blonde poker forum

The lighting of the flame may just be the best thing ever. At a time when, economically, the youth have been robbed of their futures by the old, it was symbolic to have the old Olympians pass their chance to lit the flame on to the young.

Agreed.

Never backing Beckham in a power boat race though. Took him 2 1/2 hours to go about 2 miles!!!

Sorry to be dim, but I don't understand the bold bit Andrew. Would you mind explaining?

The old bought their houses cheap, pocketed the huge rise in the value of their homes, and yet now the young are having to pay higher taxes to pay for the pensions of the old, when the young themselves will get a pension of zero.

Hmm. I don't see it quite like that. Most of the old people I know worked every hour God sent to provide a better life for the next generation.

If you want to describe working hard and investing your money wisely as robbing that's your choice.

Bollocks, when our parents bought their houses they weren't cheap at all, its all relative. My parents busted a nut to get their house on a mortgage and they weren't skint by any stretch of the imagination. Its mostly down to a bit of luck v when u sell.

Hint, buy now  :D

Look up average house prices as a multiple of average earnings - houses used to be something that people on relatively average wages could afford. Now an entire generation will have to rent for ever because they'll never afford a deposit/mortgage.

And you blame the old for this? You call it robbing?

What would you have had them do instead?

Dont turn into one of the moaners, get a better job, move to a cheaper area blah blah. It's all possible unless stuff needs handing to people on a plate.

AndrewT's conclusion is pretty similar to a lot of economists, but they largely focus on how much of the benefit the babyboomer generation got from the state borrowing so much. That's the borrowing costs which are hampering our economy now and as much as the state is still borrowing, the national debt repayment plus rising costs mean the succeeding generations can never have it so easy in terms of help they're just being given

The thing about houses is true - but obviously it's just down to luck.

Jon puts it better than I did.

Whilst many people did work hard etc etc, there is a lack of realisation at how lucky they were to live at the time they did, and that this enhanced standard of living was more borrowed than earned than people realise.

I have to laugh at myself. This has been playing on my mind all night.

The whole mindset of someone making a comment like this tilts me beyond belief.

"the youth have been robbed of their futures by the old"

With the greatest respect, that has to rank as one of the most profoundly stupid remarks I've ever heard. It epitomises what is wrong with the world today.

What about the old who fought in two world wars? The old who cycled to work every day for 50 years because owning a car was beyond their means? The old who lived without central heating and had a 'proper' wash once a week in a tin bath in front of the fire? The old who took one weeks holiday a year on a coach trip to Skegness?

Are they the same old who die and leave all their possessions, along with a better world and better opportunities, to their children?

Not many of those 'Old' could afford to bet a weeks wages on a hand of cards, or fly to Vegas for a month-long drinking and gambling spree.

Well I hope the young get over the trauma of being robbed, and I hope those who raised (and robbed) them are suitably contrite.

Wake up and smell the roses Andrew. You never had it so good.

Sorry Andrew. Had a rant. feel bad about it already.

It's a good job you weren't on your bike.

v good, I really enjoyed the whole thing but that was the cherry on the cake for me.

That's the thing. I read AndrewT's 'old' as obviously meaning older, ie the current middle-aged or those approaching retirement. Red-Dog and you have converted his "old" to mean the old old. You seem to be in agreement about the middle-aged.

Andrew was referring to the 50-60 year old's now, I think? the post war  "baby boomers" who've leveraged us all up and mortgaged the future etc etc

I had removed my post as I decided it probably didn't belong in the opening ceremony thread, but yeah, I agree

Geo

And I believe it was slightly before that, my mother and fathers generation, is where it began.

Was Danny Boyle clever enough to be saying just this? We built it, we broke it, now lets make sure we give the youngsters of today who have been so badly let down the opportunity and support  to rebuild it again

Geo

Spot on, said way batter than I ever could.

well as one of the 50-60s I disagree.  The vast majority of government debt has built up over the last few years due to the financial crisis/recession.  When I left uni, Thatcher destroyed most of the jobs in Scotland and plenty elsewhere in the UK.  She created two inflationary spikes that did boost house prices but were accompanied by horrendous interest rates. 

There is a dreadful problem with youth unemployment all over Europe and this has been exacerbated by the collapse in private pension values/benefits meaning that less people are retiring (this wouldn't be a problem if the economy was strong. in fact it would be desirable to keep productive workers contributing).

People can't get mortgages because banks have tightened up their criteria, so instead of lying about their income they have to prove it.  Until property prices reduce relative to income, there is always going to be a problem, particularly in the South East. 

Yeah, it was baby boomers, those retiring now, who became adults in the 60s and melted the ice caps.

Still, at least my overly dramatic phrasing got Red-Dog woken up.

I blame the old folk, living way too long now I tell ya.
:)

(http://www.calbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/Sleeping.Dog_.jpg)

Both my parents are 65 this year. My mother in January and my father in October.

They stretched themselves to the absolute limit to buy the most expensive house they could afford. They struggled through 15%+ interest rates to pay their mortgage. They had nothing on credit other than their house and saved hard for everything they ever owned.

They are going to have a comfortable retirement thanks to all this hard work and I have no problem with that. They are also likely to leave a sizable inheritance for myself and my sister at some point.

I believe that my generation (I'm 37) has been incredibly lucky to have parents who have been able through hard work to help their children and provide for future generations.

The young of today are probably just going to blow the inheritances that their parents / grand parents worked hard for and have nothing left to leave to their own children.

What you said Andrew wasn't overly dramatic, it was complete gash.

Ceremony was great.

AndrewT is completely right.

Well that's the problem with using individual examples to make a point. A sample size of 1 is pretty statistically insignificant - I'm sure other blonde-ites can increase that sample size to double figures - but it's still pretty irrelevant.

The whole world has got richer - so in a sense everybody's life is getting easier. But again, just from the economist point of view (i.e. a sample size of 70,000,000 instead of 7) the public money spent in the 50's and 60's (in particular) and partly the 70''s and 80's is what is going to cause the future generations a problem.

Your post exemplifies the view that the older generation got where they are by hard work  and the younger generations are going to blow it all by idleness - but there's much bigger macroeconomic forces at work which decided and decide both of those outcomes.

If you want a specific reason as to what the difference is.

A couple now could stretch to themselves to the absolute limit - and they wouldn't be able to afford any house.

They wouldn't be able to struggle with 15% interest rates because they probably wouldn't be given a mortgage.

agreed..very simialir to my parents..

I might designate Jon MW as my official point makerer as he's better at it than I am.

The baby boomers had decent education, free university tuition, stay at home mums (one breadwinner enough to pay for house/family - not in luxury but enough to get by), greater job security (through stronger unions) and a welfare state that was more than just a safety net (the dole could afford a better standard of living than it does today).

Of course there are plenty of individual cases where people worked very hard, but that work was proportionally rewarded more than it is today. My dad was able to buy a house and raise a family of 4 boys with a wife who didn't work and stayed at home to look after the kids. We weren't rich or anything but we didn't starve, had new clothes, and I was still able to find a bike or a Super Nintendo under the tree on Christmas morning. My dad was an uneducated manual worker - driving a lorry delivering concrete. And yet he was able to provide for all of us. A similar situation is just not going to happen today - that same family would be on the breadline on housing benefit. That's the difference.

I think you can blame the baby boomers for the National Debt/failing to save Nationally when times were good, squandering of national resources, and what we spend and vast pension promises they voted for themselves.  I know they didn't do this themselves, but they sure voted for the status quo.

What you can't really blame them for is the price the current generation is willing to pay for housing.

I speak as somone on the borders of the robbed/robbing generations. 

Jon MW might be better but he is also wrong.  When I went to uni about 2% of the population went, so it didn't cost much.  For some reason various governments thought it was a good idea to put everyone into university - the cost of this has nothing to do with the older generation.

The "dole" was more or less just the same, I know as I was one of Thatcher's unemployed for a while, 3 million plus in the early 80s.

I will reiterate that the UK deficit really wasn't that high until the financial crisis, I have no idea what Jon is on about the 70s and 80s as they saw a reduction in debt despite Thatcher's butchery.  After the war debt was 250% of gdp - the very generation you are slating was burdened by this.

Again people can't get mortgages because they were lying to get them in the property boom and have been stopped doing this.  
  

I'm pretty much just repeating the arguments other economists have made and have been reported on - I'm not actually too fussed about cause and effect and blame and benefit.

This was once a really uplifting thread about pride, Britishness and excellence.

Sigh, Opening ceremony thread turns into pretty much the only thread I've ever been tilted by on Blonde.  Gotta love the individual cases.

Back on track;  Musical performances were all fantastic apart from McCartney.  Arctic Monkeys to sing all Beatles from now on please.

<3 Bond, Bean, Branagh, Boyle, Bedgrave, Beckham, Bradley, Britishness

Got to agree.  Was thinking the same, and then still replied.  I need better self control.  Sorry

Can we move the posts on the economy and robbed generation, including mine. 

Cheers

+1. I didn't want to post but couldn't control myself. I still want to post more after I was told off for commenting about one sample (my parents) when the problem apparently was to do with everybody of a similar age bracket.

I'm sorry but if I'm not allowed to pick out individuals then it can't be fair to generalise either.

More than happy for my posts to be deleted completely as long as AndrewT's original comment is gone as well.

Split this out into its own thread so we can argue here.

Tosser!!

lol, anyway, you are obviously both right so not much to argue about

This pretty much confirms everything i thought about you. You have no respect for the younger generation. Yes we may not dress up in a tie to visit the shops on a saturday anymore, but the majority of us have huge respect for those that fought in tge war; and the younger generation currently risking their lives in the war. Financially we don't have it as good as the older generation. We can't get mortgages because the banks are screwed, very few people under 30 have £30k knocking around in a time when jobs are difficult to come by. There are millions of graduates having to work in supermarkets because of disgraceful final salary civil service pensions that the older generation were given.

Brush the cobwebs off the cupboard you have been living in the last 25 years and show respect for the current young hardworking generation rather than chasing them down on your penny farthing so you can assault them.

I have a lot of time for young people, especially girls in the 18-21 age bracket. However not so sure about the guys. I had two speculative job enquiries today. First young dude walks in wearing skateboard shorts and a vest swigging from a can of red bull and said 'got any jobs going mate?'. Then the next guy walks in behind his mother who asked me if I had any jobs going on behalf of her son who was looking down at the floor and sort of kicking the carpet.

"We do have  job actually."
"Excellent"
"Yes, not five minutes ago, a large investment bank in the City telephoned me, saying that they were looking to expand their mergers and acquisitions department to this area and needed someone with no initiative, low self-confidence and an inability to make eye contact to start on Monday."
"Really?"
"NO! Get out!"

I Lolled

Is it such a bad thing that people might not be able to buy a house/flat and have to rent instead?

Seems to work out ok in other countries.

As long as rents aren't at silly levels and more was put into HA/ social housing I'm not sure what the fuss is?

it's not a disaster but it's just common sense that if you pay a mortgage for 50 years (or less) you're left with a house to pass on,
but if you pay rent for 50 years and retire you're left with - more rent to pay

Or you have to sell to pay nursing home or care fees?

It's still a no-lose bet

You either have to sell it for nursing care and are in the same boat as those who get the care paid for by the State

or you don't need the nursing care and you have the house - you can extend that to be more general but it still comes down to the worst case scenario for ownership is that you're left with the best case scenario of renting.

They should move to a cheaper area like the rest of us would.

I think the 200 mile commute might get in the way of that


EDIT: also it still wouldn't necessarily make a difference for a lot of first time buyers on median wages - the cheapest property in Nottingham, for example, is considerably cheaper than the cheapest in the South East - but it'd still be out of reach unless you can find 10 or more years worth of savings all in one go to put the deposit down.
Two people buying together is considerably more affordable, but not everyone is in that position either :(

Get a job in that area then. All these excuses are BS I'm afraid. For those that can't buy in London or whatever move out of London accept a lower salary and a standard of living that they can actually afford. The problem with some people nowadays is they are spoilt and want everything right now. I bet those same people moaning they can't buy the house they want, also have the latest I-phone, a big fk off tv, no shortage of holidays etc.

No shortage or decent houses here in the midlands for less than 100k, people can do it if they really want to, the problem is they don't really want to struggle, they want it all now on a plate for them.

must be nice to be so good at your job that you can afford to quit, move somewhere else and find new work without having to worry about how you're going to pay for your living costs  in the meantime.  Must be nice in fact to just move somewhere and find any work without any difficulty.

And like I suggested it doesn't necessarily make that much difference. You say less than 100k as if that makes it affordable - you're looking at 15k to 20k deposit, even if people are lucky enough to be able to spend a grand a year on holidays that means 15 to 20 years without a holiday (obv that illustrates how much easier it is if 2 people are buying together) - but primarily it just means that even the 'cheap' property isn't really that cheap (and that's even before you have to persuade the bank to give you a mortgage in the first place)

Don't be daft, no-one in their right mind would snap quit their job and leave themselves high and dry. They would keep in their current job until they found a suitable one elsewhere.

10% deposit is enough, dunno where your getting 15-20% from. Just done a quick search on rightmove for houses below £80k within 3 miles of where I live, there was 76 pages of them, then again I doubt they would be good enough for the 'want it all right now' brigade  ::)

I think the statistics for 10% deposit mortgage requests for first time buyers last year was that they were refused in well over 95% of applications. In theory it exists and for people who are already home owners it'll be accepted but it's almost impossible to go from renting to buying with only a 10% deposit.

All of your arguments are perfectly fine for about 20 years ago - not so much now

Rubbish, they are still perfectly valid now. If they are getting refused mortgages it probably because of the 20k credit card debt they have getting it all now  :D

For the umpteenth time, the reason people are getting refused mortgages is because they can't afford them on their true incomes.  Various dodgy intermediaries assisted by complacent lenders (fraudulently) exaggerated incomes for years. As Woodsey said, if you can't afford a house in London, look elsewhere for a job and a home.

Ur dreaming if you think it's that easy to switch jobs.

Also dreaming with the implied assumption that it's only unaffordable in London

Of course not, its just the obvious example to use

Nobody said its easy but it can be done.

but if the housing is still unaffordable that takes away the point.

It makes perfect sense for the unemployed, and I'd generally see it as an excuse when people can't find any work - but the combination of how hard it is to switch jobs (when a geographical switch is involved in particular) plus the fact that it would most likely just make going from renting to housing only slightly easier - but still out of reach - suggests that this line of argument was just a bit of a red herring.

It can also not be done. I work for the national careers service and we deal with people daily who are qualified, intelligent, hard working people who are looking for any kind of work they can. They just cannot get a job.

Not at all, people can easily do it. They might not be able to do it next month or within 6 months, but within a couple of years it can easily be done. In the whole scheme of life that isn't a massive amount of time to wait. I've moved jobs and areas 3 times, was a piece of piss, some people just don't have the balls to crack on with it and would rather sit around and moan than try and change their life if its not working out where they are.

And I've already said there is tons of affordable housing around the country, if £80k isn't affordable I don't know what is. Have a look on right move if you don't believe me, shit loads here in the east mids and its not an especially cheap area.

Well I know people who are out of work too, getting a job is not a problem for them, their problem is they don't want to take the jobs that are offered, they think they are too good for them. They then moan that immigrants are taking the jobs they don't want to do, they can't have it both ways.

I'm sure you're replying to a specific point, but it's not just the low-skilled end of the market that is finding it hard.

I had a good job, with good progression, an excellent salary and great terms. The company closed and all staff were made redundant. I spent three months signing on (which was little short of humiliating, standing amongst people in inner city Birmingham who had neither desire nor interest in doing a day's work - whether they were the architects of their misfortune or the victims of circumstance is another debate), while doing everything I could to get back into work.

I went on CV writing courses and interview training, put my CV out to agencies, contacted recruitment companies for advice and went every two weeks to be patronised and drilled by a suit in a thankless job at the Job Centre.

I eventually found a job in the same sector, at a lower level, for a lot less money than I was on, longer hours and less favourable terms.

The point I'm making is it is easy for people to say "you could have cleaned toilets for £6 an hour" but that's not going to pay the mortgage for everyone. Times are hard for everyone and it's important to keep that in mind sometimes

^ I know that mate, we are going through a tough period, but the good times will come back eventually. But referring this back to the original topic, I think people are just using the current tough times to blame others.

That's a fair comment, Woodsey

Just had cream tea at Wimbledon, yah.

Just wish you old sods didn't steal our sunshine.

So much fail in this thread.

I hope you're right Woodsey and the economic crisis really is all a mirage.

No mirage, but let's hope it improves sooner rather than later  :)

I'm in the camp of there is a big difference in those who 'want' to work and those who 'NEED' to work.

2008 arrived back in UK with nothing, had a job within 48 hours, 4 years down the line I am still working (3 different jobs in that time) I will never own property in the UK again but then thats not my goal.

Just my experience of the current state of play. I do feel for the younger generation but I also believe that many of them do feel they are 'owed' everything rather than having to go out and get it for themselves.

I think that there is a monumental difference between feeling like you are 'owed' something and feeling that you should be able to start where the previous generation left off, which was true of every other generation before this one.

I must've have written out a dozen replies over the day and have just thought better of it.  Arguments/discussions can get personal real fast and I will take it personally.

Only thing I'll add;
This is a ridiculously tilting thread.  I couldn't find a facepalming pic or gif worthy of the thread.

I'm a big believer in change the things you can change and accept the things you can't.

Just be grateful for what you do have and get on with it instead of than wasting your time blaming someone for 'Stealing your future'

yeah Andrew stop this constant moaning and blaming, then Red Dog wouldn't have to be such a hater at the younger generation

The End, nh.

Really interesting thread.

Not sure of my opinion, but well argued on both sides.

And Jon MW wouldn't have to be such a liar.

I'm not saying that things are or are not tougher for young people these days. (Although the argument seems solely based on finances, no mention of better health care, living / working conditions, education / travel opportunities etc...) 

I'm just saying that 'Woe is me, someone stole my future' is a piss poor attitude.

lol my point was that as mentioned later on in the thread, AndrewT's original comment was nothing to do with attitude or individual opinion - it was a reflection of the macro-economic analysis by world class economists which is widely known and acknowledged.

The naming of the thread in this particular manner was obviously just the fun part of it

I'm quite interested in this statement.

Why is it the "fault" of the people who bought the houses? I'm pretty sure they didn't drive the prices up themselves. It was a subsequent generation (most likely mine and yours Andrew) who were so desperate to get their prime location London houses off them who offered ridic money in order to tempt them to sell.

Is it not more likely the banking/finance sectors who paid huge salaries to their people thus enabling them to make silly offers that drove the prices up? Is it not also the estate agents pushing prices up?

I can't see how you can blame someone for buying a house at market price, only to find 30 - 40 years later that a ridiculous financial system has somehow pushed their property value to such a high that they can sell it, move somewhere that's actually nice and live of the half million+ that's left over.

What an absolute load of bollocks.

That's just a fun way of saying that I don't necessarily agree with the macro-economic analysis by world class economists.

 

Matt, it's not their fault (as everyone tries to do what is best for themselves) but people don't seem to think where all this money seemed to come from, how the young have been negatively impacted by it and exactly how tough future generations are going to find it. House prices have been artificially boosted by being bought with mortgages based on fictitious incomes, a lack of new build social housing, allowing people to buy their council homes (possibly the single most damaging piece of legislation introduced here since the war) and allowing the population to continue to expand despite even a stagnant population meaning there is greater pressure on housing due to more people living alone/ broken families.

Perhaps if I'd said 'unintentionally hoarded' as opposed to 'robbed' in a throwaway post at 2am or whenever then it might have been better.

Some bastard melted my icecap, but you don't hear me complaining.

i would say that the general intelligence level (common sense, understand current affairs) is super low in my generation.

obviously can't compare it, but so many people just bothered about getting drunk/partying and don't really give a fuck. its the "living for the weekend mentality" I understand its been like this in almost all generations, but still think (especially with the internet) its even higher in mine.

All those things are on the turn though, that's the point. By 'young' I'm not referring to people like me in their mid 30s but teenagers - the NHS will become more stretched and less effective, the living/working conditions are going to get worse, education in the state sector is already way worse than it was when I went to school, judging from what teachers tell me.

They'll find it mind-boggling that people on average wages were able to buy houses, or could retire at 65 and get a state pension, or travel off round the world on gap years before going to university and not be up to their eyeballs in debt.

I have to say that on my current wage which is pretty good there's no way I could buy my current house from scratch.

I'd probably need about a £100k+ deposit.

To be fair I've probably paid more than that in mortgage payments over the last 15 years so I can see where it comes from.

If I'd rented though there's no way I'd have enough to get the same house I have now. This is partly because the money I saved on not having a big mortgage would've been pissed up the wall.

I recently read a really great article by Zadie Smith about libraries which, for those interested, can be read here http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/jun/02/north-west-london-blues/

There is a paragraph in it that I thought was fairly relevant to this debate:

"And so I recognize myself to be an intensely naïve person. Most novelists are, despite frequent pretensions to deep socio-political insight. And I retain a particular naivety concerning the British state, which must seem comical to many people, particularly younger people. I can only really account for it by reaching back again, briefly, into the past. It’s a short story about debt—because I owe the state, quite a lot. Some people owe everything they have to the bank accounts of their parents. I owe the state. Put simply, the state educated me, fixed my leg when it was broken, and gave me a grant that enabled me to go to university. It fixed my teeth (a bit) and found housing for my veteran father in his dotage. When my youngest brother was run over by a truck it saved his life and in particular his crushed right hand, a procedure that took half a year, and which would, on the open market—so a doctor told me at the time—have cost a million pounds. Those were the big things, but there were also plenty of little ones: my subsidized sports centre and my doctor’s office, my school music lessons paid for with pennies, my university fees. My NHS glasses aged 9. My NHS baby aged 33. And my local library. To steal another writer’s title: England made me."

That is how I feel about what i got from the state but future generations won't get that.  Partly because so many think they shouldn't contribute and would rather have lower taxes themselves but also because it was probably not sustainable in the long run once the currnet consumerist culture had begun to take over.  Did the older generations work hard.  For sure but they also got a real helping hand in a lot of areas and I, for one, think that was a good thing.

Young people are growing up in an age with a choice of about one thousand tv channels, HD for sharper picture quality, 50" screen, surround sound cinema, even 3D. Great for during the olympics, press the red button for ur choice of events and pause the live action if you wanna get a beer. When I was young I had Blankety Blank on a box of laminate wood and a spectrum in my bedroom.

That's a great quote Stu.

My niece is currently getting ready to attend university in the Autumn.

She will work in the caring profession when she graduates.

She is more intelligent, more motivated and more compassionate than I ever was (or will ever be)

My university education was free. She is going to leave uni with a debt of tens of thousands of pounds.

It's a disgrace.

Why is it a disgrace to have to pay for an education?

Surely it was just very fortunate for the ones who got it for free in the past?

Previously there were far less people wanting to go to university. The numbers have got so large and the fees so high that the tax payers can no longer afford to pay for them all.

It's not a disgrace it's just a necessity. Unless something changes to reduce costs elsewhere then education will continue to have to be funded privately.

This current batch of University goers will have it quite tough I admit because the fee thing is relatively new. We can't say that we didn't know this was coming a few years ago though. A few years down the line though it's going to be the parents fault I'm afraid. They know what's in store so it's time to start saving for it. If you don't save for it then your kids are going to have big debts.

I'm already saving for my children's future and I haven't even got any or any real chance of having any. I have a rough idea though how the world is going to be in 20 years time so it's time to prepare now.

I know that more and more things will have to be funded privately. Even the NHS at some point will disappear to be run privately. None of this can happen soon enough if you ask me. The sooner people have to start paying their way for everything they have the better. Also the sooner everything gets privatised the better.

Privatise everything, reduce taxes accordingly and let people pay for what they need themselves rather than having to pay for everyone else.

Fk that, I hope healthcare remains free at least, pretty sure it will be in our lifetime.

The uni fees was always going to change as there is way more people going to uni nowadays, actually too many if you ask me, I shake my head at some of the fuckwits I see going to uni these days, the entry standards are just too low.

Why it a disgrace?

Because Kathryn (my niece) will be a net contributor to the British economy once she has earned her degree. She will have a degree and she will contribute more than if she didn't.

Maybe entry levels should be tougher to discourage scroungers, like me, who attend further education purely to avoid going to work.

Even though they have to pay their own way, the scroungers still won't pay because they will never earn enough to trigger the repayments.

Basically taxing the motivated and the talented.

It's a disgrace.

^ nah I think it's fair they pay some of their tuition. What they pay is nowhere near the real cost and they will earn a lot more as result of the education so I think it's fair they pay something back.

They will anyway, with the higher level of tax they will be paying, except the scoungers who will never pay it back.

Because it makes education a privilege not a right.  Because it makes education, and by turn, a future something that becomes only accessible to the rich.  Because it forces people who get the education to make the paying off of their debt and getting money to do so their main priority after graduating.  That in turn stops people from becoming nurses, social workers, teachers and other roles that provide a payback to society that can't be measured in pounds and pennies.

What he said.

Well if you can promise to dump the scammers on welfare who don't genuinely need it, and ensure its reserved for those that do to save money elsewhere then I will agree to your policy lol. Until then no hehe.

University graduates also add more to the economy over their lifetime then it costs to educate them.

The current policy is aimed towards trying to put the whole of the cost on to the graduate even though the people who benefit from a degree are the graduate, their employer and the government.

What's wrong is the policy of trying to get everybody to go to uni when it can never be appropriate for everybody to need to - the old days it was just for the elite, these days it's for everybody - it seems to be difficult to reach a sensible middle ground.

The problem with that is that it assumes everybody has any spare money they can put aside for saving.

It assumes that there is always enough to go around and that if people aren't saving then it's just because they're not budgeting properly, when it's often the case that if a lot of people actually budgeted perfectly the most they could save up would be a trivial amount anyway.

And if you haven't got any 'spare' money and hence you can't save anything then if it comes to having to pay for everything, it won't be a case of them paying for themselves - it'll mean going without all together.

Too many good posts to quote itt, agree with most of Jon's and Redarmi's posts and Matt makes a very good point that parents  need to save now if anything is going to change, unfortunately for me personally I won't be receiving any sort of inheritance and nor will my wife so we have worked hard to get a house and actively save to hopefully make it easier for our little one. If she looks like she might blow it then we will just go on a tonne of cruises in our later yrs. The buck has to stop somewhere, If not its just an endless cycle.

The student loan isn't really a debt, it's more of a deferred tax, and it's actually a pretty damn smart way of paying for higher education imo. They sell it pretty poorly tho, by calling it a debt they bring headlines containing the words "saddled with debt" on themselves tbh, although I guess it probably makes a lot of people pay it off early (almost certainly a mistake) which is good for them. I do think in an ideal world though there would be no fees and society would pick up the tab.

@Woodsey and others that think too many people go to university, what's wrong with that? Compulsory education exists because our whole society benefits from young people being educated to a high level, I think it would be pretty strange to draw a line in the sand at 16 and say "OK that's enough, we only need x% people to know more than this". I would think the goal would be to continually improve society's level of education so that our workforce gets more skilled and our productivity, and therefore (not necessarily, but ideally) our quality of life, increases, and one way to achieve that would be increasing the proportion of young people that stay on in higher education.

I just think standards have dropped too far to allow more people to attend university. Don't get me wrong there probably wasn't enough going to uni when I went 20 years ago, but I think its gone too far the other way now, I think the true figure of those that should go should be in the middle somewhere. I was at the bottom end of those who got into university when I went, suspect I would be in the middle of the pack now.

I take your point regarding increasing the education of the population as a whole/productivity etc. But even if there wasn't a recession right now I still doubt there would be enough graduate type jobs to go around, we need more going into manual/non professional type training to fill those jobs

What is happening is those lower end jobs are being filled by immigrants, and we are going to be left with a bunch leaving uni that will be unemployed because there aren't enough of those graduate type jobs going around. Then we get into the usual immigration arguments about foreigners nicking jobs, when all they are doing is filling a void created by too many going to uni.

Even if everything is privatised taxes wont be reduced, they pretty much never are. Then people will just pay even more for a worse service.
The nut worst case fpr healthcare is for it to be privatised. Standards of care are awful in the profit searching private sector compared to 'for like' public sector services.

Healthcare standards have dropped dramatically in the past 3 years alone, which much worse to come.

I agree with many though that you make what you can out of your own situation and your future.  Far too many of the young nowadays want it on a plate, my two younger brothers included.
I bought my house when I was young by not having Holidays, nights out etc and caning the hours at work, usually 80+ a week, every week.

On the uni front my opinion is that some fees probably should be paid, but the Govt are defo trying to restrict intake to those financially able, rather than accessable for all.

What is your evidence for this please?

Obviously we're talking about a generation here, but I'll divulge a little about myself for the sake of providing some argument material.

I'm 24 years old. I spent a year at University incurring the joy of student loan/fees before I decided that the degree wasn't me. I returned home and joined G Casino Luton on a training school for new dealers. I was clearing just over £1000 per month.

Now, I am clearing a varying figure - somewhere between £1600-£1800 per month. My rent and bills comes to £350 ( I share ). Ultimately, that leaves plenty of money I could save if I lived sensibly. The fact that I don't do that is besides the point.

I think the issue with my generation is how sensible we are with the money we have, as opposed to not having access to it. In theory, there's no reason why I couldn't have saved £300 a month. That'd have given me £18,000 in savings by now. I could have saved more.

My current savings are probably that figure in minus.

I work in the industry.
Lay people haven't a clue how much worse it has got, will get much worse over the next couple of years too.
Don't get ill basically

Pls post moar.  Every hospital and doctors surgery currently piled up with bodies says man who works in the industry. .  Stop the press... Meanwhile elsewhere NHS budgets still rising

Your fkn deluded if you think NHS budgets have risen. The cons pr shite obviously works on you.

What's your role in the industry?

I always thought it was a waste of time arguing over hard facts. 

http://www.nhshistory.net/parlymoney.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8645845.stm etc

Budgets have been rising steadily since the NHS started, both in cash terms and as a percentage of GDP.

and they have carried on increasing

http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/blog/what-happening-health-spending-england?gclid=CKCgs4D1ybECFctjfAod1XUAXA

There are obviously some difficult decisons ahead, but it is pretty clear that healthcare standards haven't dropped dramatically in the past 3 years. 

There is some evidence that standards have dropped in at least one small part of the industry.

Regards

You're probably wasting your time Doobs.

70% of the population think there are "savage cuts", yet the last time I looked government debt rises every single year.  The fact that successive governments are unable to live within their means is a fact and indisputable.

Whether they spend their excessive amounts in the right areas is another debate of course.

And before anyone blames everything on the banking crisis, the government failed to balance the budget during a massive boom 2002 to 2007.

My opinion is that governments of all colours are useless at managing their spending.