FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Dead Man Walking..

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Hasn't Nick Clegg aged somewhat in 7 months?

He looks grey.

He looks defeated.

..and he looks like a man who knows that when the electorate get their first chance they are going to bury him.

Yet, on the issue of Uni fees, he is right.

We can't let University fees stay as they are, in the same way we can't allow our uni degrees to be dumbed down so that everyone gets a pass regardless of whether they've earned it.

Similarly, we can't have people in their 50s subsidising University educations that will not have a direct benefit to them. (Yes, graduates will pay tax on their earnings, but then so will non-grads.)

But...

I have developed a system that allows me to send my son to Uni in 20 years time and it won't cost him or me a penny!

Here's how it works:

You invest £84/month for the next 18 years.

= £18k

That £18k goes into an investment trust earning an ave 7% interest.

Now, he doesn't go to Uni until he's 19, (he's 20mos old now), that gives me 17 years. He's at Uni for 3 years. That's 20 years, and he doesn't have to start paying it back until he reaches a salary of £21k. (factoring inflation of 2% into the equation means in 20 years time his minimum salary requirement will be approx £31k before he has to start paying back his student loan)

Now, it may take him 5 years to reach that salary level so that's 25 years from now.

25 years of investment of £84/month @ 7% interest = £68k. approx.

He repays his loan at £75/month for 30 years from the interest on the £25k I have invested (which has amassed an amount of £68k) and he will be drawing from an ever increasing pot of cash.

And here's the real kicker...

At the end of it...

He will still have the capital left to do with as he pleases.

Free Uni education and a bucket load of dosh when he's 50!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

smart arse

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *emmefataleWoman
over a year ago

dirtybigbadsgirlville

oh i thought you were on a bj ban again!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ig badMan
over a year ago

Up North :-)

What about all this snow in Yorkshire Nick! Sort it will ya!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He is ...hence all the maths

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

If you get a 7% average investment return over that period it will be as likely as the Lib Dems winning the next general election outright.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well im voting for bill clinton next time

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"If you get a 7% average investment return over that period it will be as likely as the Lib Dems winning the next general election outright....."

Au contraire..

Foreign & Colonial have regularly outperfoemd the market and I've enjoyed an average of 8.5% growth on my investments.

Sure there is a risk, the market could collapse at the exact moment I need to draw on funds but with a 30 year projection the investment market always returns a healthy profit.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"If you get a 7% average investment return over that period it will be as likely as the Lib Dems winning the next general election outright.....

Au contraire..

Foreign & Colonial have regularly outperfoemd the market and I've enjoyed an average of 8.5% growth on my investments.

Sure there is a risk, the market could collapse at the exact moment I need to draw on funds but with a 30 year projection the investment market always returns a healthy profit."

You are basing that on the last decade (and maybe the previous decade as well). Schroeder Wagg have downrated their average progressive return to less than 4% over the next Ten years.

Times have changed, near zero growth forcasts has put paid to times of decent investment growth forecasts in the foreseeable future.

See Mondays FT article on Pension growth.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"If you get a 7% average investment return over that period it will be as likely as the Lib Dems winning the next general election outright.....

Au contraire..

Foreign & Colonial have regularly outperfoemd the market and I've enjoyed an average of 8.5% growth on my investments.

Sure there is a risk, the market could collapse at the exact moment I need to draw on funds but with a 30 year projection the investment market always returns a healthy profit.

You are basing that on the last decade (and maybe the previous decade as well). Schroeder Wagg have downrated their average progressive return to less than 4% over the next Ten years.

Times have changed, near zero growth forcasts has put paid to times of decent investment growth forecasts in the foreseeable future.

See Mondays FT article on Pension growth."

I'm sure there has been a downgrade in recent years - we're living in very uncertain times with the new currency (€) and I'm sure we'll be spending it over here in the not so far off future.

But.. markets are cyclicle by nature, nothing can perpetually rise and nothing can perpetually fall, nobody makes any money that way, and in the long term I am prepared to take the risk with a relatively small amount of money for the maximum possible return.

Even with Uni fees rising again in the future, my son won't have anywhere near £27k of student debt to deal with, and I'll have offset that with just £18k.

It's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Good idea to plan for his future education though.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *arambarMan
over a year ago

swindon

I'd suggest speaking to a financial adviser. I'm definitely not qualified to comment.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Schroeder Wagg have downrated their average progressive return to less than 4% over the next Ten years."

£1k per year + 4% compounded monthly over 18 years = £28k

£28k + 4% compounded monthly for 30 years = £92k

(Annual Uni repayment fees need to be extrapolated from that projection)

It still leaves a large pot of cash that is higher than any fees he'll have to pay and my aim is to tie it up into a family Uni trust fund that is always there generating income to put successive generations through University without ever touching the capital. That's got to be the best £18k a man has ever spent, hasn't it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

clegg will be out on his ear soon.

after going back on promises it is the death for the lib dems.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"clegg will be out on his ear soon.

after going back on promises it is the death for the lib dems."

I agree. An entire generation believed in him and he's lost that vote. 50 years in the wilderness beckons for the Libs.

It doesn't matter that Uni fees HAD to rise - Labour would have done it too - it was the fact he signed THAT pledge in THEIR Uni halls. He bought their votes with that promise and has betrayed them. They won't forget it.

What compounds the issue is Scottish & Welsh students are free from the raise in Uni fees regardless of whether they study in Wales, Scotland or England yet English students who go to Welsh or Stocttish Universities will still have to pay the higher fee.

That's the real kick in the nuts over this whole thing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ig badMan
over a year ago

Up North :-)


"clegg will be out on his ear soon.

after going back on promises it is the death for the lib dems.

I agree. An entire generation believed in him and he's lost that vote. 50 years in the wilderness beckons for the Libs.

It doesn't matter that Uni fees HAD to rise - Labour would have done it too - it was the fact he signed THAT pledge in THEIR Uni halls. He bought their votes with that promise and has betrayed them. They won't forget it.

What compounds the issue is Scottish & Welsh students are free from the raise in Uni fees regardless of whether they study in Wales, Scotland or England yet English students who go to Welsh or Stocttish Universities will still have to pay the higher fee.

That's the real kick in the nuts over this whole thing."

Maybe and maybe not. Lets face it cuts have to be made and non will be popular. Tell me a government or a political party that hasn't put bullshit in a manifesto.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Tell me a government or a political party that hasn't put bullshit in a manifesto. "

You and I know that BB, but those first time voters didn't. And they do now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I thought thatswhet the childrens bonds were for the start up of £250 when they are born the add to it but it has now been scrapped.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

I think the only Manifesto that has been reasonably adhered to in the last Thirty years was the 1997 Labour Manifesto.

Everything before and since has been a bit of a damp squib.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I thought thatswhet the childrens bonds were for the start up of £250 when they are born the add to it but it has now been scrapped."

Those bonds mature when the child turns 18 and are given directly to the child to do with as he/she pleases.

We've got one for our son, but I only add a nominal amount to it each month so he has a small pot of cash to buy a car/dep on a house when he turns 18.

There is no way I'd plan his Uni fees on a bond that he can get his hands on as soon as he's 18. That stays in my control lol.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ig badMan
over a year ago

Up North :-)


"Tell me a government or a political party that hasn't put bullshit in a manifesto.

You and I know that BB, but those first time voters didn't. And they do now."

I am guessing in 4 years there will be bigger issues that are affecting the way people vote. There have always been first time voters and always will be. I think this coalition will be judged more on what happens in the middle east, immigration and benefit claimers ohhh and VAT/tax.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And instead of all this hype of fees whatever happened to scolarships for those who work hard and achieve their results. And what about investment in apprentaships investin in a good honest trade.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I think the only Manifesto that has been reasonably adhered to in the last Thirty years was the 1997 Labour Manifesto.

Everything before and since has been a bit of a damp squib."

Blair correctly identified that Labour needed a 'New' direction, and he had to dump Clause 4 to do it.

I voted for the guy Jane. I believed in him. And for a while he walked the walk but he should have sacked Brown asap. He didn't, and that's when it started going wrong.

Brown believed he had a god-given right to have a 'turn in the big chair', whereas Blair earned the votes that got him there. That is the difference between the two of them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Tell me a government or a political party that hasn't put bullshit in a manifesto.

You and I know that BB, but those first time voters didn't. And they do now.

I am guessing in 4 years there will be bigger issues that are affecting the way people vote. There have always been first time voters and always will be. I think this coalition will be judged more on what happens in the middle east, immigration and benefit claimers ohhh and VAT/tax."

I'm sure it will, but you only have to look at Labour's hardcore support that will never forgive Thatcher.

These kids won't forgive Clegg either.

Yet Cable is the architect of it all, that man is a walking disaster.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

lets face it.

what we really need is an unpresidented military build up.

creates jobs and builds communities like the ship industry.

get all these skills working for the good of the nation.

and when we have developed a supreme fighting force unleash a terrfic anger.

works for me

sod europe and the rest. back ourselves for a change instead of handing over money to a bunch of wankers in brussels.

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer

i dont like nigel farage's lot but they are the only ones brave enough to say it how it really is.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Read a great article today about the Euro, it seems very possible that Germany may well lead an orchestrated escape from the doomed currency in 2011.

The United States, Japan, Britain and China have it seems been working overtime to destabilise the Euro over the last couple of years.....there is a school of thought that Britain could well wipe out up to 40% of it's deficit if the Euro were to implode.

I think that could spell the beginning of the end for Brussels.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Read a great article today about the Euro, it seems very possible that Germany may well lead an orchestrated escape from the doomed currency in 2011.

The United States, Japan, Britain and China have it seems been working overtime to destabilise the Euro over the last couple of years.....there is a school of thought that Britain could well wipe out up to 40% of it's deficit if the Euro were to implode.

I think that could spell the beginning of the end for Brussels....."

Wikileaks has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt just what America thinks of Britain. We value the 'special friend' status far higher than they do and they'll only support us if it serves their interests to do so.

Why would Britain bail out Ireland to the tune of £8bn if we were secretly trying to destabilise the Euro?

...unless that's what America *told us* to do.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Read a great article today about the Euro, it seems very possible that Germany may well lead an orchestrated escape from the doomed currency in 2011.

The United States, Japan, Britain and China have it seems been working overtime to destabilise the Euro over the last couple of years.....there is a school of thought that Britain could well wipe out up to 40% of it's deficit if the Euro were to implode.

I think that could spell the beginning of the end for Brussels....."

it is the beginning of the end for it.

and i warned people about this years ago.

it is a serious error to join with a country in currency or in developing a military solution.

once you start sharing ideas on protecting your interests you are weak.

heads of state fall out over things and before you know it borders are on alert and troops are massing in serious numbers.

this country has been sold down the river and because we believe there is no other way we vote idiots in time and again whos only interest to govern is to line their pockets and reduce the rights of the working class.

we import too much, rely on other countries for our power supply during peak hours. a disgrace when you consider we were once the envy of smaller banana republics

mp's need a serious kicking up the backside or held in the tower!

but we all behave dont we. but look at the bloody french! anyone fucks with their retirement age and they are turning over cars and millions are on the streets looting.

and so should we!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Britain bailed out Ireland because the Irish government owes collective British banks around £140 Billion.

To have left the Irish to collapse would have meant indirect liablities to Britain of some £65 Billion though government holdings in Lloyds and RBS.

The threat to the United States is the real possiblity of Brussels attempting to wrestle dealings of Oil in Dollars away from the US in favour of adopting Euro Oil dealing.

That would cost the US around $40 Billion a year in currency exchange.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

id still build up and invest heavy in the armed forces.

i would even demonstrate the fact on the argies doorstep so they get the idea never to ask about the falklands again.

look.the lockerbie bomber was handed over because of pathetic threats from gaddafi's lot. how weak are we?

id have sent planes over there and dropped moab on the bastard.

sod your oil mate.you burn in it.

all the time you give in your weak.

wouldnt happen with me. soon as anyone made a threat or demand like gaddafi he would open his curtains to a mushroom cloud.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"id still build up and invest heavy in the armed forces.

i would even demonstrate the fact on the argies doorstep so they get the idea never to ask about the falklands again.

look.the lockerbie bomber was handed over because of pathetic threats from gaddafi's lot. how weak are we?

id have sent planes over there and dropped moab on the bastard.

sod your oil mate.you burn in it.

all the time you give in your weak.

wouldnt happen with me. soon as anyone made a threat or demand like gaddafi he would open his curtains to a mushroom cloud.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ig badMan
over a year ago

Up North :-)


"id still build up and invest heavy in the armed forces.

i would even demonstrate the fact on the argies doorstep so they get the idea never to ask about the falklands again.

look.the lockerbie bomber was handed over because of pathetic threats from gaddafi's lot. how weak are we?

id have sent planes over there and dropped moab on the bastard.

sod your oil mate.you burn in it.

all the time you give in your weak.

wouldnt happen with me. soon as anyone made a threat or demand like gaddafi he would open his curtains to a mushroom cloud.

"

Now i am not sure if its me but that's kind of a bit extreme! And it would also push the national dept up a bit as it would be pretty costly and Whishy's students would be paying 19k a year never mind 9k

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

must always send out a message to others your for real.

a little tap does nothing in this world.

it may not be right but if the japanese hadnt of been the test subject for plutonium and atomic bombs they would still be fighting to the death now due to the loyalty to the emperor.

sometimes using the ultimate force or to demonstrate it is the only way to bring people to the table.

then they are reasonable.because they will not fuck with you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ig badMan
over a year ago

Up North :-)


"must always send out a message to others your for real.

a little tap does nothing in this world.

it may not be right but if the japanese hadnt of been the test subject for plutonium and atomic bombs they would still be fighting to the death now due to the loyalty to the emperor.

sometimes using the ultimate force or to demonstrate it is the only way to bring people to the table.

then they are reasonable.because they will not fuck with you."

That's what the yanks did with Osama but he still carried on. Attacking Libya would start god knows what. Like it or not diplomacy has to be used. I am not saying i am against military action but i have been there in the past and its still kicking off so its not the perfect answer.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"id still build up and invest heavy in the armed forces.

i would even demonstrate the fact on the argies doorstep so they get the idea never to ask about the falklands again.

look.the lockerbie bomber was handed over because of pathetic threats from gaddafi's lot. how weak are we?

id have sent planes over there and dropped moab on the bastard.

sod your oil mate.you burn in it.

all the time you give in your weak.

wouldnt happen with me. soon as anyone made a threat or demand like gaddafi he would open his curtains to a mushroom cloud.

"

I think you misunderstand where a great deal of our oil comes from.....Libya may well be a scab on the arse of the world population but nuke them and say goodbye to much of our oil importation.

As for the Falklands and Argentina.....we have just sent our Aircraft carrier/s to the great scrap yard by the sea.....just how do we threaten them with no air support?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"id still build up and invest heavy in the armed forces.

i would even demonstrate the fact on the argies doorstep so they get the idea never to ask about the falklands again.

look.the lockerbie bomber was handed over because of pathetic threats from gaddafi's lot. how weak are we?

id have sent planes over there and dropped moab on the bastard.

sod your oil mate.you burn in it.

all the time you give in your weak.

wouldnt happen with me. soon as anyone made a threat or demand like gaddafi he would open his curtains to a mushroom cloud.

I think you misunderstand where a great deal of our oil comes from.....Libya may well be a scab on the arse of the world population but nuke them and say goodbye to much of our oil importation.

As for the Falklands and Argentina.....we have just sent our Aircraft carrier/s to the great scrap yard by the sea.....just how do we threaten them with no air support?"

thats what i mean.relying on others is a mistake.

im sure any attack will need support from nations to fly over them using airspace so would possible stop short range flights.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"id still build up and invest heavy in the armed forces.

i would even demonstrate the fact on the argies doorstep so they get the idea never to ask about the falklands again.

look.the lockerbie bomber was handed over because of pathetic threats from gaddafi's lot. how weak are we?

id have sent planes over there and dropped moab on the bastard.

sod your oil mate.you burn in it.

all the time you give in your weak.

wouldnt happen with me. soon as anyone made a threat or demand like gaddafi he would open his curtains to a mushroom cloud.

I think you misunderstand where a great deal of our oil comes from.....Libya may well be a scab on the arse of the world population but nuke them and say goodbye to much of our oil importation.

As for the Falklands and Argentina.....we have just sent our Aircraft carrier/s to the great scrap yard by the sea.....just how do we threaten them with no air support?

thats what i mean.relying on others is a mistake.

im sure any attack will need support from nations to fly over them using airspace so would possible stop short range flights.

"

Contradiction my dear Watson.....

On one hand you say "Relying on others is a mistake".....in the next breath you say

"Im sure any attack will need support from nations to fly over them"

That's.....Relying on others.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"id still build up and invest heavy in the armed forces.

i would even demonstrate the fact on the argies doorstep so they get the idea never to ask about the falklands again.

look.the lockerbie bomber was handed over because of pathetic threats from gaddafi's lot. how weak are we?

id have sent planes over there and dropped moab on the bastard.

sod your oil mate.you burn in it.

all the time you give in your weak.

wouldnt happen with me. soon as anyone made a threat or demand like gaddafi he would open his curtains to a mushroom cloud.

I think you misunderstand where a great deal of our oil comes from.....Libya may well be a scab on the arse of the world population but nuke them and say goodbye to much of our oil importation.

As for the Falklands and Argentina.....we have just sent our Aircraft carrier/s to the great scrap yard by the sea.....just how do we threaten them with no air support?

thats what i mean.relying on others is a mistake.

im sure any attack will need support from nations to fly over them using airspace so would possible stop short range flights.

Contradiction my dear Watson.....

On one hand you say "Relying on others is a mistake".....in the next breath you say

"Im sure any attack will need support from nations to fly over them"

That's.....Relying on others."

what im saying is the mistake has been made by weakening the forces so we have to rely on others.

doesn mean i agree with it. i dont.

if you do things somebody elses way you take your life with your own hands.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think the only Manifesto that has been reasonably adhered to in the last Thirty years was the 1997 Labour Manifesto.

Everything before and since has been a bit of a damp squib.

Blair correctly identified that Labour needed a 'New' direction, and he had to dump Clause 4 to do it.

I voted for the guy Jane. I believed in him. And for a while he walked the walk but he should have sacked Brown asap. He didn't, and that's when it started going wrong.

Brown believed he had a god-given right to have a 'turn in the big chair', whereas Blair earned the votes that got him there. That is the difference between the two of them."

History will show Gordon Brown to be one of the most important Prime Ministers this country has had. He was never 'style over substance' , but he was the right man in the right place at the right time when it mattered.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

History will show Gordon Brown to be one of the most important Prime Ministers this country has had. He was never 'style over substance' , but he was the right man in the right place at the right time when it mattered. "

Are you on drugs?

Brown is the WORST prime minister we've ever had. Your argument only stacks up if his intention was to completely wreck this country's economy, in which case he WAS the right man, in the right place at the right time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Wikileaks has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt just what America thinks of Britain. We value the 'special friend' status far higher than they do and they'll only support us if it serves their interests to do so.

Why would Britain bail out Ireland to the tune of £8bn if we were secretly trying to destabilise the Euro?

...unless that's what America *told us* to do. "

In reality the Ireland bailout is not going to cost us anything unless Ireland default.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

History will show Gordon Brown to be one of the most important Prime Ministers this country has had. He was never 'style over substance' , but he was the right man in the right place at the right time when it mattered.

Are you on drugs?

Brown is the WORST prime minister we've ever had. Your argument only stacks up if his intention was to completely wreck this country's economy, in which case he WAS the right man, in the right place at the right time."

Haha, no I'm not on drugs, I'm afraid you like many others are believing the hype and not the facts. Can you actually name one thing he did to 'wreck this country's economy' ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

History will show Gordon Brown to be one of the most important Prime Ministers this country has had. He was never 'style over substance' , but he was the right man in the right place at the right time when it mattered.

Are you on drugs?

Brown is the WORST prime minister we've ever had. Your argument only stacks up if his intention was to completely wreck this country's economy, in which case he WAS the right man, in the right place at the right time.

Haha, no I'm not on drugs, I'm afraid you like many others are believing the hype and not the facts. Can you actually name one thing he did to 'wreck this country's economy' ? "

Yes, I can. In fact, he admitted it himself during the election when he said on TV in an interview with Martin Bashir that he had the opportunity to regulate the banks BEFORE the need to bail them out and he didn't do it. He said he listended to city bankers who convinced him that no such regulation was needed.

That single action could have prevented the wreckless investments made by the banking sector in this country which would have had a knock on effect throughout the world. If UK bankers were regulated other countries would have been forced to do the same.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *thwalescplCouple
over a year ago

brecon


"

History will show Gordon Brown to be one of the most important Prime Ministers this country has had. He was never 'style over substance' , but he was the right man in the right place at the right time when it mattered.

Are you on drugs?

Brown is the WORST prime minister we've ever had. Your argument only stacks up if his intention was to completely wreck this country's economy, in which case he WAS the right man, in the right place at the right time.

Haha, no I'm not on drugs, I'm afraid you like many others are believing the hype and not the facts. Can you actually name one thing he did to 'wreck this country's economy' ? "

Sold off our gold reserves when gold was at an all time low...... he would have made 10 times more if he had waited!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *HAGADELICCouple
over a year ago

south london

Evidence that Gordon Brown was terrible?

To paraphrase the inscription on Wren's tomb in St Pauls'

"If you seek his monument Look around you "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

History will show Gordon Brown to be one of the most important Prime Ministers this country has had. He was never 'style over substance' , but he was the right man in the right place at the right time when it mattered.

Are you on drugs?

Brown is the WORST prime minister we've ever had. Your argument only stacks up if his intention was to completely wreck this country's economy, in which case he WAS the right man, in the right place at the right time.

Haha, no I'm not on drugs, I'm afraid you like many others are believing the hype and not the facts. Can you actually name one thing he did to 'wreck this country's economy' ?

Yes, I can. In fact, he admitted it himself during the election when he said on TV in an interview with Martin Bashir that he had the opportunity to regulate the banks BEFORE the need to bail them out and he didn't do it. He said he listended to city bankers who convinced him that no such regulation was needed.

That single action could have prevented the wreckless investments made by the banking sector in this country which would have had a knock on effect throughout the world. If UK bankers were regulated other countries would have been forced to do the same."

I think your wrong here for a number of reasons. So just to be clear, your saying that Brown wrecked the economy by not 'regulating' the banks (in isolation of the rest of the world), is that really your position? And what do you mean by regulation?

Is this 'regulation' you refer to now in place.?

Inherent in your answer is that you accept the worst financial crisis ever (according to most commentators) was a 'banking crisis' and a world crisis, not a Gordon Brown one.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

History will show Gordon Brown to be one of the most important Prime Ministers this country has had. He was never 'style over substance' , but he was the right man in the right place at the right time when it mattered.

Are you on drugs?

Brown is the WORST prime minister we've ever had. Your argument only stacks up if his intention was to completely wreck this country's economy, in which case he WAS the right man, in the right place at the right time.

Haha, no I'm not on drugs, I'm afraid you like many others are believing the hype and not the facts. Can you actually name one thing he did to 'wreck this country's economy' ?

Yes, I can. In fact, he admitted it himself during the election when he said on TV in an interview with Martin Bashir that he had the opportunity to regulate the banks BEFORE the need to bail them out and he didn't do it. He said he listended to city bankers who convinced him that no such regulation was needed.

That single action could have prevented the wreckless investments made by the banking sector in this country which would have had a knock on effect throughout the world. If UK bankers were regulated other countries would have been forced to do the same.

I think your wrong here for a number of reasons. So just to be clear, your saying that Brown wrecked the economy by not 'regulating' the banks (in isolation of the rest of the world), is that really your position? And what do you mean by regulation?

Is this 'regulation' you refer to now in place.?

Inherent in your answer is that you accept the worst financial crisis ever (according to most commentators) was a 'banking crisis' and a world crisis, not a Gordon Brown one. "

.... and are you also in the camp that believes the banks aren't doing enough now by lending more?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

I think your wrong here for a number of reasons. So just to be clear, your saying that Brown wrecked the economy by not 'regulating' the banks (in isolation of the rest of the world), is that really your position? And what do you mean by regulation?

Is this 'regulation' you refer to now in place.?

Inherent in your answer is that you accept the worst financial crisis ever (according to most commentators) was a 'banking crisis' and a world crisis, not a Gordon Brown one. "

I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm asking to you go research what the man said HIMSELF - on TV - to an audience of millions.

Just in case you're having trouble understanding plain English - Gordon Brown said HE should have regulated the banks to prevent them investing money recklessly.

But there are other instances of Brown's Folly, as stated above by a previous poster, Brown sold off most of our gold reserves for a TENTH of what they would now be worth.

It was Brown who tried to advocate spending our way out of reccession with money he knew we didn't have. The cuts the Coalition have been forced to implement is clear proof of that.

To answer your second point:

I have no idea if the correct regulation is now in place. One would hope so, so that this sort of crisis doesn't re-occur.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

.... and are you also in the camp that believes the banks aren't doing enough now by lending more?"

No, I am not actually. I believe banks should lend to businesses that have clear, sound business plans and can demonstrate that the bank's money is safe, because many of the high street banks have some sort of taxpayer holding now and it's our money the banks will be lending. Obviously there is always a risk when starting one's own business and no amount of due dilligence can account for a market moving against a specific business/sector.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"smart arse"
your right he is ,, lol You run rings around me here I had to read that 6 times x liitle slow here xx jo

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

to the op

dont forget tho that you wont get the full interest on your 18k untill after 18 years of paying in.

this will affect the final amount.

im not great at maths so maybe ive missed something.

still its a good idea and good to see a dad not relying on others to educate his son

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"to the op

dont forget tho that you wont get the full interest on your 18k untill after 18 years of paying in.

this will affect the final amount.

im not great at maths so maybe ive missed something.

still its a good idea and good to see a dad not relying on others to educate his son"

Yes, I know. I've worked out the total by compounding the balance month by month, year by year.

It adds up, trust me.

I'm lucky in so much as my lad is only 20mos old so I have enough time to put my plan into action. For those with older children (I have a 13y/o daughter too who will be going to Uni in 6 years time), it's slightly different in so much as a lump sum is needed to get the required return.

I know it all seems too simple but all it needs to make it work is commitment.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckscouple2007Couple
over a year ago

Bucks

Wishy... surely this all assumes that your son wants to go to Uni ...

with all this financial planning he may feel at the time the pressure is too great and just wants to cash in your investment for a long sabbatical in somewhere like Thailand

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

it is going to get to the stage where it will be like in the us, which is that a hell of a lot of people start having to save from birth to put there kids thru uni...

I will always be in the camp where I think it should be free.. and listening and watching the debate today I was impressed by the tory stood up in there speech and who actually voted against it on the grounds that it will be a deterant to people talented enough to go....

nice to know that there are people who do get the fundermental arguement

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Wishy... surely this all assumes that your son wants to go to Uni ...

with all this financial planning he may feel at the time the pressure is too great and just wants to cash in your investment for a long sabbatical in somewhere like Thailand "

The deal will be: He goes to Uni, Daddy pays. He goes to Thailand, he pays.

He's going to Uni.

Period.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"it is going to get to the stage where it will be like in the us, which is that a hell of a lot of people start having to save from birth to put there kids thru uni...

I will always be in the camp where I think it should be free.. and listening and watching the debate today I was impressed by the tory stood up in there speech and who actually voted against it on the grounds that it will be a deterant to people talented enough to go....

nice to know that there are people who do get the fundermental arguement"

A free education is only free whilst someone else is paying for it.

Yes, a basic state education should be available to all at no cost.

Further education, adult learning, night school should be heavily discounted. Higher education should be paid for by the people receiving it as it is totally unfair for people who have not gone to university, or are in the twilight of their lives to pay taxes to send kids to uni that they don't know and will never have a direct benefit from.

I agree with the rises in Uni fees even though I'm going to have to pay more to put my kids through Uni.

I don't need anyone else to pay for my kids thank you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"to the op

dont forget tho that you wont get the full interest on your 18k untill after 18 years of paying in.

this will affect the final amount.

im not great at maths so maybe ive missed something.

still its a good idea and good to see a dad not relying on others to educate his son

Yes, I know. I've worked out the total by compounding the balance month by month, year by year.

It adds up, trust me.

I'm lucky in so much as my lad is only 20mos old so I have enough time to put my plan into action. For those with older children (I have a 13y/o daughter too who will be going to Uni in 6 years time), it's slightly different in so much as a lump sum is needed to get the required return.

I know it all seems too simple but all it needs to make it work is commitment.

"

Not escaping the fact that it won't be £9,000 a year in Seventeen years time when little Wishy goes to Uni.....The sheer amount of time and inflation will ensure that it will be more like Two or Three times that amount by then.

Your very well intentioned investment fund will probably just buy little Wishy a place in the local Technical College by then.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *UNCHBOXMan
over a year ago

folkestone

Am i right in thinking Scotland and Wales will have different rates of student fees, if any at all?.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"it is going to get to the stage where it will be like in the us, which is that a hell of a lot of people start having to save from birth to put there kids thru uni...

I will always be in the camp where I think it should be free.. and listening and watching the debate today I was impressed by the tory stood up in there speech and who actually voted against it on the grounds that it will be a deterant to people talented enough to go....

nice to know that there are people who do get the fundermental arguement

A free education is only free whilst someone else is paying for it.

Yes, a basic state education should be available to all at no cost.

Further education, adult learning, night school should be heavily discounted. Higher education should be paid for by the people receiving it as it is totally unfair for people who have not gone to university, or are in the twilight of their lives to pay taxes to send kids to uni that they don't know and will never have a direct benefit from.

I agree with the rises in Uni fees even though I'm going to have to pay more to put my kids through Uni.

I don't need anyone else to pay for my kids thank you."

hold the front page .....

for once you have my total support wishy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"to the op

dont forget tho that you wont get the full interest on your 18k untill after 18 years of paying in.

this will affect the final amount.

im not great at maths so maybe ive missed something.

still its a good idea and good to see a dad not relying on others to educate his son

Yes, I know. I've worked out the total by compounding the balance month by month, year by year.

It adds up, trust me.

I'm lucky in so much as my lad is only 20mos old so I have enough time to put my plan into action. For those with older children (I have a 13y/o daughter too who will be going to Uni in 6 years time), it's slightly different in so much as a lump sum is needed to get the required return.

I know it all seems too simple but all it needs to make it work is commitment.

Not escaping the fact that it won't be £9,000 a year in Seventeen years time when little Wishy goes to Uni.....The sheer amount of time and inflation will ensure that it will be more like Two or Three times that amount by then.

Your very well intentioned investment fund will probably just buy little Wishy a place in the local Technical College by then."

Aha! I've thought of that too, and so long as I index link it to whatever the Uni rises are (which wont rise every year - they daren't!), it should hit it's targets. I can only plan for figures I know now, not what the unforeseen future holds.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"hold the front page .....

for once you have my total support wishy "

There's a first (first, geddit, degree hahaha)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top