We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
UK spending power 'in heavy fall'
Comments
-
neverdespairgirl wrote: »Using average earnings, in 2006 your gross pay was approx. £134.40, and your £1.10 for personal spending was £50.40.
Not a huge sum, but not that bad aged 15?
It didn't seem to go very far. Did you take the tax etc. or was it the gross you took, this would reduce it to £40.
To buy a new jumper from the market was about £1.10. A dress was from £2.10. I made most of my clothes, jumpers were knitted at home. Money did not go as far. Everything was more expensive. l had fares and stuff to pay. I never had any help from mum, in fact she often 'borrowed'. She was lousy with money, maybe I was just as bad! Glad I've changed......:p
NDG, are you having a bored afternoon?0 -
RecoveringAlcoholic wrote: »:hello: .........................
Back on the booze?0 -
and the political right has never been guilty of the same thing have they ?
What does that have to do with anything? If you have to 'answer' with a comeback like that it proves you can't actually make a valid point about the subject.
The comprehensive school system is a disastrously bad way of handling education. Forcing all kids into a single secondary level just because of some misguided notion of 'fairness' is self defeating. Parents with the means to do so will cheat it anyway with private education. Far better to have a state system that encourages the development of students across the differing range of abilities to the best of their ability (ie. grammar for the more academically capable) and makes the possibility available to all based upon a fair system of academic selection.--
Every pound less borrowed (to buy a house) is more than two pounds less to repay and more than three pounds less to earn, over the course of a typical mortgage.0 -
concomitant with the reforms in grammar schools was also the widening up of the university system and the creation of the polytechnics.
the grammar schools and the elitist university system were creating a divisive society, what we simply do not know is what kind of society we would have had if the reforms had not happened.
I've personally done VERY well out of education, reaching the highest level possible without the slightest whiff of going near a fee paying school.It's a health benefit ...0 -
concomitant with the reforms in grammar schools was also the widening up of the university system and the creation of the polytechnics.
the grammar schools and the elitist university system were creating a divisive society, what we simply do not know is what kind of society we would have had if the reforms had not happened.
I've personally done VERY well out of education, reaching the highest level possible without the slightest whiff of going near a fee paying school.
Grammars aren't about money.
In case you haven't noticed, it's still possible to 'buy a better education' by going private, even with our glorious comprehensive system. And don't even get into the stupidity of the postcode lottery and parents buying houses in the catchment areas of the 'good' schools. There will always be a multi-tiered system of sorts since no matter how hard you try, you can't make all schools equally mediocre.
All comprehensives do is hold back the more able kids in the name of some dogmatic and misplaced idea about 'fairness'. It was much fairer when any kid could have access to the 'better' schools by demonstrating academic ability rather than a set of parents with the money to buy a house in a certain area or to pay for a private school.--
Every pound less borrowed (to buy a house) is more than two pounds less to repay and more than three pounds less to earn, over the course of a typical mortgage.0 -
as for the ideology involved
which education minister closed the most grammar schools ?
the simple fact is the education system was flawed. Was the cure worse than the disease ? probably. We simply do not know what the cost of doing nothing would have been. We have a society of the dispossessed and hopeless now in many parts of the country, despite a comprehensive education system. The inculcation of an avarice driven selfish society has done more to damage this country than virtually anything else.
do we go back to a system of effectively writing off children as worker drones at age 11, as that's what was happening.It's a health benefit ...0 -
as for the ideology involved
which education minister closed the most grammar schools ?
the simple fact is the education system was flawed. Was the cure worse than the disease ? probably. We simply do not know what the cost of doing nothing would have been. We have a society of the dispossessed and hopeless now in many parts of the country, despite a comprehensive education system. The inculcation of an avarice driven selfish society has done more to damage this country than virtually anything else.
do we go back to a system of effectively writing off children as worker drones at age 11, as that's what was happening.
I don't really care which minister did what - my point isn't about supporting one political party over another, it's against the stupidity of allowing political dogma to determine the education system.
Good parents want the best for their kids - those that can afford to do so pay for private education or buy an expensive house in the catchment area of a 'good school'.
Far better to allow access to 'good' schools to be on the basis of the individual kid's academic merit rather than the parents' ability to pay.
Sadly, the dogmatic decision to 'open up' the universities is having a similar effect. More and more it's the kids with wealthy parents who can afford to go there. For able kids without the money behind them, actually going to university is getting tougher (fees and no grants) and the potential payoff is lower (more and more mickey mouse degrees being issued mean it's harder to get a good job with a degree as they've been devalued).
As for turning out worker drones, based on what I see in society today the current education system isn't even capable of doing that. The level of general ignorance is simply astonishing, the system is clearly letting the children down.
I was lucky enough to have a first class state education system without my parents having to pay a penny. Children these days do not have the same choice unless they have well off parents.--
Every pound less borrowed (to buy a house) is more than two pounds less to repay and more than three pounds less to earn, over the course of a typical mortgage.0 -
the grammar schools and the elitist university system were creating a divisive society, what we simply do not know is what kind of society we would have had if the reforms had not happened.
I think grammars actually could help contribute to social mobility, though. There are a lot of people like my Dad, who were all born late 40s / early 50s. Dad's family had never done post-compulsary education, but he went to a Grammar in Wallesey, Cheshire, and then university, and then Bar School. He got grants / support, although he also did have to work in the holidays. He started his career as a barrister broke, but not in debt.
Social mobility is now harder than it was. I mentioned, earlier in this thread, my flatmate for 5 years, now a doctor. She was going to drop out after he 2nd year, because she simply couldn't afford it. My Dad was horrified - and shelled out £50 a week during term-time to keep her going until she was qualified.I've personally done VERY well out of education, reaching the highest level possible without the slightest whiff of going near a fee paying school.
You didn't grow up in south London, I'm very sure of that....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
as for the ideology involved
which education minister closed the most grammar schools ?
I have a feeling it was Thatcher, but so what? I don't care who did it, and I don't care about the party political issues involved....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
!!!!!! crossland (lab) initiated the g.school closure prog and thatcher accelerated it, so it could be argued that the idelogy thing cuts both ways.as for the ideology involved
which education minister closed the most grammar schools ?
the simple fact is the education system was flawed. Was the cure worse than the disease ? probably. We simply do not know what the cost of doing nothing would have been. We have a society of the dispossessed and hopeless now in many parts of the country, despite a comprehensive education system. The inculcation of an avarice driven selfish society has done more to damage this country than virtually anything else.
do we go back to a system of effectively writing off children as worker drones at age 11, as that's what was happening.
only 10% of kids went to grammar.
the rest were indeed written off, having failed an exam that has since been proved worthless (gross deception by falsification of figures, etc).
shoved into secondary moderns, these 'failures' were simply prepared for the shop floor, and nothing else. the real investment was in grammar schooling.
I get a little depressed when people talk glowingly of the grammar school days as a 'golden age' of education.
how would you feel if your academically able child was denied a gs place because the wealthier parents of another kid ensured he/she was hot housed and given private tutoring on a Sat morning?
this is what happened yrs ago in my town, and saved the moneyed classes a wedge in private school fees.
the fact that grammar offered a w/class kid a chance to climb out of his/her condition can be demonstrated, but there can be no doubt that this system of schooling helped perpetuate socio - economic divisions that many now would simply not recognise.
let's not get too dewy-eyed about the past.
after 11yrs of 'education x 3', it's still a mess.
re-introducing grammar isn't going to help the 90%.miladdo0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards