An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

Rinoa

Latest Mori poll of Labour voters



....which give Theresa May a higher satisfaction rating among Labour voters than Corbyn. Which is apparently unprecedented - though hardly surprising.

Herzlos

cells wrote: »

£10,000 savings isnt too bad or hard a target especially for a person on £29,900 and especially if they are a working couple

That's about £1500/month after tax, so assuming £650*/month in rent, another £300 in bills (council tax, insurance, electric, phone) £100/month in working (train fares, sandwiches) and another £200 in food, that leaves them with about £250 left over.

Putting all of that £250/month into savings means it'd take you 40 months to save up the £10k required to buy with 95% mortgage. In those 3.5 years, how much is the house price likely to rise and therefor how much will the deposit be? How much is their rent going to go up?

Obviously, living at home or with a partner will knock a lot of those expenses down and allow you to save up something like £725 (half rent & bills saving you £475. That'd allow you to get to your buying target in only 13 months.

Sounds like a fairly hard target to me.


*Google "Average rent in Manchester", 1 bedroom.

Moby

setmefree2 wrote: »

As Bill Gates said "Life's not fair. Get used to it." Best thing you can ever say to a working class kid (I was one). Socialism turns the working classes into victims - working class kids needed to be empowered not be given a great big chip on their shoulder (like the one Toast has).

Seems to me you are the one the with the chip....you are always spinning the same old working class boy made good and if i can make good everyone should......nonsense;) Socialism is about empowering the disadvantaged
Despite what posters say from their own 'experience' or skewed observations of the world.....there is no equality of opportunity in this country at this time....that is patently obvious! Young back males are far more likely to go to prison than any other ethnicity, young black men are subject to all sorts of discrimination that other groups are not subjected to,,(e.g stop and search), young white working class males are currently doing extremely poorly in education compared to other social/ethnic groups. Class affects health, educational opportunity etc. Opportunities for children generally are defined by your class/gender more than any other factor Socialism is about addressing these issues. A child brought up by middle class parents in leafy Surrey is far more likely to do well in life than one raised by a single parent in North Peckham.....not always......... but generally! A failure to recognise this is denial.

westernpromise

A child brought up by middle class parents in leafy Surrey is far more likely to do well in life than one raised by a single parent in North Peckham.

Despite which, Labour persistently demonises middle class parents in leafy Surrey and heaps them with so many taxes to fund benefits for idlers in North Peckham that they have to limit the size of their own families.

To a middle class family an extra child is a cost; to a single parent in Peckham an extra child is a pay rise.

If you can't afford children don't have them. Nobody is entitled to do so.

ruggedtoast

Herzlos wrote: »

That's about £1500/month after tax, so assuming £650*/month in rent, another £300 in bills (council tax, insurance, electric, phone) £100/month in working (train fares, sandwiches) and another £200 in food, that leaves them with about £250 left over.

Putting all of that £250/month into savings means it'd take you 40 months to save up the £10k required to buy with 95% mortgage. In those 3.5 years, how much is the house price likely to rise and therefor how much will the deposit be? How much is their rent going to go up?

Obviously, living at home or with a partner will knock a lot of those expenses down and allow you to save up something like £725 (half rent & bills saving you £475. That'd allow you to get to your buying target in only 13 months.

Sounds like a fairly hard target to me.


*Google "Average rent in Manchester", 1 bedroom.

That leaves them nothing left over if they have to pay for childcare, run a car, meet an unexpected expense, or pay for the funeral of a relative who inconveniently hasn't left them £3 million.

His assumptions about salaries are incorrect anyway. Half the workforce earns less than the median salary he cites, which isn't especially high anyway.

ukcarper

westernpromise wrote: »

A child brought up by middle class parents in leafy Surrey is far more likely to do well in life than one raised by a single parent in North Peckham.

Despite which, Labour persistently demonises middle class parents in leafy Surrey and heaps them with so many taxes to fund benefits for idlers in North Peckham that they have to limit the size of their own families.

To a middle class family an extra child is a cost; to a single parent in Peckham an extra child is a pay rise.

If you can't afford children don't have them. Nobody is entitled to do so.

That might well be true but it doesn't alter the fact the child in Surrey has a better chance than the one in Peckham.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

That leaves them nothing left over if they have to pay for childcare, run a car, meet an unexpected expense, or pay for the funeral of a relative who inconveniently hasn't left them £3 million.

His assumptions about salaries are incorrect anyway. Half the workforce earns less than the median salary he cites, which isn't especially high anyway.

If I had rented a flat when I was young I would not have been able to save. I know someone who is under 45 who rented a room in a shared house so that he could save he now has a very nice house. People in their early 40s have no excuse, my children and their friends are in that age group and the vast majority of them own thier own homes. I agree it's a different story for people in thier 20s but if you earn enough and want to save you can if you are prepared to make some sacrifices.

ruggedtoast

westernpromise wrote: »

A child brought up by middle class parents in leafy Surrey is far more likely to do well in life than one raised by a single parent in North Peckham.

Despite which, Labour persistently demonises middle class parents in leafy Surrey and heaps them with so many taxes to fund benefits for idlers in North Peckham that they have to limit the size of their own families.

To a middle class family an extra child is a cost; to a single parent in Peckham an extra child is a pay rise.

If you can't afford children don't have them. Nobody is entitled to do so.

Actually as a result of Sure Start and investment in schooling kids in London state schools often do very well.

All Labour policies being reversed by Tory cuts. Its the Tory party that wants the poor to stay poor, and they are ensuring it happens.

But that isn't really the issue anyway is it? There is a poisonous strand of "poor hating" vitriol that runs like a seam through your demographic.

It wouldn't matter if the country was awash with cash and Daily Mail readers, one unemployed inner city single mother asking for help finding a flat would move you to fury.

It drips out of your permanently indignant newspapers, its echoed pompously by your sanctimonious right wing politicians, and its espoused by you all online as you lecture people in one breath and pull the ladder up with the next.

And then when the disadvantaged, whom you hate, dare to organise themselves en masse to demand change, you hate them en masse, deride their expectations and tell them to be more like you.

But the sad fact is, your system just doesn't work. If it did there wouldn't be any poor people for you to detest.

westernpromise

ukcarper wrote: »

That might well be true but it doesn't alter the fact the child in Surrey has a better chance than the one in Peckham.

Which is not the fault of the child in Surrey, or its parents.

ruggedtoast

ukcarper wrote: »

If I had rented a flat when I was young I would not have been able to save. I know someone who is under 45 who rented a room in a shared house so that he could save he now has a very nice house. People in their early 40s have no excuse, my children and their friends are in that age group and the vast majority of them own thier own homes. I agree it's a different story for people in thier 20s but if you earn enough and want to save you can if you are prepared to make some sacrifices.

If you had rented a flat when you were young you would have been able to save very nicely because rents were about half what they are now. Or, you could have gone on the council list and then got a house that was given to you for free by Margaret Thatcher. Which is probably exactly what you did.