MercoPress, en Español
Get our news on your inbox! Suscribe x
Montevideo, January 17th 2022 - 20:04 UTC
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon Tuesday admitted she needed to “reset” her referendum strategy and that she had abandoned her demands for a new independence referendum before the signing of the Brexit deal. Read full article
Those who do not deserve to be free today... simply aren't
- Jose de San Martin
I find it so typical Anglo what May said: that the clear message from the election was that Scotland drop Indyref 2? Alluding to the seats lost by those who support a full independence.
How about the clear message you got PM May? That the UK, even England, seemingly do not want to be part of your radical ideologically bent leave the EU at any cost nonsense? Seems you want everyone else to listen to the election message, since that is convenient to you, as in the Scottish Nationalists getting pounded must mean referendum appetite must be off... So how about your Tories getting drubbed all over the place? Is that a glowing seal of approval of the last 12 months of pathetic jingoism and myopic whipping up of hatred? No, that should also mean a clear message that what you have done in the last year, i.e., Hard Brexit and pick puerile fights with Europe, has also been utterly rejected as an abject failure. But I doubt she MAY see the hypocrisy though. MAY she be always Anglo.
Sorry Nostrils Mays drubbing had nothing to do with Brexit. When she decided to put forward a policy to steal dementia patients homes this alienated the aged AND the young who were looking forward to inheriting them - double whammy!
Nicky has been kicked into the long grass by Ruth the Voice of reason! She is finished and she knows it.
You're wrong. Old people like you still voted for May, she lost seats in areas with lots of young and educated people; the main demographic for Remain voters. Trollboy is right; there was a perfectly clear message for May in this election and she will be a fool if she ignores it. If she hadn't picked up those seats in Scotland due to Sturgeon's aggressively pushing for another referendum, May would not be Prime Minister today.
Wow Mercopress, - Which UK MSM rag did you copy & Paste his from?
Nothing has changed, even the Unionist Scottish LibDem leader agrees.
The secret is in the name Scottish Nationalist Party. Yes, she will back off....for now....but drag it out when she feels she has a chance. Any politician would act like this...look at T.May !
Take your pick...
Cutting through all the insults and ”I am right and you are wrong'. The Scottish people had no appetite for another 'once in a lifetime' referendum on independence and they knew a vote on the EU membership was on the cards when they voted - though not the date or outcome. Sturgeon was banging one drum and it was an unpopular one. She was pursuing her own agenda and not listening to the people.
As for TM, remember she was a Remain supporter throughout the Brexit campaign. If Cameron had not been so foolish to have called the referendum (he could have found reasons to delay it) when he did we would not be in the mess we are now. And TM should have learned the lesson of foolish dependence on polls and not called an election this year.
Furthermore, far from being a hypocrite, as TTT suggests, she is doing exactly what she should be doing and that is acting in the interest of the majority. The majority - albeit very a very small one - voted for Brexit and her job is to get the best deal. It is not hypocrisy for politicians to put the will of the majority above their own personal opinions. (Something Sturgeon should have heeded). I have no doubt all the talk of a hard Brexit was for the benefit of the newspapers intent of criticising her every move given her personal views on Brexit. But again the people have spoken and clearly want a softer relationship with the EU.
As for the idea of May 'being drubbed all over the place', if that is true then Corbyn was 'knocked out with one punch'. To lose the majority vote and by 56 seats against one of the worst political campaigns ever and then pretend victory is simply laughable. He is a celebrity cult, not a politician. Did anyone see him at Glastonbury preaching to the crowd like they were the oppressed proletariat when the average spend for each festival-goer is close to £600? I heard the food concession holders were complaining that he fed the crowd with five loaves and two fishes. That's the Corbyn Cult for you.
Corbyn cult is correct, the foetuses have now lost interest and gone back to staring at Facebook and Snapchat on their phones. MacDonnell's million man march on Parliament was a damp squib, the foetuses were too busy watching box sets and planning the next Airbnb getaway to turn up. They must be the most apathetic generation ever. If Trump does come I will be there with my placard like I was for Bush.
My Scotch pals are all sniggering after wee Jimmy's setback.
May certainly is a hypocrite if she says the election was a clear message for Sturgeon while ignoring the very same message to herself. Remember, the SNP still holds the majority of seats in Scotland, but like May they lost a lot of seats.
You say the talk on hard Brexit was for the benefit of newspapers, but who reads newspapers? What else do people have to go on? Now, just like Sturgeon, she can see what people's opinion of it really is, and she got the same answer. But it seems they both want to continue with their plans regardless; Sturgeon has merely delayed her legislation for another referendum, and May doesn't seem to have changed her Brexit plans at all.
By the way, I think you are right that May's hardline stance is due to her previously being a remainer. With hindsight it would have been better to chose a leave campaigner to do the job; they would have had a freer hand without all the suspicion and paranoia of the Brexiters to assuage.
@ The Voice
I wouldn't put it that harshly and I know older people - generally not well off - who like what Corbyn says. Even some of the champagne socialists fein approval whilst secretly hoping he will never get in power. There is a worryingly strange fanaticism about the Corbyn Cultists in that they don't seem to mind that he cannot produce detailed plans for government but just populist soundbites. We could all do that. However, I think there is room for someone who throws stones at the government in power and that is exactly what he is good at. What he couldn't do is run a country successfully.
When listening to these tired Marxists I am always keen to remind them that communism doesn't work. It has been tried and has never been successful. Far from making an equal and fair society it simply pushes the masses into poverty. Look at the old Soviet block. Look at the difference between North and South Korea or the old West and East Germany and tell me which you would prefer to live in.
Elaine, I too know older people who support Corbyn. It's not him who worries me, it's people like McDonnell and McLusky. Having lived through the champagne Socialist era in the not too distant past, many young people have no idea of what 1970s socialism was and how it does long lasting damage.
May does worry me - bring back grammars, a good idea but political non starter, fox hunting vote - no! Out of touch, unrealistic, she will go and then it's spreadsheet Phil or some non enity? The Tories are in a leaderless wasteland that is the worry. With Corbyn and McDonnell leading Labour there is no prospect whatsoever of Labour getting elected but the Tories are struggling right now.
That's you old people's fault you know, getting nostalgic for the good old days and telling us how great things were back when university was free, housing was cheap, and there were jobs for all. ;)
Who are you addressing?
I thought you were above throwing out insults rather than considered comment. You used to berate everyone on here for doing it.
Oops, looks like I accidentally deleted part of my comment. I was replying to this:
many young people have no idea of what 1970s socialism was and how it does long lasting damage.
And I wasn't being entirely serious, but perhaps you are right. This place is a bad influence.
What is old people's fault? Who is being nostalgic? As far as income and opportunity is concerned young people today have it all? But, like generation after generation many fail to appreciate it.
Yes, things were great when Uni was free and you got grants, housing was affordable but not cheap and there was only 1/2 million unemployed and plenty of opportunities, but, you had to be good enough.. And, you had to be really bright to get to Uni, not like now, very few of todays 'hairdressing type degrees. You had a second hand rental TV, no foreign hols, 2 weeks animal holiday, no car, no central heating, no personal loans or credit cards, you walked, took the bus or train or cycled everywhere. The 'good old days' were yours if you were bright, saved hard, worked hard, otherwise it was a daily grind in a factory or on a farm for the vast majority.
Anyway, what's that got to do with the Scots decision to put independence in the bin?
As far as income and opportunity is concerned young people today have it all?
I don't know about people who are really young now, but for many the Great Recession delayed them finding a decent job by several years, effectively putting their life on hold. Even when you eventually get on your feet, you don't get those years back. That's savings you haven't got, pension payments you haven't made, work experience you don't have.
And this is how good people my age have it today:
Wealth of people in their 30s has 'halved in a decade'
And Pensioner incomes 'outstrip those of working families'
It's hard to believe that once upon a time, people already had their own homes and could afford to have children in their early twenties.
And letting anyone go to Uni just means your degree is not worth as much. It used to be possible to get a job at the bottom in a company and work your way up, now you need to take out tens of thousands of pounds in loans, and lose three year's worth of income, in order to train yourself.
Plus, not everyone is capable of doing the kind of jobs that pay well. What are they supposed to do now the factories have closed?
I don't think today's young people are unique. In the early 80s it was very tough, no jobs, no apprenticeships, zilch. I agree about Uni degrees have been heavily dumbed down and are almost two a penny. The wealth of pensioners is due to saving and prudence, the old age pension alone is appalling, you can't blame anything on us because just looked after ourselves as would anybody. House prices are a big problem it's all due to very low interest rates with folk seeking a decent return on savings buying up rental properties, and population growth including immigration. I agree it's a rotten thing for youngsters and something members of everybody's families ( including mine) have and will face. Many of us now have to help our kids and grandkids with house deposits which were saved to provide holidays and comforts in retirement and care costs.
That is a rambling post not going anywhere near a solution.
Every generation has had different problems to deal with. The idea that degrees have been an ticket to a great paying job is nonsense. Take a look through history and you will see that no generation has had it all or easy.
Your comment about being able to have children early is not the whole picture. Women were expected to marry younger as career opportunities were just not available to them. They were expected to take a lowly job until they snagged a bloke. The reason people delay children now is because women can actually have a career.
Your complaining that 'not everyone is capable of doing the kind of jobs that pay well' is very revealing about your attitude to work. It is in part true but imagine a few decades ago when you might well be capable of a job that pays well but they were not available to women or if you had the wrong skin colour. Never has the work place been more equal and open to anyone with the capabilities and work ethic.
You are right that many factories and mines have closed but the call centres are the modern day factories and who would want their children to work in a dangerous mine? You seem articulate enough so what is stopping you being anything you want to be? Instead of hanging around a message board mainly devoted to a country you have never been to, probably never will visit and with no more understanding of it than you did 18 months ago seems like time wasted. You can't expect success to rock up at your door, you have to put the hard work in to earn it. It is so much easier to sit back and complain that life isn't fair, right?
What would your solution be? That everyone, no matter their ability, gets paid the same? You would soon see anyone with any ambition leave to work in other countries - why do you think people used to try to escape from communist countries? Why did they need to have walls with armed guards to keep the people in if it was so wonderful?
@DT you seem like an intelligent chap. My advice, get off your backside, stop wallowing in angst about the fate of your generation and find yourself a opportunity. Since retiring I have been tempted many times to have a go at something new. Plenty of gaps in the market. In my experience when you are doing your own thing opportunities come up all the time and you will probably end up doing something different to what you started in. It's an adventure.
Far from being the 'good old days', in the past owning was never a possibility for the majority of people and renters far outweighed property owners. It was not until the 70's that the market was 50/50 and MT opened up the possibility of homeownership to people who would never have moved into the housing market with her Right to Buy. (The reasons were manifold and not all good).
Home ownership peaked at 69%, so that is still 31% of households renting. That has dropped to around 64% owning and 36% renting which is not a vast difference. I think there is a fixation on buying in this country when people in other European countries rent until well into their 30's before buying (if at all) and often only own when they inherit.
I think there is too much 'poor me' amongst us rather than truly appreciating how many opportunities are available to the Millennials that simply were not there for the last generation. Unemployment rates are low at around 4/5% whereas the last generation had to deal with 12%. Things are different with each generation and the solution is to grasp the opportunities available now rather than sitting back and expecting to be given everything on a plate.
I'm sure you are right that other generations have had it tough, and I daresay older people then said the same things to them as well.
I don't blame anything on individual people, but a government that relies on older voters naturally panders to them. Pensioners get handouts like free bus passes and winter fuel allowance, but people act like it's horribly greedy if students want free tuition. I don't see any of the older people who got their degrees for free - courtesy of the tax payer - volunteering to pay us back.
Less obviously, we get laws that favour those who already have wealth over those just starting out. The government has not implemented any policy that risks lowering house prices because it would make their voters unhappy, but the sky-high property prices just act to transfer wealth from the young to the older and already well-off. This also lowers social mobility as people need help from their parents in order to even consider buying a house. Not everyone has parents to help them.
I'm not talking about myself, do you vote based only on what is best for you?
What I want is more opportunities for everyone, I want a society where people can make their own way and not depend on their parents once they are adults.
I'm not sure what my comment about jobs is supposed to reveal. Naturally I don't want discrimination based on irrelevancies, but do you think all people are equally intelligent and equally talented at everything? Not everyone can be a brain surgeon or even a banker. Therefore we need jobs that use the abilities that people do have, and still allow them to live a decent life.
What would your solution be? That everyone, no matter their ability, gets paid the same?
I don't understand why you even ask me this; you must know perfectly well it wouldn't be. Furthermore it doesn't even address the problem I am talking about. I have suggested in the past some changes that might help, but I don't pretend to have all the answers.
I vote based on what is best for the country and based on a wider world view. I am fortunate to acquire a lot of information through my work and that gives me a broader perspective.
Opportunities for everyone. We have free education for everyone until the age of 18. Do you appreciate how precious that is? Spend a bit of time in developing countries and you will understand how valuable that is. We have a country where anyone can be successful given the drive and ambition. Spend a bit of time in a country where there is no social mobility and you will appreciate how fortunate you are.
You are right, not everyone can be or even wants to hold a specialist, highly demanding job as you describe but I don't accept that taking a different route means you cannot have a good standard of living. There are plenty of well-paid manual jobs and I think they are not promoted enough in schools. However the standard of living you talk about is much higher than the last generation it has just become the norm to have all the gadgets with bells and whistles. The cost of household items has actually fallen compared to the last generation.
There is absolutely no reason to be dependant of your parents once you reach adulthood. That is a typical complaint if this generation. I can't buy a house so I have to live rent free with my parents. Leave home; grow up; rent a room in a house with other people; do what generations before you did. You seems to think everyone should be given a decent life but the truth is you have to work for a decent life. It shouldn't be easy because an easy life makes people lazy and unappreciative.
No, you don't offer any solutions because that would take effort and thought. It is much easier to sit back and listen to Corbyn telling you how hard done by you are and how he is going to take from people who have made the effort and give it to you for nothing. It is not fair. No, life is not fair.
If you lower house prices somehow that means negative equity for some and it will break the bank's who lent 90%. It ain't gonna happen.
Personally I would rather go back to how things were. At my grammar School only the top 10% did A Levels and only some of them went to University. Then we could afford tuition and grants to be paid for out of public funds. Tuition fees are as a result of too many having so called University Degrees delivered from promoted technical and further education colleges.
Student Apprenticeships and trainee schemes delivered the skilled people the country needed, these days we have to import them.
I am not directing my comments at you personally but at the comments you are making.
@ The Voice
Many university degree courses could be condensed into one or two years of hard work. (Obviously not medical degrees etc) But the whole system is designed to keep students in education because it is an industry that makes more money the longer they stay. I am in favour of individual industries and areas of employment sponsoring courses in return for a number of years work when qualified.
The idea that everyone should be able to spend three years at university and then walk into a job that affords them a high standard of living including buying a house is just a false scenario. The idea that anyone can leave education at 18 and have everything they want and a fat salary is a false scenario. These are things we have to strive for over years.
I vote based on what is best for the country and based on a wider world view.
Exactly, so it is pointless you both bringing up personal stuff. I vote based on what is best for everyone.
I suppose we don't always appreciate the things we do have, but the UK is not a developing country and our policies should reflect that.
I think the big problem with manual jobs in this country is that they are seen as low status and thus a second choice. Plus the way schools are ranked encourages them to send as many kids as possible to university.
There is absolutely no reason to be dependant of your parents once you reach adulthood.
There shouldn't be, but as TV said: Many of us now have to help our kids and grandkids with house deposits.
It's true home ownership used to be lower in the past, but it's hardly a good sign for society that it has now gone into reverse. And in the past there was more social housing available which in turn meant less demand for private rental and thus lower rents. I have never heard that young professionals from previous generations were forced to spend over half their monthly income renting a room in a shared flat.
I don't think everyone should be given a decent life, I think we should all have the chance to make one, and that the government can make this easier or more difficult with their policies. Do you agree?
And do please tell me what Corbyn is planning to give to me. Because I wasn't aware of anything.
Solutions in another post...
I know house prices have fallen in the past, and both the banks and people in negative equity survived. What is different now?
I went to a comprehensive. It wasn't too bad but the teaching had to be dumbed down so everyone could follow, and there were quite a few disruptive pupils. Still, over half went on to do A-levels, and all of those were encouraged to apply to university. I knew people who got into universities with D's and E's, but I'm not sure their degrees were very useful.
DT I think everyone wishes for what you want, the question is how do we achieve it? And should people who put in no effort be treated the same as others who graft?
The difficulties of sinking house prices shouldn't be underestimated. It put people's lives in limbo for years last time and bust some banks.
I can remember when I left school in 1960 after our Higher exams that our teacher said that we were among the top 20% brightest in the country. That scared the hell out of me ....if I was in the top 20% and didn't feel particularly bright, how thick were the rest of the population.
Getting into University was difficult and the drop out rate was low. Probably the country could afford to subsidise a relatively small group into further education. Nearly all the courses were science, engineering, medicine OR recognised quality courses with prospects of employment for the graduates.
With the expansion of universities proferring rather less stringent subjects which appear to be of no real value in the outside world..eg media studies, the student population has burgeoned to a level where the tax payer cannot afford to subsidise it.
The idea that everyone should go to university is nonsense. Tech.colleges would suit a good proportion much better
Clyde, you must be even older than me! Next thing you will have Voice patronising you too
No. People who put in no effort should not be allowed to starve, but they shouldn't get the same things as those who work hard.
This is hard to explain, but it seems to me that jobs in mining or factories had a sort of respect that jobs in call centres and the like do not. People were happy to do them all their lives and live on the wages they earned, even if they were not very high, and they took pride in doing their job well. But now a lot of the low skilled jobs are also part time, or insecure,
and this makes it difficult or impossible to build a life on them or raise a family. They are only suitable for students or others who want a temporary job.
Falling house prices can be very bad for home owners. But lower house prices would be very good for those who want to buy a house but can't afford one, and an increased housing stock would also lead to lower rents. Government policy can encourage one or the other outcome, so who should suffer and who should gain?
Some things I have suggested in the past to deal with the housing shortage:
The government could build more council houses.
They could simplify the planning rules and encourage self-build schemes, this would have the additional benefit of more interesting architecture rather than maze like estates full of boring identikit houses.
They could create some 'new villages' in areas with high demand.
A tax on second houses and empty homes - there would need to be some exceptions but it should be doable.
To pay for university they could create an extra tax on graduates. I also think there should be more emphasis on training people in the trades instead of pushing everyone to follow an academic route.
Also I'm pretty sure I could NOT have done my degree in two years, though I don't know about other subjects. However, there was a hell of a lot of time wasted at school; if you compressed that down you could move some of the A-level stuff to GCSE and some of the degree level stuff to A-level.
The question is why is this piece appearing in Mercopenguin, a propaganda organ supposedly devoted to America, South America and the South Atlantic?
Voice and Think are both MIA.
Is he back in St Petersburg for more training and policy upgrades, do you think?
Or simply 'sharing' a cell on a domestic violence charge?
I'd better check the 'new carrier' thread for voice's gyrations about all things leaving the Clyde...
DT you exhibit the crass ignorance of so many of your generation writing off the skill set of folk who work in factories and mines. Many jobs in these places require an enormous amount of technical knowledge, academic achievement, skill and judgement far in excess of that required by any call centre worker. It's all part of the reaction against the industrial revolution that occurred in the early 19th century, personified by times like Dickens Hard Times and perpetuated by modern teechers. Preach it to someone in Germany or the US and you will see what I mean. Meanwhile ignorance persists...
The government has no money. It's our money.
Haven't you been reading my comments where I said there should be less emphasis on academics and that other types of jobs do not get enough respect?
If I'm ignorant about mining and factory jobs it's because there are very few of them around any more, that's the world we've inherited. I take it you do not agree with Elaine then, that you would prefer your children to work in a call centre instead of a mine?
The government does things other than spend money. They also make laws which affect what I can do with MY money. Did you have some kind of point?
Voice posted yesterday, but Think has been gone for a while. I hope he's okay.
Stupid Kanuck showing how little he knows about the UK...
It was built on the Forth...
You seem to have a very skewed idea of 'the good old days' when men were wen and had status working in a mine. It is a filthy, dangerous job and one bound to cause emphysema in later life. Still, they had pride, right?
There are no 'good old days'. Every generation has advantages and disadvantages but the Millennials have never had it so good. There is every opportunity, low unemployment and less barriers than ever before. The problem is the towering entitlement of a generation that demands it all. Owning a home is not a right it is something to aspire to. There is absolutely no need to depend on parents when you are an adult. Go out into the world an suffer a bit before achieving a lifestyle your parents worked all their lives for. And if parents choose to pass on money - well isn't this generation lucky to have that because the last generation didn't.
Ah DemonTree, you consider yourself educated do you? You pontificate a lot but you do not seem to be very knowledgeable on anything. I wonder why?
It is a filthy, dangerous job and one bound to cause emphysema in later life.
It seems TV disagrees with you. I think you underestimate the importance of taking pride in your work. It doesn't have to be dirty and dangerous but people like to feel they are doing something useful and contributing, and they like to have responsibility for doing their job well, rather than just following a script.
There are no 'good old days'. Every generation has advantages and disadvantages but the Millennials have never had it so good.
I agree with your first two points, but not the last. Remember, this is the first generation to be poorer than the previous. There are still opportunities BUT we can clearly see that people just a little older did have an easier time.
No one wants to depend on their parents, no one wants to move back in with them in order to save for a deposit. However, sometimes we have to make sacrifices now for a later benefit. You can cut out luxuries to save money, but having somewhere to live is a necessity and there are limited options.
And if parents choose to pass on money - well isn't this generation lucky to have that because the last generation didn't.
Now you are being absurd, people have always passed on money to their children when they were able to, this generation will be no different.
people have always passed on money to their children when they were able to
The qualifying remark is when they were able to
Very few of my generation were passed on anything by their parents because they did not have anything to pass on. By and large they lived in rented accommodation. They had come through the depression,then into WW2, bringing up a family in REAL austerity.
It was only when we got to the 1960's that things were much better. They had no way of saving any great amount. They did not pass on money as they had very little but sacrificed to ensure that their family had a better chance in life than they had.
I was the first one to buy a house. Something that was an impossible dream for them.
Most of my school mates had the same experience
It seems TV disagrees with you Seriously? You are basing your opinions on something you saw on T.V? What has working in a dangerous and dirty mine got to do with 'underestimating taking pride in your work'? You don't have to have to put your life in danger to feel pride. I am not sure which T.V. drama you have been watching but I don't underestimate the value of having purpose in life. It is part of the triangle of happiness, I just think you are glamourising the past.
There are still opportunities BUT we can clearly see that people just a little older did have an easier time.
There are far more opportunities and less barriers now. No, the last generation did not have it easier for all the reasons I explained to you before. Though I do understand you have to have everything explained to you 15 different ways.
Now you are being absurd, people have always passed on money to their children when they were able to, this generation will be no different.
No, actually, I am not being absurd. As I explained to you, past generations have not been capital rich and generally have not had such large amounts to pass on.
This generation really need to move out of the whining, victim mentality held by a proportion of people. The others are out there making a fantastic life for themselves through hard work and taking advantage of what is available. Nothing is 'easy' for any generation. There are people who make thing happen and there are those who sit and complain that nothing good is dropped in their laps.
@ Clyde 15
That is exactly how the past generations describe it to me and statistics bear our your comments. Unfortunately we have a very entitled generation who have been given expectations far above reasonable. If they don't have the fulfilling job, the fat wage, a house of their own, foreign holidays and a new car, they actually think they are deprived.
Think about it again...EB...
Elaine - doh! ;-) I have been down all sorts of mines, in power stations of all sorts, open cast sites etc A lifetime of that I wouldn't wish on anybody but lots of it is demanding and very technical and difficult. That said I would still prefer it to driving a desk in a boring repetitive job even with the health risks. The cameradie and humour is fantastic. While there is some truth in your statements about millennials I don't think they know any better. And DT is correct in that this is the first generation to have it worse than their parents, but...having it better than your parents isn't a rule of nature, it's just fate.
As for DT hoping Think is OK, I sincerely hope that Think is presently suffering the same fate as he has continuously wished on the Falkland Islanders and that someone has ejected him onto the street and stolen his home and possessions. The little shit deserves it in spades.
Voice got it. TV = The Voice.
I guess I also have to explain this 15 different ways, so let me try another. We are all playing a game, and the government makes the rules. A person who tries harder and is more skilled will always do better than someone who is merely average, but if we want to improve things for everyone then we must vote to change the rules.
And before you jump to conclusions, I don't mean by giving handouts. I made some suggestions above but you didn't comment on them.
I don't want to go back to the past, but although people were much poorer in the 60s, things were generally improving then. In many areas this is no longer the case. Home ownership is falling. People have less wealth at the same age compared to previous generations. More non-graduates are doing insecure and unstable jobs that don't let them plan for the future. Do you want to live in a country that is improving or one that is going backwards?
Finally I don't see inheriting money as a positive thing. People should make their own way in life, not sit around waiting for an inheritance. I want my generation to be able to earn our own money and create our own wealth, not rely on our parents for financial security. People should save for their own retirement and if they can afford to leave anything to their children it will just be a bonus.
I haven't done either job, but I would try working in a mine before a call centre; those places are soul-destroying.
having it better than your parents isn't a rule of nature, it's just fate.
No, it's not a rule of nature, but it's not fate either. It's something we can bring back if we try, but it means changing things in this country.
Ricky's The Office and Life on the Road portrayed the mundaneness of modern Britain. Lord save as from Lavichem...the fate of so many!
If you want to change things get into politics at grass roots, work your way into a place where you can effect change.
I think you are very mistaken in your opinion that it was easier for the last generation. You are forgetting they had to work hard to pay those mortgages. And you don't even touch on the fact that at times interest rates were 15% or when the property crash left tens of thousands of homes in default and repossession. More were in negative equity. The idea that it was easy is lazy thinking.
If you think people were poor in the 60's then look at the 70's when socialist politics brought the country to its knees. Mass unemployment, three day working weeks, rolling blackouts, shortages of essential items and we were borrowing from the IMF. Look at the eighties with high interest rates and the property crash. That people navigated and worked through that struggle to hold onto some equity was hardly easy.
As I said before, a large section of this generation has a problem with towering entitlement and no very little work ethic.
You have a brain and a degree, so every advantage. It is down to you to use it if you want all the trappings of what you see as a successful life. Work two or three jobs for a few years because many people of the last generation did that.
If you want to change things get into politics at grass roots, work your way into a place where you can effect change.
You are right, I have been thinking about doing so, although I'm not sure how useful I would be.
I think you are very mistaken in your opinion that it was easier for the last generation.
Then how do you explain the fact that the wealth of people in their 30's has halved in only 10 years?
Also, you never did tell me what Corbyn was going to give me for nothing. The truth is that the policies I am advocating would not benefit me, but I believe they would be good for society as a whole.
With all due respect I think you need to gain more knowledge before making such a sweeping statement implying the last generation had it easy. They didn't. This generation has incredible opportunities denied to past generations but the unfortunate side effect is that people have unrealistic expectations that everyone will reach their potential.
You should get into politics. Why wouldn't you be useful? You are talking yourself down before you have even tried. You are obviously passionate about the subject and making a difference and that is qualification enough.
I don't think the last generation had it easy, I don't think any generation had it easy. Every generation had its own problems to face, but since the war the general trend has been for things to improve. Do you think Clyde15 was the first in his family to buy a house because his parents just didn't work hard enough? Of course not; there were more opportunities for his generation. The same thing can happen in reverse.
It is the BBC article that says wealth has halved, not me, but it agrees with what I have observed, and, apparently, what The Voice has seen with his grandchildren.
Is it so unrealistic to expect the country you live in not to go backwards, to return to a time when almost no one could afford to buy a house or retire so you must work till you drop? Is it unreasonable to expect the same pay and benefits that someone 10 years' older is getting for doing the exact same job? It's not even unreasonable to think that if Scotland can afford free university education, then England could too.
I don't think any of those things are unreasonable. It may be necessary to change specific things for the worse, but the trend we are seeing of children being poorer than their parents at the same age should worry us all.
I never took much interest in politics until recently, but I imagine it requires people skills, which aren't exactly my strong point. I'm better at technical stuff.
What do you think of my suggestions of how to address the housing crisis?
I can't understand why anyone should believe things will always get better. The rise of Asia and the migration of skilled jobs there has made Britain poorer. There are 7 million people here who were born abroad with the vast majority arriving with practically nothing and many of them occupying public housing and receiving benefits which our taxes provide. If you preside over the emasculation of our industries like Maggie and her successors have done aided by recalcitrant union's, well paid technical jobs in industry disappear. The Germans retained more of that wealth producing infrastructure than we did, about twice as much. Today's yoof seem to think that prattling around with computers is technical, it isn't, it's second hand engineering, nothing like designing and making machine tools, automation, robotics, special purpose machines, reliable cars, trucks and tractors. We are even using foreign companies to design and make trains, rolling stock, power generating equipment, ships aeroplanes and all the things we used to be very good at. That's the jobs that we did and have now disappeared and that's where the wealth went too. We are left shuffling money around and exporting cakes and biscuits now classed as manufacturing.
It's mostly the fault of politicians and union militants.
But, there are still opportunities for those with enterprise and good ideas. The much derided Dyson has the right idea, design and marketing here retaining the bulk of the added value, and produce it over there at minimum cost. We need more Dysons and the high quality jobs it generates. Then we can all have nice public housing from the taxes generated from high added value.
I don't know that anyone here believes things will always get better. I think things have got worse in some ways, but that we can fix most of it. Britain has not actually got poorer, but wages are lower on average so ordinary people are worse off.
A lot of the people from Eastern Europe have come to fill skills shortages, caused by too much focus on academic paths at school. We've already discussed it and that is fixable.
Much of the issue with young people remaining poorer is caused by the housing market, and I already suggested some ways to improve that.
Pensions are a bigger difficulty because our troubles are caused by demographics. I think the government should be encouraging people to have more children so we can get back up to replacement fertility. In the mean time, immigration has to fill the gap, unfortunately.
The lack of industry and over-reliance on financial services is a bigger problem. Brexit will solve the latter by decimating them, but we will all suffer greatly from the disappearance of a large part of the economy.
As for young people working with computers, those are the jobs available, so we must make the best of it. Besides, all those things you mentioned are designed and modelled on computers nowadays.
About the much lauded Dyson, yes we need more of them. High quality jobs are valuable for their own sake, the taxes they raise are a secondary benefit.
It took the Micks some 753 long years to get rid of them Poms...
Guess them Jocks will have to wait a couple of more years2 (...721 and counting:-(
Have they got rid of them? Doesn't seem so. DUP seem to be in the driving seat.
King Billy forever. No Pope here ! The Union forever! to paraphrase their political ideals.
Now the Irish government are scared shitless as to what will happen to the Irish economy when the UK leaves and they will possibly no longer be able to sell their agricultural goods without hefty tariffs
I see you are a believer in the Hepatia mode of fortune telling. Make it vague with movable deadlines.
You will have to cast your vote if the referendum surfaces again...I presume you have one as you seem totally engrossed with Scottish affairs and also being a resident here..
DT asks, why can Scotland 'afford' free uninversity and England can't?
What do YOU think?
England and the U.K. subsidize Scotland with funding, and Stugeon's government spends according to their own priorities and whims.
There is no economic miracle or secret to account for the seeming disparity.
Ah, back to your usual trick of claiming I said something I didn't.
I didn't ask that question because I already know the answer, better than you do.
But I think we have derailed this thread long enough, there's not much more to say.
....................................................................... there's not much more to say..., besides Alba gu bràth.
It's not even unreasonable to think that if Scotland can afford free university education, then England could too.
It's a choice the Scottish government has made. There was NO extra money to do this so other projects have been denied finance because of this decision.
If the UK (English) parliament wanted to give free university education, they could have done it. Instead, they prefer spending on high speed rail links and over priced nuclear power stations.
.......................... and over priced nuclear submarines...
Yes, exactly, it's a decision our respective governments made, and neither is inherently unreasonable.
People may be against the government funding higher education for whatever reason, but it is certainly not true to say that it is impossible to do in England, as some people like to make out. It's just a question of priorities.
The problem for students and anyone in favour of it in England was that both main parties had the same policy for many years so they didn't have any choice.
Ah, back to your usual trick of claiming I said something I didn't.
Did you 'forget' about this statement of yours, already...
It's not even unreasonable to think that if Scotland can afford free university education, then England could too.
Another shot at England ? Let's shoot for more division of the UK, more of your ageism and pitting one generation against another. Right?
What DT said was perfectly true. In England you keep hearing that the Scots have free university tuition which is not available in England. The press (English) falsely state that Scotland gets an extra bung which is not available to the English to accommodate this.
Scotland's finances are determined by the Barnett formula. The devolved assembly can allocate funds within this allocation to whatever they choose under their remit.
No extra funding is available to cover the costs of free university places.
England could give free university education if they wished, but they choose not to do so.
The result is that theEnglish are made to feel that the Scots are being given better treatment than they are....with the help of the press stirring it up.
I take your point about the country being fragmented mainly due to Brexit.
However, this government will do anything to cling on to power. Despite what they say, the £1bn to N.Ireland is a bung to buy the DUP's votes. The money could just as easily been given ages ago in the budget but to say that they have only now discovered the need for the money in the province is baloney.
What we need now is some form of government made up from all parties......as we had in WW2. Our position needs some form of national unity rather than old fashioned party politics.
Lots more universities in England than Scotland and the best make plenty of money from tuition fees...
Thank you for clarifying that about the funding.
Perhaps I did not state it clearly. My understanding is that Scotland does not support it itself entirely upon its own 'earnings', but is topped up by the rest of the UK.
Is that correct?
They can then freely prioritise their spending as they see fit?
If that is the case, money spent on free university education, means less money for elsewhere. It is a choice the government makes.
While I think that ideally, it can be a laudable benefit to individuals and society as a whole, it probably does not work as well in practice as in theory.
Attaching no value, by that I mean, no user pay fees, many less committed seeing no barrier to extending their education, and 'nothing to lose' by having a go at public expense, will be driving up the costs. The post secondary education system increases its costs to accommodate them, while many do not complete their studies or graduate with lower marks.
Using Argentina as an example, when the government provided free university, the number of 'casual' and never-completing students jumped significantly, costs soared, and the calibre of schools dropped.
That is not to say the same disasterous results will happen in Scotland, just that it is not everything that it is painted to be.
I think University should be heavily subsidised, but not completely. I see this as having some value as a political goody from the SNP, that is paid for by not funding other things.
Thank you Clyde15, I don't know why Kanye has got such a bee in his bonnet about me.
NI doesn't exactly have a stellar economy after all those years of the Troubles so they probably can use the money, but everyone knows it is a bribe for the DUP's support.
Naturally I did not forget about my statement. You however seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between a statement and a question.
It's also pretty odd that you accuse me of ageism, but said nothing to The Voice when he wrote:
the foetuses have now lost interest and gone back to staring at Facebook and Snapchat on their phones... They must be the most apathetic generation ever.
Or to Gordo1, who has accused students of illegally voting twice based on no evidence at all, just because he doesn't like the way they voted.
Back on topic, Scotland doesn't gather it's own taxes and spend them, rather the central government allocates money to the devolved ones according to the Barnett formula, which they indeed then spend as they see fit.
It's somewhat hard to work out a GPD figure for Scotland as the economy is intertwined with the rest of the UK, but the best stats show that London and the South East subsidise everywhere else, being the richest parts of the country. AFAIR Scotland is close to being revenue neutral though.
Also, you may have a point that students don't value education as much if it is free. I just looked up the stats and Scotland has the highest drop out rate in the UK. I don't necessarily want free university in England, but I would like it to be subsidised more than it is. We definitely don't want to go down the same road as the US on this.
In the 1950's until student fees were introduced...I can't remember when...Universities were free and a grant was given to students to cover some of the cost of living.
It came as a surprise to me that my daughter got a full cost of living grant as my salary as a civil servant was low enough for her to qualify.
The drop out rate in Scotland could be explained by
1) Many school leavers go to university because there are no jobs available.
2) Many leave during their course because of debt worries and that they cannot afford to
As you may not have noticed Scotland has a higher rate of income tax for middle earners than that applied in England, so we are paying more in tax than down south
I'm sure in England you can still get a means tested bursary...
Maybe that was the real problem, they were too generous with handing out grants. When I went to Uni, you had to pay fees if your parents earned over a certain amount, but the rules didn't make much sense, they allowed many people not to pay who could have afforded to.
Apparently the drop out rate is worst at universities with more students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and who are the first in their family to go to university. It's possible there are just more of those in Scotland.
I didn't know Scotland had higher income tax. So presumably they do raise that money and spend it directly themselves?
There was a means tested grant for low income students but they got rid of that last year. I believe you can still get bursaries for certain degrees or if you are disabled or a single parent or something.
Commenting for this story is now closed.If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
Get our news on your inbox!