Is life really worse under Labour or am I taking the Torygraph (essential reading chez Moondog) too seriously? Particularly interested in what you old gimmers who remember thatcher have to say.

[moondog]

Thanking yew.

Much to my FIL's chagrin, Tony Blair has kept the trade union legislation Thatcher put in place.

My extended family are Conservative supporting & did well out of the 80s (self employed/contractors/police) whilst my dh's extended family are Labour supporting ex miners who did not.

We deliberately don't give our families much opportunity to get together given their class and politically opposed beliefs. They joke that Dh is Mellors to my Lady Chatterley, with some judicious editing.

Interestingly the one route that my miner FIL pushed for my dh as a means of escaping a mining impoverished town is no longer available under Labour - free uni education.

" By TwoIfBySea on Wed 26-Mar-08 12:40:32
If you are poor now, under Labour, there is a feeling and a truth that you cannot improve your life. You simply cannot climb up out of it at all... "

And then they wonder why people become disengaged from society.

I think sadly that social mobility has fallen but I don't think that's anything this govt has done.

I think there has been a huge democratisation of success - ordinary families now expect to send their children to university and buy their own homes. This is great and is a far cry from the society my father grew up in (working class, most kids left school at 15, no university aspirations, never dreamed of owning a home. In those days getting a council house was a major aspiration - my grandma begged for one to get her family out of the desperate hovel they lived in).

The flip side of that is that with a majority of people owning homes, prices are bid up because there is now a market for houses (whereas before a house was just something you lived in).

And with so many children going to university, those who don't go are left far behind the majority (whereas previously most didn't go and so you weren't behind the majority of society if you didn't go).

These are vast social changes that are difficult for any government to manage. I don't see that Labour has made things any worse - its policies are aimed at removing any remaining barriers where it finds them hence combatting child poverty, Surestart etc (though I would prefer that universities remained free ).

People need to own homes nowadays because there is no security of tenure if you rent privately - New Labour could have addressed that, moving the balance of rights back towards tenants but they chose not to. They could have ensured that sufficient social housing was available for those who needed it, but decided that was not a priority. So people were forced to get into extreme debt to buy very ordinary homes. Simple measures would have prevented house prices being bid up to the extent they were - they could have ensured that banks were not entitled to pursue bad debts if they had chosen to lend more than 4 x income for instance. They could have taken steps when it was clear that mortgage securitisation had created a house of cards - the FSA has admitted negligence now regarding Northern Rock. Houses should be just places to live, not "investments" which deprive the less well off of stability and security.

So many children go to third level education because they have to. Most jobs these days require a third level education when they wouldn't have in the past. It just means the students are more heavily in debt before they start working. New Labour's targets on that are really insidious. What is the point in someone working in a travel agency call centre being required to have a qualification in "tourism"? Surely they would be better off being paid while they were training rather than committing their time and money to training which does not even guarantee a job?

'" By TwoIfBySea on Wed 26-Mar-08 12:40:32
If you are poor now, under Labour, there is a feeling and a truth that you cannot improve your life. You simply cannot climb up out of it at all... "'

I wouldn't necessarilya gree with that, DH and I have found that albour initiatves aare helping us make changes- WT for example allowing me to study and then DH to do the same.

But then my memories of Thatcher are from an industrialised place where nobody much managed to stay in employment for mroe than a few months at a time and lots of people lost homes and I was of age in the recession, the London- centric boom etc didn't reach us.

upwind, try telling the vast majority of the UK that they should not make money out of their houses...

Any govt in history could have introduced CGT on house price appreciation but they would be slaughtered for doing it.

I'm afraid that there are things we can all blame "governments" for but actually, we wouldn't vote for those measures.

margoandjerry, I know you are right, but it highlights the hypocrisy of New Labour. The measures I mentioned, amoung others, would not have caused much outrage but they chose to allow hyperinflation in property prices instead.

'What is the point in someone working in a travel agency call centre being required to have a qualification in "tourism"? '

Tourism etc qualifications were wisely available at my college in the l;ate eighties- under the Tory government? I don't think thats a pure Labour initiative.

I don't think Upwind is saying tourism degrees are a Labour initiative - what is Labour is the target of 50% of people going to university. Upwind's point as I understand it is that that is not as great as it sounds because so many of the degrees are not the passport to a well-paid future that a degree used to be - and in fact for many of these people it will actually make their life harder because they will start their careers heavily in debt.

I agree that the 50% target for degrees is arbitrary and a bit pointless.

But I believe strongly that a better educated population is a good thing, even if it causes changes in the jobs market. Graduates still earn more than non-graduates too, and the debt is bearable imo because of the low interest (but a graduate tax would be fairer)

and upwind - you are right about housing. but labour's failure to do things that the tories nver did (and their failure to fix things that the tories caused) does not mean that life is worse under Labour.

I know what you mean though, and I wish one of the parties would give up the stupid market forces fetish. even the LIb Dems are at it now.

A better-educated population is a good thing, I agree, but the old-fashioned model of a degree is often a very inappropriate way to deliver that education.

All they're doing is devaluing qualifications by trying to force everyone to go for degrees.

Why not get kids into trades etc, bring back apprenticeships and accept that we're not all the same - some are more handy than others and some more academic than others - allow some individuality.

That's what I hate about the Labour government - they think we should all be the same and if we show signs that we're not, goddammit, they'll use every bit of control and spin they can to force it upon us.

there should be more money for vocational courses and FE, agreed.

but there are far fewer jobs in the trades these days. it would be just as inappropriate to push people into apprenticeships as it is to push unacademic students into degrees.

A degree might be devalued in that it doesn't give you as big a salary boost as it used to, but most degrees (even tourism ones) still equip graduates with the ability to research, prioritise, categorise and explain. you still get paid more if you have a degree - why is it a bad thing that more people do?

The Tories didn't believe in investing in the welfare state- their rich friends all opted out and went private so no need to concern themselves with it. By the time they left power schools and hospitals were crumbling.
Infant classes had over thirty pupils in them.
People had to wait up for up to two years for an operation on NHS.
Also remember when unempoyment was headline news?
I don't think this government is perfect but the alternative is far worse.

...also the target is 50% of pupils going to university. not 100%

OMG I'm an apologist for new labour.

Not a bad thing to have in itself, but the risk is very high as you generally have to make the choice at an early age and commit a lot of time and money which for many people is never justified by the eventual salary. Maybe the problem is more with the way degrees are delivered and funded than with the concept of a degree in itself.

who said having a degree was all about the earning power? if it was no-one would ever study english Lit.

But if you are doing Waste Management (as my cousin did) it is likely to be more because you want a job in the area than because of your fascination with the subject.

I think it should be that everyone has the OPPORTUNITY to go to university not that everyone SHOULD go to university. This is the difference, under Labour more children have the opportunity (but the knock on effect is that more children actually go to university and get a degree than actually need to eg tourism, if you like). However it is right that more people have the opportunity if they want to and it is not down to the school you went to or who your parents know etc. and even though it is not free the loans system does mean that children can go to university irrespective of their parent's income to a certain degree (excuse the pun!).
Also agree that degrees aren't all about earning power, they are about other things too.

As the current figure for pupils getting 5 good GCSEs (A-C including English & Maths)is just over 46%, then 50% getting into further education is pretty ambitious...

Fascinating debate but at work so not able to engage properly.

I object to this government's obsession with statistics and targets - it becomes ultimately counterproductive and disfunctional, and believe me I know about the government target culture as I work for the NHS.

Rather than see us all as numbers and quotas just to look impressive to the electorate - "more people than ever are going to university" - so what? - if standards aren't remaining high or people are coming out with qualifications in how to make a burger in McDonald's then what's the point encouraging them to go to university - learning on the job is an equally valid way to spend your time.

An awful lot of the poeple making up the University roles right now are those who didn't get the chance before- on my degree course there's only 3 who came in at 18, and about 20 adults (ranging between 25 and 68 starting age). The wider availability of University places and indeed the trend for former HE colleges to convert to uni status is about more than just school leavers- and the adults statistically do much better too. many have career aims already in place, often teaching, post grad study or self employment.

Yes of course I shall come out with a mahoosive loan but there are still grants out there whatever poeple say- I know, I get one!. The loan is worth it though, and it's the financial difference between going and not.