Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[Rico1304]

Indeed, the same could be said that if a child isn't given the opportunity to try at school their options would be limited?

More of the former than the latter?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

What's a "sizeable chunk"? Do you have a source that explains that a bit more thoroughly? No doubt some skilled people have found that their skill set is no longer in so much demand. Those people should be retraining, or ideally should have retrained before it was too late. Constant development is what it's all about. All you've got to do is show a bit of initiative and take advantage of the unprecedented level of opportunities for learning and development that we all now have access to.

Yeah, I'll be back on this thread tomorrow

I'm on the phone at the moment, watching some shit on the TV.

 

I fundamentally disagree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread and your general outlook on the way things work. Sorry to be a flake, though; just doing something else right now.

[VladimirIlyich]

So there are no trainee jobs around? I've got quite a few mates who's kids are starting them, tradesmen (one plumber, 2 plasterers and a couple of sparks) plus another with Network Rail. Network Rail one is decent money to start but the others are bit shit until college courses passed. Once they are qualified though they are in clover.

 

Strange attitude from Melons, seems to imply that low paid workers can't be trusted to,do their jobs?

There are some yes,but very few of them are the type where a real skill is involved and most are simply statistic juggling ways of massaging the numbers of people out of work.

[VladimirIlyich]

No such schemes? Education is available to everyone in this country. It can be funded by loans that you don't pay back until you're earning a decent wage. It's available via a range of methods such as evening classes, distance learning, online learning etc. If you start by showing the minimum initiative required to be proactive about your development, you'll find training schemes on offer in abundance.

I never said there were no such schemes but I am certain there arent very many where a real skill is taught.

 

As for evening classes,they were one of the ways money was saved and subsidies were removed from low paid and unemployed people who wanted to train for skilled jobs that took them out of the poverty trap.

Unfortunately,your beloved bankers and financial service entrepreneurs 'mistakes' were paid for by the unskilled people trying to become skilled people.

But you know this and if your real life persona really believes the shite you have posted here then it goes a long way to explaining why we live in such a selfish and unforgiving society.

[melons]

More of the former than the latter?

 

The kids from the council estate have to work much harder for those academic opportunities than those middle class families. 

 

 

 

 

Boring personal stuff if you're interested...

 

Warning! The following content is NOT WORK SAFE. Click the Show button to reveal.

 

 

I would disagree, more so because I grew up on an underclass estate. I came out of school with no GCSE's and was pregnant at 17. 

 

What i did note as i've looked back on formal education is that i was stereotyped and pigeon holed from the start. I'm sure many teachers would disagree and it would be interesting to hear their explanation. 

 

The children from the horrid side of town were put in two classes, and the more affluent address, in different classes. I was a troublesome kid, teachers hated me as i was that unruly. I came from a house where occasionally me and my sister were on the rob for pop bottles to exchange if we wanted to eat that night. At 13 I went to live with an abusive relative, it would be nothing for me to be treated like a slave (I'm not talking kid tantrum here, i'm talking being woken at 5am to cook breakfast, do the laundry/dishes ect before school, shopping after school ect) not ideal but preferable to being at the maternal home. I lost my strong scally accent, I loved school as it was a safe environment and the teachers were amazing, I thrived. I was beaten until i was unconscious when i was 15 and was informed i had to go back to my mums or go in care. I went back to my mum and back to that first school, only now i had no accent, my forwarded school report was fantastic, i was placed in the form group that the posh kids were all in.

 

Why was it that now I was a viable student who could actually attain something that i was placed in classes where there were less disruptive pupils, why was it that now I was able to formulate a constructive discussion with a teacher without them wanting to just bin me off, and most of all, why wasn't i given this opportunity straight away? Of that first class i was in, i am the only one who even picked up a couple of GCSE's. The lads ended up on the dole or in factories and the girls became pregnant, one or two have since picked up a couple of child care qualifications. I read on facebook the other day of another passing her basic computer literacy test, how sad is that? I mean genuinely sad, these people should have had more. Why is it that those children from the west of town never got much of a chance to escape the cycle of poverty, yet most of the ones from the east side all went to uni? It can't all be down to them posh kids trying harder?

[Ranxerox]

No such schemes? Education is available to everyone in this country. It can be funded by loans that you don't pay back until you're earning a decent wage. It's available via a range of methods such as evening classes, distance learning, online learning etc. If you start by showing the minimum initiative required to be proactive about your development, you'll find training schemes on offer in abundance.

 

Obviously I'm not fully aware of how things work in the UK but since we share a similar system I think broadly speaking experiences here and in the UK have a lot in common. While everything you list above is theoretically true the reality is often very different. Do you really believe a young single mother working in a low wage job has the time or access to resources to take advantage of this "abundance".  The answer is no, its all she can do to stay on the treadmill to put food on the table and look after her kids. My wife and I know such a girl who has been trying for years to claw her way into a skilled occupation, her problem isn't the lack of abundant programs, its the lack of time and money to take advantage of them. 

 She has plenty of initiative but how would you counsel her? Should she quit her day job to go to school full time? How could she do this as she would have no money to pay for daycare, as well student loan programs would not provide enough money to pay the living expenses of 3 people (her+2 kids) in addition to her school costs. 

 

  Well then, work in the day study at night you say? Again who looks after the kids while she is in night school and how does she pay them? Online education anyone? Aside from being largely worthless she again is left with the problem of childcare. Of course both of the previous assumes she has the energy to work all day and study all evening. Oh she has plenty of initiative she's desperate to improve her lot but she is up against fundamental realities of our economic system where she is stuck in a low wage unskilled poverty trap. 

 

 Well why didn't she sort this out before she had kids? A good question she asks herself over and over and obviously it would have made life a lot easier. However your above post says all she needs is initiative to access the abundance. In reality she is stuck, she has a better chance hoping for a slightly higher wage through promotion though eventually she will hit a skills ceiling. In reality she now finds herself looking for a prospective husband with a high skill wage who will accept her and her kids to become his own family. 

 

Our market economy doesn't have a satisfactory answer for this girl, there is likely not a happy ending ahead anytime soon, not at least until her kids have left home (where they will be at the mercy of the banks if they want to fund their education since she has no money to spare). That's reality, lets not pretend politician designed "job retraining"  is anything other than what it really is, a cynical lie that allows very serious people to pat each other on the back and claim they're doing something worthwhile.

[Stu Monty]

A very small number of financial institutions were nationalised, some major institutions did collapse, others were given temporary access to public money. That was a much larger and more complex situation than we're talking about here. Allowing banks to fail would have caused a serious level of social unrest, so they had to be protected. It's backwards, in terms of efficiency, but protecting them was the least worst option available.

 

Sorry, I'm missing the part where you explained how bailing out failed institutions that could have crippled the global economy was part of the process of markets always moving towards efficiency?  You might need to have another go there?

 

The nonsense of markets always "evolving" towards efficiency is what we are talking about. Your claim.

 

The unregulated free-market failed. Spectacularly. So ropey, inefficient old socialism had to step in and deal with it to stop and absolute global clusterfuck, or,  as you called it "civil unrest". It failed as the industry evolved to make regulations and oversight subservient to its wants, and because the market system you seem to be referring to exists only in GCSE textbooks, not in the real world.

[stringvest]

Stu speaking truth. The last paragraph in particular. You'd be amazed at how many serious bankers (!) understand and agree wholeheartedly with this truth.

[Strontium]

Except that there is no such thing as an unregulated free market.

[moosebreath]

Obviously I'm not fully aware of how things work in the UK but since we share a similar system I think broadly speaking experiences here and in the UK have a lot in common. While everything you list above is theoretically true the reality is often very different. Do you really believe a young single mother working in a low wage job has the time or access to resources to take advantage of this "abundance". The answer is no, its all she can do to stay on the treadmill to put food on the table and look after her kids. My wife and I know such a girl who has been trying for years to claw her way into a skilled occupation, her problem isn't the lack of abundant programs, its the lack of time and money to take advantage of them.

She has plenty of initiative but how would you counsel her? Should she quit her day job to go to school full time? How could she do this as she would have no money to pay for daycare, as well student loan programs would not provide enough money to pay the living expenses of 3 people (her+2 kids) in addition to her school costs.

 

Well then, work in the day study at night you say? Again who looks after the kids while she is in night school and how does she pay them? Online education anyone? Aside from being largely worthless she again is left with the problem of childcare. Of course both of the previous assumes she has the energy to work all day and study all evening. Oh she has plenty of initiative she's desperate to improve her lot but she is up against fundamental realities of our economic system where she is stuck in a low wage unskilled poverty trap.

 

Well why didn't she sort this out before she had kids? A good question she asks herself over and over and obviously it would have made life a lot easier. However your above post says all she needs is initiative to access the abundance. In reality she is stuck, she has a better chance hoping for a slightly higher wage through promotion though eventually she will hit a skills ceiling. In reality she now finds herself looking for a prospective husband with a high skill wage who will accept her and her kids to become his own family.

 

Our market economy doesn't have a satisfactory answer for this girl, there is likely not a happy ending ahead anytime soon, not at least until her kids have left home (where they will be at the mercy of the banks if they want to fund their education since she has no money to spare). That's reality, lets not pretend politician designed "job retraining" is anything other than what it really is, a cynical lie that allows very serious people to pat each other on the back and claim they're doing something worthwhile.

Childcare Grants are worth £260 per week if you've got two kids. That on top of an approx £7k maintenence loan would give her an annual tax free income of more than £20k. Plus whatever other benefits she is no doubt already on. Problem solved.

[Gnasher]

Except that there is no such thing as an unregulated free market.

Tell that to the bankers who needed bailing out with our money.

[melons]

Childcare Grants are worth £260 per week if you've got two kids. That on top of an approx £7k maintenence loan would give her an annual tax free income of more than £20k. Plus whatever other benefits she is no doubt already on. Problem solved.

 

Only the £260 goes to the child minder, not her and that she'll be in 70k worth of debt at the age of 40.

 

Its not a problem solved, not in the slightest. 

[Rico1304]

I might have missed the point but if the child minder had been minding the kids then isn't that correct? He/she's earned it.

 

Why £70k?

[moosebreath]

Only the £260 goes to the child minder, not her and that she'll be in 70k worth of debt at the age of 40.

 

Its not a problem solved, not in the slightest.

It would go to her bank account for her to use to pay for childcare. Paying for childcare is what the childcare grant is for.

 

I've no idea where you've got £70k from. She would certainly have some 'debt' but it is repaid effectively as a graduate tax on earnings over £21k which means it can effectively be forgotten about. There are no possible scenarios whereby somebody takes out student loans and has to repay the 'debt' without also enjoying a good salary.

 

Keep the excuses coming, by all means, they'll just keep getting batted away.

[Gnasher]

We seem to be starting from the wrong place here. Do you honestly believe the govt unemployment figures? Do you believe the bullshit of jobs for all those who genuinely want one. Do you believe youngsters who go into training/higher education automatically get a job? Do you believe the govt spin? Do you believe it's that simple?

 

An ever increasing number of "jobs" (if you can call them that) are part time, zero hour, govt funded, dead end bullshit who's purpose is to provide a ready supply of cheap labour and help massage the unemployment figures. The fallacy that you just go on some scheme, or uni course and come away with a worthwhile career is laughable.

 

As the saying goes. Question...Where's the best way to go? Answer... fuck knows, but i wouldn't start from there.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/benefit-reforms-are-hiding-the-true-number-of-unemployed-9132110.html

[Stu Monty]

Except that there is no such thing as an unregulated free market.

Did you really think that was the most valuable comment you could make here?

 

Really?

 

There is regulation. It's pretty much at homeopathic levels though. Hence why the whole system was allowed to get to the point where it totally, cataclysmically failed.

[Stu Monty]

Still waiting for a response from the man "batting away" all comers.

[stringvest]

Except that there is no such thing as an unregulated free market.

 

Why would that be?

[VladimirIlyich]

We have a prize WUM trolling this thread who hasnt got a clue what happens in the real world.

How much are Child Care Grants and are they paid to more than one Child?

My sister only had a Childcare grant through a good job she was in and it only covered one child. She also struggles to put her little fella in one every day even though both she and her husband have decent jobs.

 

[Section_31]

Great to see these Tories defecting to UKIP, the more that vote splits the better. Also, one factor that's not been brought up is the amount of disgruntled Labour voters who turned out for the Lib Dems but who will now surely return. Hopefully Labour may actually do better than the early polls suggest.

[moosebreath]

We have a prize WUM trolling this thread who hasnt got a clue what happens in the real world.

How much are Child Care Grants and are they paid to more than one Child?

My sister only had a Childcare grant through a good job she was in and it only covered one child. She also struggles to put her little fella in one every day even though both she and her husband have decent jobs.

I'm talking about childcare grants provided to students specifically, as we were discussing how to finance education. Yes the amount changes depending on the number of children involved.

[Strontium]

Tell that to the bankers who needed bailing out with our money.

 

I'm not altogether sure how that's a response to my point.

[moosebreath]

We seem to be starting from the wrong place here. Do you honestly believe the govt unemployment figures? Do you believe the bullshit of jobs for all those who genuinely want one. Do you believe youngsters who go into training/higher education automatically get a job? Do you believe the govt spin? Do you believe it's that simple?

 

An ever increasing number of "jobs" (if you can call them that) are part time, zero hour, govt funded, dead end bullshit who's purpose is to provide a ready supply of cheap labour and help massage the unemployment figures. The fallacy that you just go on some scheme, or uni course and come away with a worthwhile career is laughable.

]

Well employment figures are put together by an independent body. If the tories were somehow managing to 'massage' the figures, don't you think Labour would be all over it? So why aren't they?

 

I do believe that if a youngster, or indeed someone of any age, possesses the necessary desire and determination and makes good career decisions which take them into areas with sufficient demand for labour then they will find opportunities in abundance.

[Strontium]

Did you really think that was the most valuable comment you could make here?

 

Really?

 

So long as you keep trying to falsely conflate "free market" and "unregulated market", then I consider it a highly valuable comment, yes.

 

I'm sure you can make a point about predatory capitalism without resorting to cheap shots at free markets and, by implication, freedom itself.

 

Why would that be?

 

Because a market that is unregulated is not free. QED.

 

Tim Farron put it eloquently a few months back in his speech to the Social Liberal Forum. The whole speech is worth reading, but the relevant portion here would be:

 

Liberals of every shade should support the free market – but the Thatcherite consensus that has had its hold to an extent on all of Britain’s parties, is fundamentally anti-free market. Laissez faire and the absence of regulation, the privatisation culture in the broadest sense, is a betrayal of the free market. It is the triumph of the oligarch and the monopoly, it is the defeat of the little guy, it is the roadblock to innovation, it has led to the economic disaster that in government we are trying to fix.

 

So a new consensus will rest in large part on this party being the party of freedom in every sense, including freedom in the market place.

[Stu Monty]

I'm taking cheap shots at freedom?

 

Fuck me.