifesto says we will build more affordable houses, won't saddle you in debt for trying to earn a degree (that is necessary for a liveable wage in London now) and will raise wages we gobbled up. I don't think that is unreasonable. We are a generation that demands opportunity (provided by stable work/affordable housing/ decent public services), not free stuff.
The part highlighted is simply not true. I've just turned 23 and our generation is full of lazy no good, spoon fed morons who expect everything for free and don't like to work hard for it. The moment they have to work hard they drop it. Most people won't save money and will instead be out constantly and then moan they can't afford a place. They don't prioritise what's important as they're self entitled wankers and quite frankly I don't like the majority of this generation.
I'm 22 burdened with the debt of my tuition fees for the rest of my working life. Without getting a degree their is hardly any chance of me getting a job that would earn me enough money to rent anywhere near Charlton let alone buy. So the majority of my friends and me (the only ones who didn't could rely lie on the bank of mum and dad) voted Labour. It wasn't about wanting free stuff it was about wanting the potential to earn a real living and perhaps own a house. Something I legitimately doubt I will be able to do in my life time. I think that is a valid concern and is a bit harsh to say that we want life given to us on a plate. As a generation we are poorer, we rely more on the state and we have far less opportunities to become self sufficient. So when a manifesto says we will build more affordable houses, won't saddle you in debt for trying to earn a degree (that is necessary for a liveable wage in London now) and will raise wages we gobbled up. I don't think that is unreasonable. We are a generation that demands opportunity (provided by stable work/affordable housing/ decent public services), not free stuff.
The part highlighted is simply not true. I've just turned 23 and our generation is full of lazy no good, spoon fed morons who expect everything for free and don't like to work hard for it. The moment they have to work hard they drop it. Most people won't save money and will instead be out constantly and then moan they can't afford a place. They don't prioritise what's important as they're self entitled wankers and quite frankly I don't like the majority of this generation.
Whilst there are going to be people who meet your description, it feels like you are generalising a bit.
I'm 22 burdened with the debt of my tuition fees for the rest of my working life. Without getting a degree their is hardly any chance of me getting a job that would earn me enough money to rent anywhere near Charlton let alone buy. So the majority of my friends and me (the only ones who didn't could rely lie on the bank of mum and dad) voted Labour. It wasn't about wanting free stuff it was about wanting the potential to earn a real living and perhaps own a house. Something I legitimately doubt I will be able to do in my life time. I think that is a valid concern and is a bit harsh to say that we want life given to us on a plate. As a generation we are poorer, we rely more on the state and we have far less opportunities to become self sufficient. So when a manifesto says we will build more affordable houses, won't saddle you in debt for trying to earn a degree (that is necessary for a liveable wage in London now) and will raise wages we gobbled up. I don't think that is unreasonable. We are a generation that demands opportunity (provided by stable work/affordable housing/ decent public services), not free stuff.
I'm not going to echo much of what has already been said, and I'm not old enough to be able to pull numbers out of my memory from the 60s and 70s but I doubt that it is true that all you demand is opportunity.
I suspect that what you mean is opportunity to acquire many things that are out of your reach and many more that you take for granted that your grandparents would have loved to have had.
Firstly (and I am twenty years older than you so this might not apply to your grandparents) at 22 my grandfathers were fighting a World War and my grandmothers were bringing up children on their own and hiding under the dining table when the bombers came over. At 22 my parents used to hang their milk out of a window in a plastic bag as they had no fridge. They had no washing machine, no dishwasher, no colour TV, no video, no computer at home, a much lower life expectancy and poorer health conditions due to a much less advance NHS.
Only the very richest families had a car - and I mean one car, not one per adult. As has already been mentioned there were no foreign holidays, there were far fewer restaurants and takeaways. there were no shopping centers like Bluewater, no designer clothes, most people had one pair of shoes. I could go on.
I suspect that at 22 you have a smart phone, nice clothes, maybe a car, certainly would have had a PC, of some kind, while you were studying. Frankly, those in their 20s have never had it so good. No, really - never had it so good! Can you imagine what my grandparents would have said to you if, at 22, you had demanded opportunity while they were losing friends in a war and seeing their neighbors houses raised to the ground.
I agree that the cost of housing is an issue but that is just supply and demand. You want to live in Charlton and, maybe can't afford to. Most people have aspirations that they cannot meet. I don't know many people that would not like to move to a bigger or better located property. You have to work hard and hope to be a bit lucky, and be patient - you can't have it all now! It's just too easy to expect someone to 'give' it to you. You say that you don't want free stuff but if you are not, actually, paying for it what other definition is there? If you are not going to have University fees (irrespective as to what degree you get, or the career it helps you achieve) who is going to pay for the lecturers etc.?
Don't get me wrong I fully understand why you voted for Labour when you thought they were going to give you c. £25k and an affordable house to live in next door to one that someone paid £500k to buy, and I do sympathise with the fact that you want everything, and you want it right now, and can't have it. We are all a bit like that. However, just imagine how much you could afford if you were to save the money that you spend on all the things that those with nice houses didn't have at your age. It doesn't seem terribly fair for the generation above you to pay more tax to provide yours with things that they never had, does it?
However if all you want is opportunity then be grateful because you have it!
You have a degree, you are 22, the world is all there waiting for you to go and make something of yourself.
Clearly you need to have realistic expectations. If you managed two Ds at 'A' Level and went to a crappy Collage and managed a 2:2 then you might not find that there is a clamor for you to take a job on £50k with six figure bonuses, but there are still lots of opportunities out there.
I'll share with you what my Dad says when I joke about the outrageous lifestyle and holidays that he has. He says "I'd rather be 35!" He'd probably give you his house, his full investment portfolio and his pension to be 22 again. Stop worrying about what you don't have and go out and enjoy what you do.
That's a bit of a diatribe @ShootersHillGuru I won't go through the whole of your post and pick out what I think is wrong (as some of them are really quite silly (e.g. Labour buying everybody a house, the poster only wanting a £50k job) but will use a few clichés that cover my point.
Post war consensus First generation poorer than their parents Chance to get on
I'm 22 burdened with the debt of my tuition fees for the rest of my working life. Without getting a degree their is hardly any chance of me getting a job that would earn me enough money to rent anywhere near Charlton let alone buy. So the majority of my friends and me (the only ones who didn't could rely lie on the bank of mum and dad) voted Labour. It wasn't about wanting free stuff it was about wanting the potential to earn a real living and perhaps own a house. Something I legitimately doubt I will be able to do in my life time. I think that is a valid concern and is a bit harsh to say that we want life given to us on a plate. As a generation we are poorer, we rely more on the state and we have far less opportunities to become self sufficient. So when a manifesto says we will build more affordable houses, won't saddle you in debt for trying to earn a degree (that is necessary for a liveable wage in London now) and will raise wages we gobbled up. I don't think that is unreasonable. We are a generation that demands opportunity (provided by stable work/affordable housing/ decent public services), not free stuff.
The part highlighted is simply not true. I've just turned 23 and our generation is full of lazy no good, spoon fed morons who expect everything for free and don't like to work hard for it. The moment they have to work hard they drop it. Most people won't save money and will instead be out constantly and then moan they can't afford a place. They don't prioritise what's important as they're self entitled wankers and quite frankly I don't like the majority of this generation.
Whilst there are going to be people who meet your description, it feels like you are generalising a bit.
There's more work shy lazy bastards who want everything for free and without sacrifice in my generation than there are grafters. I don't know how old you are but I'm pretty sure I'm in a better position to judge this than you are.
I'm 22 burdened with the debt of my tuition fees for the rest of my working life. Without getting a degree their is hardly any chance of me getting a job that would earn me enough money to rent anywhere near Charlton let alone buy. So the majority of my friends and me (the only ones who didn't could rely lie on the bank of mum and dad) voted Labour. It wasn't about wanting free stuff it was about wanting the potential to earn a real living and perhaps own a house. Something I legitimately doubt I will be able to do in my life time. I think that is a valid concern and is a bit harsh to say that we want life given to us on a plate. As a generation we are poorer, we rely more on the state and we have far less opportunities to become self sufficient. So when a manifesto says we will build more affordable houses, won't saddle you in debt for trying to earn a degree (that is necessary for a liveable wage in London now) and will raise wages we gobbled up. I don't think that is unreasonable. We are a generation that demands opportunity (provided by stable work/affordable housing/ decent public services), not free stuff.
The part highlighted is simply not true. I've just turned 23 and our generation is full of lazy no good, spoon fed morons who expect everything for free and don't like to work hard for it. The moment they have to work hard they drop it. Most people won't save money and will instead be out constantly and then moan they can't afford a place. They don't prioritise what's important as they're self entitled wankers and quite frankly I don't like the majority of this generation.
Whilst there are going to be people who meet your description, it feels like you are generalising a bit.
There's more work shy lazy bastards who want everything for free and without sacrifice in my generation than there are grafters. I don't know how old you are but I'm pretty sure I'm in a better position to judge this than you are.
There's been lazy work shy kids in every generation and every older generation laments them for not being hard working like them, conveniently forgetting they were labelled exactly the same by their superiors some decades ago.
It happens every generation going back centuries. Every generation is apparently ruder, lazier, less respecting of authority.
It's just human psychology. I'm willing to bet people aren't any lazier or more hard working than they have ever been in the past.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
I'm 22 burdened with the debt of my tuition fees for the rest of my working life. Without getting a degree their is hardly any chance of me getting a job that would earn me enough money to rent anywhere near Charlton let alone buy. So the majority of my friends and me (the only ones who didn't could rely lie on the bank of mum and dad) voted Labour. It wasn't about wanting free stuff it was about wanting the potential to earn a real living and perhaps own a house. Something I legitimately doubt I will be able to do in my life time. I think that is a valid concern and is a bit harsh to say that we want life given to us on a plate. As a generation we are poorer, we rely more on the state and we have far less opportunities to become self sufficient. So when a manifesto says we will build more affordable houses, won't saddle you in debt for trying to earn a degree (that is necessary for a liveable wage in London now) and will raise wages we gobbled up. I don't think that is unreasonable. We are a generation that demands opportunity (provided by stable work/affordable housing/ decent public services), not free stuff.
I'm not going to echo much of what has already been said, and I'm not old enough to be able to pull numbers out of my memory from the 60s and 70s but I doubt that it is true that all you demand is opportunity.
I suspect that what you mean is opportunity to acquire many things that are out of your reach and many more that you take for granted that your grandparents would have loved to have had.
Firstly (and I am twenty years older than you so this might not apply to your grandparents) at 22 my grandfathers were fighting a World War and my grandmothers were bringing up children on their own and hiding under the dining table when the bombers came over. At 22 my parents used to hang their milk out of a window in a plastic bag as they had no fridge. They had no washing machine, no dishwasher, no colour TV, no video, no computer at home, a much lower life expectancy and poorer health conditions due to a much less advance NHS.
Only the very richest families had a car - and I mean one car, not one per adult. As has already been mentioned there were no foreign holidays, there were far fewer restaurants and takeaways. there were no shopping centers like Bluewater, no designer clothes, most people had one pair of shoes. I could go on.
I suspect that at 22 you have a smart phone, nice clothes, maybe a car, certainly would have had a PC, of some kind, while you were studying. Frankly, those in their 20s have never had it so good. No, really - never had it so good! Can you imagine what my grandparents would have said to you if, at 22, you had demanded opportunity while they were losing friends in a war and seeing their neighbors houses raised to the ground.
I agree that the cost of housing is an issue but that is just supply and demand. You want to live in Charlton and, maybe can't afford to. Most people have aspirations that they cannot meet. I don't know many people that would not like to move to a bigger or better located property. You have to work hard and hope to be a bit lucky, and be patient - you can't have it all now! It's just too easy to expect someone to 'give' it to you. You say that you don't want free stuff but if you are not, actually, paying for it what other definition is there? If you are not going to have University fees (irrespective as to what degree you get, or the career it helps you achieve) who is going to pay for the lecturers etc.?
Don't get me wrong I fully understand why you voted for Labour when you thought they were going to give you c. £25k and an affordable house to live in next door to one that someone paid £500k to buy, and I do sympathise with the fact that you want everything, and you want it right now, and can't have it. We are all a bit like that. However, just imagine how much you could afford if you were to save the money that you spend on all the things that those with nice houses didn't have at your age. It doesn't seem terribly fair for the generation above you to pay more tax to provide yours with things that they never had, does it?
However if all you want is opportunity then be grateful because you have it!
You have a degree, you are 22, the world is all there waiting for you to go and make something of yourself.
Clearly you need to have realistic expectations. If you managed two Ds at 'A' Level and went to a crappy Collage and managed a 2:2 then you might not find that there is a clamor for you to take a job on £50k with six figure bonuses, but there are still lots of opportunities out there.
I'll share with you what my Dad says when I joke about the outrageous lifestyle and holidays that he has. He says "I'd rather be 35!" He'd probably give you his house, his full investment portfolio and his pension to be 22 again. Stop worrying about what you don't have and go out and enjoy what you do.
That's a bit of a diatribe @ShootersHillGuru I won't go through the whole of your post and pick out what I think is wrong (as some of them are really quite silly (e.g. Labour buying everybody a house, the poster only wanting a £50k job) but will use a few clichés that cover my point.
Post war consensus First generation poorer than their parents Chance to get on
I didn't say buying everyone a house.
I didn't say the poster only wanted a £50k job.
My point was that he is 22 with a degree and he is demanding opportunity, from the state providing affordable housing and public services at a time when 22 year olds have more opportunities than at any time since I was born.
On a seperate note I think you might have managed to send a notification to another user in response to my post. I'm not Shooters Hill Guru.
Apologies @kings hill addick for calling you shooters, its the three words with Hill in the middle and being in SE London.
I think your post implied that Labour was bribing the young by offering to buy them houses and giving them money. In this bit from your post:-
Don't get me wrong I fully understand why you voted for Labour when you thought they were going to give you c. £25k and an affordable house to live in next door to one that someone paid £500k to buy
And the job bit was this:-
"If you managed two Ds at 'A' Level and went to a crappy Collage and managed a 2:2 then you might not find that there is a clamor for you to take a job on £50k with six figure bonuses"
Although reading that bit again it is fairly ambiguous so I will withdraw that example.
The crux of what I am saying is that lots of people do work hard, do get an education and do scrape and save but still do not get the benefit of rewarding and stable employment, a decent home or a debt free life. We are meant to live in a meritocracy but the dice are loaded for a lot of people.
I do think the Labour Party offering to wipe off student loans is an incentive to vote for them. I wouldn't call it a bribe but I can see why some do.
I also think that offering to build more affordable housing will win votes from those that cannot afford to buy (or rent) a property where they want to live - even though this has been the case for many for decades.
I don't, really, have a problem with that or those that want it and vote for it.
Having said that I also don't have a problem with those with small limited companies voting Tory as they will benefit from lower Corporation Tax.
It is my belief that many people vote in their own financial interests. I know that not everyone does but many do. I'm ok with that and suspect that elections can be won by ensuring that the outcome will benefit enough of the electorate to secure a win.
If any of the under 25s that voted Labour did so because they thought that they would receive a windfall and/or their prospects would have been better then good for them. I just think it is a little disingenuous for any of them (especially those that have only recently left education or are still in it) to be demanding that their long term prospects are enhanced at great cost to the tax payer yet claim that they don't want free stuff.
The suggestion that one needs a degree to get a decent job in London, so they should be free, seems particularly hard on those that don't get one, but have to contribute to the cost of those that do.
Soooo.. the free tuition fees was a bribe but the triple lock on pensions wasn't? Mmmk
I don't know if that was aimed at me but I was trying to make the point that everything that benefits one section of the electorate is done to win votes. I suspect that the word bribe is not popular but politicians very rarely committ to spend money unless it will be popular with someone.
I'm 22 burdened with the debt of my tuition fees for the rest of my working life. Without getting a degree their is hardly any chance of me getting a job that would earn me enough money to rent anywhere near Charlton let alone buy. So the majority of my friends and me (the only ones who didn't could rely lie on the bank of mum and dad) voted Labour. It wasn't about wanting free stuff it was about wanting the potential to earn a real living and perhaps own a house. Something I legitimately doubt I will be able to do in my life time. I think that is a valid concern and is a bit harsh to say that we want life given to us on a plate. As a generation we are poorer, we rely more on the state and we have far less opportunities to become self sufficient. So when a manifesto says we will build more affordable houses, won't saddle you in debt for trying to earn a degree (that is necessary for a liveable wage in London now) and will raise wages we gobbled up. I don't think that is unreasonable. We are a generation that demands opportunity (provided by stable work/affordable housing/ decent public services), not free stuff.
The part highlighted is simply not true. I've just turned 23 and our generation is full of lazy no good, spoon fed morons who expect everything for free and don't like to work hard for it. The moment they have to work hard they drop it. Most people won't save money and will instead be out constantly and then moan they can't afford a place. They don't prioritise what's important as they're self entitled wankers and quite frankly I don't like the majority of this generation.
Whilst there are going to be people who meet your description, it feels like you are generalising a bit.
There's more work shy lazy bastards who want everything for free and without sacrifice in my generation than there are grafters. I don't know how old you are but I'm pretty sure I'm in a better position to judge this than you are.
"The children no longer rise when elders enter the room.
My great nephew does.
He knows he's about to get shot with his Nerf* gun or get a quick soaking with his Nerf* water blaster. So he does a runner.
Bloody kids, always messing about.......
*Other makes of toy weapons are available. (But I quite fancy a Nerf N-Strike MEGA Mastodon Blaster.)
I do think the Labour Party offering to wipe off student loans is an incentive to vote for them. I wouldn't call it a bribe but I can see why some do.
I also think that offering to build more affordable housing will win votes from those that cannot afford to buy (or rent) a property where they want to live - even though this has been the case for many for decades.
I don't, really, have a problem with that or those that want it and vote for it.
Having said that I also don't have a problem with those with small limited companies voting Tory as they will benefit from lower Corporation Tax.
It is my belief that many people vote in their own financial interests. I know that not everyone does but many do. I'm ok with that and suspect that elections can be won by ensuring that the outcome will benefit enough of the electorate to secure a win.
If any of the under 25s that voted Labour did so because they thought that they would receive a windfall and/or their prospects would have been better then good for them. I just think it is a little disingenuous for any of them (especially those that have only recently left education or are still in it) to be demanding that their long term prospects are enhanced at great cost to the tax payer yet claim that they don't want free stuff.
The suggestion that one needs a degree to get a decent job in London, so they should be free, seems particularly hard on those that don't get one, but have to contribute to the cost of those that do.
Maybe the student loan thing was neither a bribe nor an incentive in it's intention. It might be a recognition that many of the older, and indeed political class had free University education, and it is shameful that we have withdrawn that opportunity for following generations. It might have been in the manifesto due to a sense of shame.
Philip Hammond on Marr this morning is doing a political interview masterclass in avoiding giving a clear and direct answer to questions about the terrible fire. The correct answer should have been that 'the government will do everything and more to ensure a gold standard of fire safety in our public buildings, no if's, no but's, and the money will be found come what may. Everything will be done to help and compensate those affected, and a full inquiry will be used to learn from our manifest terrible mistakes.' Those who have written that he is a credible alternative to Theresa May surely can't be serious. To call him a D-list politician would be praising him too highly (except in political interview skill).
I do think the Labour Party offering to wipe off student loans is an incentive to vote for them. I wouldn't call it a bribe but I can see why some do.
I also think that offering to build more affordable housing will win votes from those that cannot afford to buy (or rent) a property where they want to live - even though this has been the case for many for decades.
I don't, really, have a problem with that or those that want it and vote for it.
Having said that I also don't have a problem with those with small limited companies voting Tory as they will benefit from lower Corporation Tax.
It is my belief that many people vote in their own financial interests. I know that not everyone does but many do. I'm ok with that and suspect that elections can be won by ensuring that the outcome will benefit enough of the electorate to secure a win.
If any of the under 25s that voted Labour did so because they thought that they would receive a windfall and/or their prospects would have been better then good for them. I just think it is a little disingenuous for any of them (especially those that have only recently left education or are still in it) to be demanding that their long term prospects are enhanced at great cost to the tax payer yet claim that they don't want free stuff.
The suggestion that one needs a degree to get a decent job in London, so they should be free, seems particularly hard on those that don't get one, but have to contribute to the cost of those that do.
Maybe the student loan thing was neither a bribe nor an incentive in it's intention. It might be a recognition that many of the older, and indeed political class had free University education, and it is shameful that we have withdrawn that opportunity for following generations. It might have been in the manifesto due to a sense of shame.
Seth, I respect your right to have a different opinion to me but I don't believe that for a second.
There may well be some politicians that make all their decisions independent of how popular they are with the electorate but I seriously doubt there are enough for anything this expensive to be floated if it were not going to win votes.
Incidentally, I also doubt that it would be a pledge for any party that thought that they were, actually, going to win. It's easy to promise something that you know you will never have to deliver on.
I do think the Labour Party offering to wipe off student loans is an incentive to vote for them. I wouldn't call it a bribe but I can see why some do.
I also think that offering to build more affordable housing will win votes from those that cannot afford to buy (or rent) a property where they want to live - even though this has been the case for many for decades.
I don't, really, have a problem with that or those that want it and vote for it.
Having said that I also don't have a problem with those with small limited companies voting Tory as they will benefit from lower Corporation Tax.
It is my belief that many people vote in their own financial interests. I know that not everyone does but many do. I'm ok with that and suspect that elections can be won by ensuring that the outcome will benefit enough of the electorate to secure a win.
If any of the under 25s that voted Labour did so because they thought that they would receive a windfall and/or their prospects would have been better then good for them. I just think it is a little disingenuous for any of them (especially those that have only recently left education or are still in it) to be demanding that their long term prospects are enhanced at great cost to the tax payer yet claim that they don't want free stuff.
The suggestion that one needs a degree to get a decent job in London, so they should be free, seems particularly hard on those that don't get one, but have to contribute to the cost of those that do.
Maybe the student loan thing was neither a bribe nor an incentive in it's intention. It might be a recognition that many of the older, and indeed political class had free University education, and it is shameful that we have withdrawn that opportunity for following generations. It might have been in the manifesto due to a sense of shame.
Seth, I respect your right to have a different opinion to me but I don't believe that for a second.
There may well be some politicians that make all their decisions independent of how popular they are with the electorate but I seriously doubt there are enough for anything this expensive to be floated if it were not going to win votes.
Incidentally, I also doubt that it would be a pledge for any party that thought that they were, actually, going to win. It's easy to promise something that you know you will never have to deliver on.
Well OK I am not in politics, but on a personal level I feel that sense of shame for sure, I am projecting that some others who are in politics share that same sense of shame that my generation had pulled up the ladder. Maybe I am too much of an idealist.
Philip Hammond on Marr this morning is doing a political interview masterclass in avoiding giving a clear and direct answer to questions about the terrible fire. The correct answer should have been that 'the government will do everything and more to ensure a gold standard of fire safety in our public buildings, no if's, no but's, and the money will be found come what may. Everything will be done to help and compensate those affected, and a full inquiry will be used to learn from our manifest terrible mistakes.' Those who have written that he is a credible alternative to Theresa May surely can't be serious. To call him a D-list politician would be praising him too highly (except in political interview skill).
I've been away from this stuff for many years. Did the Govt, actually get round to waiving Crown Immunity for Health & Safety matters? Would that include Fire Regs, I wonder. (I seem to recall, many years ago that Govt. exempted itself from needing to provide access to its buildings for the disabled. This, I believe, was on cost grounds and because so many of its buildings were old and difficult to upgrade.)
For a bit of light relief, where I worked at the height of the IRA bombing campaign they wanted to protect from bomb blast. The correct thing to do at that time was to cover the windows with a clear sheet of plastic film and then have a heavy duty curtain 1.5 times the height of the window, with the spare bit of curtain being weighted at the bottom and living in this sort of window box affair. The idea being that the plastic film would stop the glass shattering, the curtain would billow out and the window box would retain all the glass. My employer thought that the window boxes and curtains were too expensive and would wreck the aesthetics of the place. So we just got the plastic film. This meant that in the event of a bomb going off rather than small shards of glass lacerating your face, the whole pane would smash across the room and decapitate you. Clearly a sensible option. (I believe the modern version has an anchoring system rather than a retention box.)
I am no particular fan of Farron but am I alone in being concerned that the right of a politician to vote with his or her conscience appears to have been removed effectively?
No it hasn't. The "right" to hold views and expect them not to be challenged because he is follower of a particular religion has
Does that apply to all religions or just Christianity?
All religions and none but only Christianity was included in the blasphemy laws or had seats in parliament.
Christians aren't being persecuted no matter how some of them try to pretend they are. They just aren't being given a free ride any more.
I always enjoy listening to Conservative voters decrying Labour for bribing voters. Back in the eighties, the conservative dogma was privatise everything possible, use the money raised plus the left overs from north sea oil to offer lower taxes to the electorate, thus guaranteeing another four years in power. The lower taxes may have stimulated some growth, but there were recessions, and NHS funding plus education and welfare spending have been under seige ever since. But sadly, it's only when people need their hospitals that the waiting lists become personal.
Apologies @kings hill addick for calling you shooters, its the three words with Hill in the middle and being in SE London.
I think your post implied that Labour was bribing the young by offering to buy them houses and giving them money. In this bit from your post:-
Don't get me wrong I fully understand why you voted for Labour when you thought they were going to give you c. £25k and an affordable house to live in next door to one that someone paid £500k to buy
And the job bit was this:-
"If you managed two Ds at 'A' Level and went to a crappy Collage and managed a 2:2 then you might not find that there is a clamor for you to take a job on £50k with six figure bonuses"
Although reading that bit again it is fairly ambiguous so I will withdraw that example.
The crux of what I am saying is that lots of people do work hard, do get an education and do scrape and save but still do not get the benefit of rewarding and stable employment, a decent home or a debt free life. We are meant to live in a meritocracy but the dice are loaded for a lot of people.
Why do you need to apologise for calling someone me !!!!!!! ?
Comments
There are, too, some surprising migration patterns. Take Northern Ireland, (please take Northern Ireland), it too has net migration. Poland, Lithuania and Romania are regular "donors". But there's also a surprisingly high population of East Timorese. (As if NI doesn't have enough problems, these guys who are often connected with gangs are bringing the spectator sport of organised, broad daylight, street fighting to Mid Ulster!) The overriding truth though is that these guys go where the jobs are. The East Timorese are there doing meat processing and packing. My sister has a small house she rents out. She has been told in no uncertain terms that it will not go well for her should she rent her house to anybody from any of these immigrant groups. (Regular readers of mine will know that means the paramilitaries are directly threatening a police officer.)
We can not blame young people for this, as a nation we have moved to being a service industry culture, have become short termist, have ripped out the regulations that require proper training and have promoted the belief that academic attainment is everything. I would also say that we have become more selfish or less communal in how we think we fit into the wider structure so people compete for a limited amount of desirable jobs which will always mean there are losers.
We do absolutely need more trained craftsmen, builders, electricians, mathematicians, scientists, engineers, carers etc. But we still need artists, actors, musicians, designers etc. as they bring vast amounts of wealth, culture and kudos to the country and bring skills that are used in other industries.
So, when I was a yoof, there was no central heating, mobile phones, subscription TV, broadband, home computers, etc, etc. Now there are no 8-track tape players, radiograms, velvet loons with 24" bottoms and not much mild ale. Oh, and no CPI, we had RPI.
So much of what is now considered essential just did not exist.
Unless you are coming from the angle that loads of students are doing it to laze around for three years and get pissed. If that is the case I would say that you are entitled to your opinion.
Crucially if 'something' is put in place, either adequate or inadequate, once that happens the person is then on their own. No ongoing support, let alone the kind of family support structure that would allow a person to stay at home and save for a deposit. Income is gone on rent and survival.
AsIsaid above, not everybody has the same start in life,very often through no fault of their own.
If some poor children are left orphans by the dreadful fire, this is the world they are plunged into.
In other words you could assume that your bin man or your nurse had a home, a family and aspirations for their children (assuming they wanted to have these things - but most people do!).
I don't think this is true in our society anymore.
In this context IPhones, cars, gap years in Thailand etc. have very little value or meaning.
I suspect that what you mean is opportunity to acquire many things that are out of your reach and many more that you take for granted that your grandparents would have loved to have had.
Firstly (and I am twenty years older than you so this might not apply to your grandparents) at 22 my grandfathers were fighting a World War and my grandmothers were bringing up children on their own and hiding under the dining table when the bombers came over. At 22 my parents used to hang their milk out of a window in a plastic bag as they had no fridge. They had no washing machine, no dishwasher, no colour TV, no video, no computer at home, a much lower life expectancy and poorer health conditions due to a much less advance NHS.
Only the very richest families had a car - and I mean one car, not one per adult. As has already been mentioned there were no foreign holidays, there were far fewer restaurants and takeaways. there were no shopping centers like Bluewater, no designer clothes, most people had one pair of shoes. I could go on.
I suspect that at 22 you have a smart phone, nice clothes, maybe a car, certainly would have had a PC, of some kind, while you were studying. Frankly, those in their 20s have never had it so good. No, really - never had it so good! Can you imagine what my grandparents would have said to you if, at 22, you had demanded opportunity while they were losing friends in a war and seeing their neighbors houses raised to the ground.
I agree that the cost of housing is an issue but that is just supply and demand. You want to live in Charlton and, maybe can't afford to. Most people have aspirations that they cannot meet. I don't know many people that would not like to move to a bigger or better located property. You have to work hard and hope to be a bit lucky, and be patient - you can't have it all now! It's just too easy to expect someone to 'give' it to you. You say that you don't want free stuff but if you are not, actually, paying for it what other definition is there? If you are not going to have University fees (irrespective as to what degree you get, or the career it helps you achieve) who is going to pay for the lecturers etc.?
Don't get me wrong I fully understand why you voted for Labour when you thought they were going to give you c. £25k and an affordable house to live in next door to one that someone paid £500k to buy, and I do sympathise with the fact that you want everything, and you want it right now, and can't have it. We are all a bit like that. However, just imagine how much you could afford if you were to save the money that you spend on all the things that those with nice houses didn't have at your age. It doesn't seem terribly fair for the generation above you to pay more tax to provide yours with things that they never had, does it?
However if all you want is opportunity then be grateful because you have it!
You have a degree, you are 22, the world is all there waiting for you to go and make something of yourself.
Clearly you need to have realistic expectations. If you managed two Ds at 'A' Level and went to a crappy Collage and managed a 2:2 then you might not find that there is a clamor for you to take a job on £50k with six figure bonuses, but there are still lots of opportunities out there.
I'll share with you what my Dad says when I joke about the outrageous lifestyle and holidays that he has. He says "I'd rather be 35!" He'd probably give you his house, his full investment portfolio and his pension to be 22 again. Stop worrying about what you don't have and go out and enjoy what you do.
Post war consensus
First generation poorer than their parents
Chance to get on
It happens every generation going back centuries. Every generation is apparently ruder, lazier, less respecting of authority.
It's just human psychology. I'm willing to bet people aren't any lazier or more hard working than they have ever been in the past.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
I didn't say the poster only wanted a £50k job.
My point was that he is 22 with a degree and he is demanding opportunity, from the state providing affordable housing and public services at a time when 22 year olds have more opportunities than at any time since I was born.
On a seperate note I think you might have managed to send a notification to another user in response to my post. I'm not Shooters Hill Guru.
I think your post implied that Labour was bribing the young by offering to buy them houses and giving them money. In this bit from your post:-
Don't get me wrong I fully understand why you voted for Labour when you thought they were going to give you c. £25k and an affordable house to live in next door to one that someone paid £500k to buy
And the job bit was this:-
"If you managed two Ds at 'A' Level and went to a crappy Collage and managed a 2:2 then you might not find that there is a clamor for you to take a job on £50k with six figure bonuses"
Although reading that bit again it is fairly ambiguous so I will withdraw that example.
The crux of what I am saying is that lots of people do work hard, do get an education and do scrape and save but still do not get the benefit of rewarding and stable employment, a decent home or a debt free life. We are meant to live in a meritocracy but the dice are loaded for a lot of people.
I also think that offering to build more affordable housing will win votes from those that cannot afford to buy (or rent) a property where they want to live - even though this has been the case for many for decades.
I don't, really, have a problem with that or those that want it and vote for it.
Having said that I also don't have a problem with those with small limited companies voting Tory as they will benefit from lower Corporation Tax.
It is my belief that many people vote in their own financial interests. I know that not everyone does but many do. I'm ok with that and suspect that elections can be won by ensuring that the outcome will benefit enough of the electorate to secure a win.
If any of the under 25s that voted Labour did so because they thought that they would receive a windfall and/or their prospects would have been better then good for them. I just think it is a little disingenuous for any of them (especially those that have only recently left education or are still in it) to be demanding that their long term prospects are enhanced at great cost to the tax payer yet claim that they don't want free stuff.
The suggestion that one needs a degree to get a decent job in London, so they should be free, seems particularly hard on those that don't get one, but have to contribute to the cost of those that do.
He knows he's about to get shot with his Nerf* gun or get a quick soaking with his Nerf* water blaster. So he does a runner.
Bloody kids, always messing about.......
*Other makes of toy weapons are available. (But I quite fancy a Nerf N-Strike MEGA Mastodon Blaster.)
It might be a recognition that many of the older, and indeed political class had free University education, and it is shameful that we have withdrawn that opportunity for following generations. It might have been in the manifesto due to a sense of shame.
The issue of whether one or both can be afforded is a separate debate but as ideals they are logically consistent.
The correct answer should have been that 'the government will do everything and more to ensure a gold standard of fire safety in our public buildings, no if's, no but's, and the money will be found come what may. Everything will be done to help and compensate those affected, and a full inquiry will be used to learn from our manifest terrible mistakes.'
Those who have written that he is a credible alternative to Theresa May surely can't be serious. To call him a D-list politician would be praising him too highly (except in political interview skill).
There may well be some politicians that make all their decisions independent of how popular they are with the electorate but I seriously doubt there are enough for anything this expensive to be floated if it were not going to win votes.
Incidentally, I also doubt that it would be a pledge for any party that thought that they were, actually, going to win. It's easy to promise something that you know you will never have to deliver on.
Maybe I am too much of an idealist.
For a bit of light relief, where I worked at the height of the IRA bombing campaign they wanted to protect from bomb blast. The correct thing to do at that time was to cover the windows with a clear sheet of plastic film and then have a heavy duty curtain 1.5 times the height of the window, with the spare bit of curtain being weighted at the bottom and living in this sort of window box affair. The idea being that the plastic film would stop the glass shattering, the curtain would billow out and the window box would retain all the glass. My employer thought that the window boxes and curtains were too expensive and would wreck the aesthetics of the place. So we just got the plastic film. This meant that in the event of a bomb going off rather than small shards of glass lacerating your face, the whole pane would smash across the room and decapitate you. Clearly a sensible option. (I believe the modern version has an anchoring system rather than a retention box.)
Christians aren't being persecuted no matter how some of them try to pretend they are. They just aren't being given a free ride any more.