Re: Quality of life in the UK
- From: "Andy Pandy" <spam8times@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:56:19 -0000
"Lisa Hafey" <lisa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43d98f7b$0$4998$db0fefd9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> As with lots of others who've replied, I don't agree with much of what
> you post. And unlike most of the other posters, I've come from one of
> these "grass is greener" countries, and far prefer living here. We
> emigrated just over a year ago from Sydney Australia to live in South
> East London because my husband got a job over here. The quality of life
> we have found here is vastly superior to what we had in Sydney; we
> couldn't afford to buy a house in Sydney because the housing prices were
> in excess of what we could afford (and my husband was on a high salary
> in the IT industry) without him having to commute 3 hours between home
> and the city. Rent was relatively cheap, but the quality of housing was
> poor. Conversely, we bought a house here in September last year for a
> price that we would not have been able to find in Sydney that was as
> close to my husband's work (ie the city) as he is to work here (does
> that make sense? It doesn't read well to me. Could be to do with the
> fact it's 2.45am...).
Nope - it makes sense.
I find is surprising though, from what I've heard about Australian property prices,
that Sydney is more expensive than London. But I don't know anyone who has moved to
Sydney. I know some people who have/are about to move to Melbourne and Perth, the
ones moving to Perth say that average prices are similar to here (Manchester), but
the average house is 3 times the size and a pool seems to be almost standard!
> The eldest of our three children (soon to be expanded to 4!) was the
> only one in school, and we struggled to find a school to meet her
> exceptional needs (she has been assessed as moderately gifted), yet the
> first school we tried here in England was superior to anything else we
> found in Sydney within the state and private system; she's attending a
> state school here which is teaching at a level at least a year ahead of
> what she was being taught in her "gifted and talented" class in Sydney.
This depends very much on the individual school - some UK schools have this idea that
you shouldn't stream, and classes should be mixed ability because that is beneficial
to the lower achievers. They seem to ignore the effect it has on the more gifted
pupils.
> Our second child (eldest son) was able to start school a year earlier
> than what he'd been allowed in Australia. He's now in year 1, whereas
> in Australia he would only be starting "kindergarten" - ie reception -
> at the end of this month, something which had both him and me frustrated
> as he's as bright, if not brighter, than his sister. Admittedly, his
> starting school early is by accident of birth more than anything else,
> because his birthday is the first of August, but in Australia the
> cut-off date for starting school last January was 31 July, meaning that
> he would be a whole year behind those whose birthdays fell within a
> couple of days of his. I know the situation would have been the same
> over here if his birthday had been 1 September or whatever the day after
> the cut-off was, but the school wouldn't bend an inch, even considering
> his sister's ability (and the given wisdom with regard to "gifted and
> talented" is that, extraordinary circumstances apart, siblings are
> within plus or minus 10 IQ points of each other - if his sister is "very
> bright" then the very least he would be is "bright").
I don't think UK schools would either. My nephew started school just after his 4th
birthday - personally I think that's far too young. In some countries, like Sweden,
children don't start school till they are 7, and it doesn't seem to result in lower
educational achievement.
> Culturally we feel far happier in England, as we have an interest in
> history, and so enjoy the access to historic sites all over the country
> - goodness, there's ROMAN RUINS less than 3 miles from our house! - not
> to mention that huge land mass a ferry trip away, Europe. There's
> nothing comparable in Australia. Indeed, the closest "overseas travel"
> is three hours away to New Zealand, and it's just like Australia, only
> with pointier (and more violent) mountains...It's all very well if you
> like scenery, but if you want to feed your brain...nah, nothing there.
Well, if human history is the only thing you want to feed your brain with that may be
true. But if you try a diet of geology, natural history, biology, astronomy etc
there's at least as much food in Australia as here.
> You talk about friends emigrating to New Zealand. Be aware that the job
> market is likely to be smaller than in the UK, and the standard of
> living is not going to be as high as what you currently experience,
> because, as in Australia, it's a small population, and so salaries are
> not going to be as high as here in the UK. Also, having talked to Kiwi
> friends, the housing market has outstripped affordability, and so if you
> cannot afford to buy in the UK, then you're equally unlikely to be able
> to afford to buy in New Zealand. Not to mention that their education
> system is a year behind Australia's...ie 2 year's behind the UK!
>
> My husband's favourite phrase is "economies of scale". 60 million
> people in the UK means that there's enough money coming in and going out
> of a tiny little group of islands to ensure just about everyone can do
> what they want for a price they can afford, if only they look hard
> enough.
Using that logic you'd expect the cost of living in the north of Scotland to be much
higher than central London! It may be for some things - but I'd wager most things are
cheaper in places with a lower population density.
> Compared to that, New Zealand, about the same size as the UK,
> has a population of just 4 million. Australia has only 20 million
> people. Both countries are experiencing difficulties with regard to
> high unemployment (not enough money to implement necessary
> infrastructure, too much emphasis on "tourism" rather than planning for
> the long-term...I remember in the 80s the Australian tourism industry
> starting up big-time - consequently pretty much all manufacturing is now
> done off-shore in south-east Asia. I was flabbergasted to discover that
> things you buy in England are quite likely to have also been made in
> England! Unheard of in Australia and New Zealand. Everything's made in
> China).
I think you'll find most manufactured goods in the UK are made in places like China.
Most of our kids' toys seem to be made in China. The UK manufacturing industry has
been practically wiped out over the last few decades, with a few notable exceptions.
--
Andy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Quality of life in the UK
- From: Lisa Hafey
- Re: Quality of life in the UK
- References:
- Quality of life in the UK
- From: Runli Guo
- Re: Quality of life in the UK
- From: Lisa Hafey
- Quality of life in the UK
- Prev by Date: Re: car ideas
- Next by Date: Re: Quality of life in the UK
- Previous by thread: Re: Quality of life in the UK
- Next by thread: Re: Quality of life in the UK
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
