Wanted clean er sofa for nice uni boys ..

[hop]

I'll still never understand why I went to uni for free and got a grant under a Tory government yet under Labour it got very expensive.

Because Labour created an unsutainable situation as a way of falsifying unemployment figures.

They advocated that 50% of youths would be degree educated. How is this affordable ? How if it even practical when 50% of the job market is not graduate level.
Courses such as nursing were made degrees with no benefit to anyone.

Labour grew the public sector and created 1 million jobs in this area, which were never required. They did this by bringing in pointless laws and red tape. I mean to you really need to go on a Health and Safety course to use a ladder ?

They inherited a very strong economy in 1997 and yet managed to make a total mess of everything. The strength of China and growing global econonmy which was keeping everything in balance without them having to do a do great deal.
Yet they failed to set asside any money, they lived on debt they wasted and squandered trillions on off balance sheet debt like PPI.
In all this time more sensible economies such as Australia realised how good they had it and took the opportunity to pay off their national debt.

 

[My Name is URL]

you seem to forget this the 2012 cohort are paying upto £9k a year in fees.

Wow, all students paying £9k a year out of their own pocket.... that must have taken a lot of saving up

When I was at Uni I worked part time in a Supermarket about 8 or 10 hours a week and the wage from that combined with my loan, I lived like a king. New technology every month, expensive mobile phone contracts, out drinking, eating out...

CRL is right, students aren't as poor as they make out.

 

[tek-monkey]

Because Labour created an unsutainable situation as a way of falsifying unemployment figures.

They advocated that 50% of youths would be degree educated. How is this affordable ? How if it even practical when 50% of the job market is not graduate level.
Courses such as nursing were made degrees with no benefit to anyone.

I seem to remember grants being abolished pretty much the day Labour got in? Fees followed later (and were massively increased by the tories more recently).

Labour grew the public sector and created 1 million jobs in this area, which were never required. They did this by bringing in pointless laws and red tape. I mean to you really need to go on a Health and Safety course to use a ladder ?

I blame no win no fee lawyers and the Americanisation of our legal system for that. Have you had an accident at work because you were given the wrong ladder? Then get the right ladder you feckin retard! Oh, but how do we know what is the right ladder to use unless we are trained? The training gets rid of the lawsuits, I place the blame wholly on peoples stupidity and lawyers greed.

They inherited a very strong economy in 1997 and yet managed to make a total mess of everything. The strength of China and growing global econonmy which was keeping everything in balance without them having to do a do great deal.
Yet they failed to set asside any money, they lived on debt they wasted and squandered trillions on off balance sheet debt like PPI.
In all this time more sensible economies such as Australia realised how good they had it and took the opportunity to pay off their national debt.

They would have been in a much stronger position had the tories not sold off the water, gas, electric, telecoms etc. not to mention the council houses. The values of these are massive now, the energy companies make billions every year as do the telecoms and now we pay billions each year to keep tenants on benefits in private accommodation. The smart move would have been to keep them, and reap the benefits.

Of course Labour then went on to do the same with schools (academies), hospitals are coming soon and isn't the royal mail up for sale (although that is not doing well thanks to the stupid rates forced on it for doorstep deliveries for competitors)? Not that I really call the shower of bastards we had in last the Labour Party, they were just diet tories really.

Now we have an even newer group of pillocks who can't quite work out what to do, the coalition will start to fall apart soon and if it happens sooner rather than later then Labour are going to get back in, and we'll have a wallace and gromit puppet as our prime minister.

None of which is really relevant to university fees, but you can bet your arse they will continue to rise. Can you claim back fees paid when teachers strike/don't show up?

 

[Hothouse Flower]

So does anyone actually have a sofa for the nice uni boys?

I did until 2 weeks ago but gave half a lorry load of furniture to KH.

 

[tek-monkey]

I will have one, but its a bit knackered! I believe it to be around 30 years old, its solid wood and looks like it came out of an old peoples home. IIRC it first entered our family via my step dads mum, I've certainly had it about 10 years. Its old, its seen much better days, but I am taking it to the tip on Saturday or Sunday as I have just inherited one to replace it.

Its there if you want it, but I'll understand if you don't!

 

[hop]

I blame no win no fee lawyers and the Americanisation of our legal system for that. Have you had an accident at work because you were given the wrong ladder? Then get the right ladder you feckin retard! Oh, but how do we know what is the right ladder to use unless we are trained? The training gets rid of the lawsuits, I place the blame wholly on peoples stupidity and lawyers greed.

No that simply was not the case and this is nothing to do with Americanisation or the no win no see legal culture which is invading modern society.
Many pointless jobs were created in the public sector. What the politicians failed to realise is that the public sector does not create wealth and does not contribute in terms of taxes. The public sector would not exist without the private sector and yet the labour governement did nothing to encourage the private sector instead they stiffled trade and industry with red tape and pointless laws.
They grew the public sector pointlessly which drained away all the tax revenue taken from the private sector.

They would have been in a much stronger position had the tories not sold off the water, gas, electric, telecoms etc. not to mention the council houses. The values of these are massive now, the energy companies make billions every year as do the telecoms and now we pay billions each year to keep tenants on benefits in private accommodation. The smart move would have been to keep them, and reap the benefits.

The public sector was running that industries at a loss. You see when something is under government control there is no profit invenctive.
I worked in the public sector once for around year and the amount of waste, inefficiency and the laziness and lack of work ethic were truely shocking. It was common for employees to use sick days as if they were holidays.
Given this endemic culture in the public sector you would either be subsidising the entity or it would make a marginal profit, it certainly would not be making billions as you suggest.

I don't see your point on social housing. The majority of the remaining social housing has been sold off by the councils to Housing Associations. The rent is very low, below normal market rates. If social housing is so profitable as you suggest then why did all of the councils dump all of their remaining housing stock ?
The councils simply don't recieve enough income from rent to maintain and improve the housing stock. Given the current regulatory system a great deal of social housing will require significant investment. Where is this money going to come from, by raising council tax ? Perhaps you should investigate the massive amount of investment which will be required in these properties to comply with parliamentary acts pertaining to the "low carbon economy". The investment required is many hundreds of billions to ensure that the properties will comply with the Energy Act.

 

[That-Crazy-Rat-Lady]

Yes I have student debt but that doesn’t affect my credit rating or ability to apply for a mortgage. If it did people would have to rent or live at home and work for 10 years before the bank would consider giving them a loan for a house.

I don’t know anything about labour government or the things you’re talking about sorry, I probably should!

But the whole point of what we were talking about is that students aren’t ‘poor’ anymore, if they spend their money wisely they can save money. Yes every student comes out with debt but if they are carful they can also come out with savings, (which they could even pay off some of their student debt if they choose)

If I keep saving my student loan I can walk into a bank and get a mortgage.

You might view it as a contingency fund but what I’m saying is that a student can come out with money in the bank saved and a student debt, or they can come out with a bad hangover, a dodgy tattoo and a student debt.

The debt is inevitable but what you choose to do with your loan money can make a real difference.

The max student loan you can get in a year is £5,570, and the max you can earn tax free is around £6000 for students and then say you get a grant from the uni of £1000 that’s an income of £12570 a year, or £1047 a month or £241 a week That’s so much money!

 

[tek-monkey]

Sorry, the government based rant took this of on a tangent. But yes, as above, students are no longer poor. We used to be expected to live completely on 3k a year, that included food and lodgings and was including a loan covering half of it. Students nowadays get lots of money thrown at them, yes its credit but its credit that they only need to repay if they earn enough. Its not like a loan or a mortgage with repayments no matter what, it varies based on your income and stops if you are unemployed.

Of course no student nowadays would be seen dead in the sorts of places my mates had to live, nor would they make lentil curries or live on toast when they could be sipping a latte in Starbucks and eating a pumpkin seed cake*. Students today don't struggle to afford food, they don't struggle to afford to heat their houses, unless they are a complete moron they have it rather easy TBH. It isn't like an episode of the young ones any more, and as they will spend less than half their 9-5 actually at the uni they have plenty of time to get a job if they can be bothered.

But anyway, I digress again. Anyone got a sofa?

 

[hop]

So the interest on these new loans is RPI + 3%. Over the past decade RPI has averaged out around 3% so the interest rate is 6%.

This is hardly free money as some are implying. Someone who is living with a large amount of debt is hardly well off as you seem to imply. If we look at the figures that an average graduate will come out of univerisity with a debt of £40-60k then you have to consider that in a place like Stafford / Stoke you could actually buy half a house for this amount.

An income of 12k as was stated previously would put your income in the bottom quartile. However this isn't income we are talking about since a fair proportion of the money is from loans.

The repayments begin when you earn over 21k which for most graduates means they would start paying the loan immediatley on graduation.

In fact at 6% interest the rate is higher than a mortgage so there appears to no point keeping the money from the loan in the bank and using that as a deposit on a house, at least not if you think you might one day have to pay the loan back.

 

[tek-monkey]

They are well off now, which is all that matters to them as the repayments are based on income. Its not like a real loan or mortgage, where losing your job puts you up **** creek. If you were worried about debt there isn't a chance in hell you'd go to uni nowadays!