Margaret Thatcher has died

The government does it's part too here in the states I guess, but you have to pay them back for it (financial aid). Sometimes the financial aid isn't enough either and you have to take out a personal loan. Impossible for an undergrad just out of highschool with no credit, usually requires somebody to co-sign for a loan.
 
My eldest daughter is just starting her 2nd degree next year to become a vet. Her fees where £18000 pr year and some of the money would of been paid for by a government grant but they decided no to pay. Times are hard?
Anyway after gaining admission to a Slovakean university her uni of choice (after Liverpool of course) halved the fee to 9
Mad to think of British people having to go abroad to afford their education
 
Sounds like "higher level education" needs a revamp in the UK same as the US. Charging ludicrous amounts for information . . . . . . . (because really, that's all it is. You don't get experience in college with the majority of degrees)
 
The knock on effect of this is researchers, academics etc leaving the country to study and work else-where; I was with a friend of mine a week ago who said New Zealand is having real trouble holding on to their theory and science guys as they all hike off to another country rather than stick around to pay-off debt.

I myself have just secured my path to a European Masters in Sweden, and I'm rather glad that I have an opportunity to get away from the U.K. and establish myself abroad before returning.
 
Both her mother and I kind of wished she'd gone the European route with everything else she'd of learnt and become by doing that but it's a better qualification here and TBH we're both a little bit relieved
 
Wasn't there a bit with Labour in the middle- didn't they change the course?

Regarding the plumbers, I was referring to several stories about how Lawyers (employed) opted for plumbing as a more rewarding job. Which also paid very well. Like these two chicks http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2112538/Female-solicitors-quit-legal-profession-damned-sexist--PLUMBERS.html
 
I take it back about the house, the best asset you could have is a prenup!
 
The 9000 is also very recent, I think that's for any new courses since 2009 or 10? When I was at UNI it was 3000 a year (graduated 09) but on top of that there are living costs and other things. Loans are actually available for 4 years if you decide to change course, and for some courses and depending on what Uni you go to, for example friend of mine Law Student at Brunel was offered, and given loans from Natwest of 10-20k depending on his situation. Another who was doing IR in Aberstywth because he had a fully paid scholarship banks also offered him huge loans. Interest free until they graduate and they get 6 months on top of that.

The worst thing about the whole Tuition fees thing is the year above me (I started in 06) So the one's who started in 05 paid absolutely nothing. STUPID NICK CLEGG.

Which reminds me, someone mentioned Thatcher and Devolution, wasn't it thanks to Thatcher and Devolution that the Scottish Parliament decided that Scottish students still get free University educations?
 
Ah yes the Daily Mail. Veritable bastion of the truth. Is this story actually representative of lawyers as a whole or even a sizeable minority?

When Tory Blair took the leadership of the Labour Party he adopted pretty much all of Thatcher's policies wholesale. Because by that time there was a consensus amongst politicians, at least amongst those who wielded a little power, that Thatcher had won the ideological debate.

So that being the case it makes sense to adopt her policies and create new policies based on Thatcher's principles. Except those policies are divisive. They focus on the City of London's financial market and associated services and exclude everybody else. This of course leads to embarrassingly high unemployment.

Labour hid this unemployment in the same way that Thatcher and Major governments did. By parking these people on other benefits or pushing them into training courses that still left them unemployable. There's a reason why IT courses ballooned under Labour and yet we are still facing shortages of IT professionals in the areas of expertises where we actually need them. But if you walk into any bar in any major city in the UK you'll find at least 2 or 3 of the bar staff have some sort of IT qualification and had to resort to bar work because they couldn't get a job in IT.

The reality is, Thatcher won the ideological argument because Labour at the time just weren't in the game. There was no effective opposition.

The ConDemed are basically carrying on from where Thatcher left the stage. Their disastrous fiscal stimulus schemes are a prime example. Rather than devise a way to give money directly to businesses. They insist on going through the banks. The banks refuse to lend. So they go through the banks again? And still they are refusing to lend.

Now you might crow that setting up an agency to lend money to businesses would be costly. It wouldn't. The government already owns an agency that lends and collects millions of pounds every year and has millions of customers on it's books.
 
The Daily Mail... you can say what you want about it, but that story is about two lawyers that became plumbers and I included the link to help you understand my perspective. There are other sources.

No, I doubt it is the case that all Lawyers are becoming Plumbers. But I know from personal experience (two people I met in the last 7 days, both Lawyers from Ivy League schools) one quit to work on his offtopic and one is quitting to be a stay at home dad and blogger.

I'm bringing up the actions of people like this as an example of the success criteria you raised earlier. People are less bothered by this notion of success being a 6 figure salary in the city, and are more focused on holistic approaches to dealing with life.

In other words, you have the idea that society expects XYZ to be required for success, but people that I know who have XYZ are happily trading it for manual labour, low skilled or even fighting in order to find the work/life balance that they seek.

Certainly I agree with you that liquidity from the banks is key to encouraging growth. But at the same time there is a bottleneck from the consumer savings side too.

Consumer Savings>Banks - use savings to lend at profit>Borrowers pay banks.

So when the consumer is hesitant to enter savings and the markets the banks are hampered as to their own leverage.

A recession happens when people believe it should, it is created by their actions.
 
Generally people who drop out for the worklife balance are clever enough to off already paid off there own home and will have sizable assets still.
Which is a very different situation to those living on the breadline.
 
Some are no doubt, but in doing so even those forgo massive income potential for the future.

Even when a persons house is paid off and even with sizable assets its hard to live cash flow negative.

Funnily enough, I am in both camps - I think that you don't realize it until you get there, but its the same in many ways. I paid cash for my place, but if I don't earn X this year I will have to start considering credit to maintain lifestyle, which quickly becomes breadline.
 
Given the career changes you've cited I can only assume they are now financially secure enough to back up those decisions. In other words. They've already made enough money to pretty much do as they please in life.



This is the Thatcher approach. A free marker economy where one must earn as much as possible. If this wasn't the message being put out by government then there wouldn't be so much fuss about school league tables, exam results and how many poor deprived little hard workers Cambridge and Oxford admit every year.



A recession happens where there is more debt in the system than the system can comfortably handle. People who watch the markets keep an eye on this. And when they start getting nervous they talk down the economy and people stop spending.

At the moment savers are earning so little on their deposits they're effectively being offered a negative interest rate as their savings are actually losing buying power right now. The interest isn't anywhere near enough to keep up with inflation.

However that is not what is stopping the banks from lending. The banks aren't lending because the government and the bank of England have given them two conflicting directives. On the one had the government wants banks to lend more at lower interest rates. On the other hand both the government and the Bank of England have ordered the banks to bolster their assets. And of course we can't forget quite a few banks got bailout loans from the government. Which they would really rather pay back as soon as possible.

Basically we're in a position at the moment where the banks have to be very selective to whom they lend money. Which unfortunately excludes the majority of small and medium sized businesses.

The government has to abandon the banks for a moment and give them a chance to get their houses in order. The government has a quango of it's own it could use to lend money to businesses that can't get a reasonable loan elsewhere.

But no. Thatcher won the ideological debate. So everything has to be about a free market economy. Even the NHS is being privatised a bit at a time so we or rather the English, won't make a fuss.

Thank you Labour for your half-arsed devolution settlement.
 
So you're unhappy with the Tories and Labour for the past 30 years or perhaps more?

Certainly the lib dems for the first 20 of those couldn't tie their own shoe laces, let alone balance a budget.

What muddles things as I try to understand your perspective is how myself, and I presume yourself have done ok despite this. Why are some successful in a free market model and some not?

I think it can only be that some folk are competitive enough to thrive and some are not. Within the nots are a subsection that do genuinely need support on a human level. Some are intentionally relying on social services and blame the system for not having more opportunities. Some of the haves are coming from enough of a support structure to thrive regardless of the macroeconomic policy and some do not, but have the enthusiasm to better themselves regardless and don't blame the government for their failures or congratulate them for their success.

I've never voted. I'm not a fan of any politician. If my bills need paying I get a job and pay them.
 
Done ok? I live in a council house and work for a public sector quango earning well below the national average. In fact my wages are no where near the national average. Now if the government makes me redundant which is highly likely, I'll be hit with the bedroom tax when I start claiming benefits to see me through until I get a job.

Why do I have a spare room? Because there were no one bedroom homes available.

I've worked hard to make the best of my situation that I can. And now I'm about to be kicked in the teeth again. Which is what you really don't seem to appreciate. It's always the same part of society that takes the hits. It's always the same communities that are hit the hardest. And just as they're starting to recover? Government comes along, kicks them down and tells them they're not trying hard enough.

Now if you've never voted in your life why even comment on a thread like this? Why do you even have an opinion?
 
Picking this bit out because its the most infuriating thing about free market/right wing idealogy. Could of classified that better but meh.

I can't be arsed to write a long post explaining just why its so removed from reality, but I will point out that my local Primark store where I work as a crummy cleaner had an opening for a part time worker at minimum wage. Upwards of 600 people applied for it including quite a few from places like Aldershot, Southampton and one weird guy from Bristol who I'd assume would spend most of his wages on train fares anyway. This whole "struggling? Get a job or suck it up 'cos its your own damn fault" mentality is so stupid it makes my head hurt.
 
Maybe I got it wrong, I clicked your blog link after conversing here with you and saw your efforts with Python and Delphi (sorry for being a stalker). Your abilities are beyond mine so I categorize you as a person who has a toolbox that will see them well in life.

I'd be confident wagering that my childhood was at least equal to or less than yours in terms of financial and emotional support though I wouldn't trade it for any amount of money. So, I reckon it's up to you to take the right angles and position yourself in a manner that protects you from the whims of Government.

As for why I have an opinion?

Well, it's a discussion forum with a thread where folk are rejoicing at the death of a person who left power long ago, before many of the posters were born. I like to take the opportunity to say that they should maybe look at other factors than Maggie for their lot in life.
 
Back
Top