One thing that is notable is that it appears Russian units in Belarus have been heading back to Russia. The Allied Resolve exercise should be in midswing, so this could indicate some of these forces are being moved to staging areas in Russia near the border with Ukraine.
FPT TimT Posts: 5,222 5:42PM edited 5:43PM Pulpstar said: » show previous quotes They aren't constrained by human level tech, but they are constrained by the laws of physics. Places in space are... far apart.
By our own admission, human understanding of the laws of physics is primitive, to say the least. We admit to not being able even to observe the majority (85%) of matter, for example. Who knows what a more complete understanding of the laws of physics might enable?
How is it breaking a law when a new law is passed through the HOC
Indeed there is some sense in this as the Met Commissioner has a far wider role than just London policing
BigG. do you not see the parallels here between Johnson and Trump? An act looking particularly seedy in the light of Johnson currently being investigated by the Met police.
Certainly not on this
There are very good reasons for the Home Secretary of the day to appoint the Met Commissioner
Surely much better to have that decision in the hands of someone the people of London actually want. Yes yes, the Met Police have a bigger role than just London but really, the important part here is policing by consent. The risk that a national government that's poorly supported in London imposes someone the people of London don't want is the worst outcome here.
I still think it is the Home Secretary of the days responsibility
Labour needs a decent swing at the Erdington by-election. Single figures would be worrying for the party.
I think a lot of CON will stay at home. However quite a few LAB might go to Nellist who is standing for TUSC. Not sure how much enthusiasm there will be for Starmer. So LAB to win comfortably but not much swing, so not a lot for LAB to shout about. Again DYOR I have no local knowledge.
I know the seat a bit and wouldn't be surprised by a relatively low swing for a by-election. As you say Nellist could take a non-insignificant number of votes from Labour.
How is it breaking a law when a new law is passed through the HOC
Indeed there is some sense in this as the Met Commissioner has a far wider role than just London policing
BigG. do you not see the parallels here between Johnson and Trump? An act looking particularly seedy in the light of Johnson currently being investigated by the Met police.
Certainly not on this
There are very good reasons for the Home Secretary of the day to appoint the Met Commissioner
Surely much better to have that decision in the hands of someone the people of London actually want. Yes yes, the Met Police have a bigger role than just London but really, the important part here is policing by consent. The risk that a national government that's poorly supported in London imposes someone the people of London don't want is the worst outcome here.
I still think it is the Home Secretary of the days responsibility
Sarwar: ‘I didn’t grasp how hollowed out Scottish Labour was’ - The Scottish Labour leader reflected on the state he found the party in when he became leader in February last year.
… he said the party raised just £250 in the year before he took over.
Sarwar: ‘I didn’t grasp how hollowed out Scottish Labour was’ - The Scottish Labour leader reflected on the state he found the party in when he became leader in February last year.
… he said the party raised just £250 in the year before he took over.
Well, if SNP Ministers start talking about rUK paying people's pensions you can hardly blame unionists kicking the ball into an open goal. Wd have been far better all round not to start this hare running - it looks bizarre. Voters in Stoke and Wigan are not paying iScot pensions.
2. Much of this is about people who voted for Boris johnson in 2019 walking away. Since early 2020, support among 2019 Conservatives has crashed by 20 points with a particularly sharp drop since #partygate
3. These losses are especially visible among the Brexit voters who voted for Johnson in 2019 to 'Get Brexit Done'. Johnson has lost support among Conservative Remainers but they are a much smaller part of his new electorate. His support among Leavers is now down nearly 20 pts
So in 2019, Johnson won because he identified a Bad Guy and said "vote for me, I'll sort the bad guy out".
If Johnson wants to be re-elected in 2023/4, expect him to follow the same playbook. Identify a Bad Guy; associate the Bad Guy with the opposition; say "vote for me, I'll sort the bad guy out".
It won't be "Get Brexit Done" this time. It will be "Get Rid of Woke".
How is it breaking a law when a new law is passed through the HOC
Indeed there is some sense in this as the Met Commissioner has a far wider role than just London policing
BigG. do you not see the parallels here between Johnson and Trump? An act looking particularly seedy in the light of Johnson currently being investigated by the Met police.
Certainly not on this
There are very good reasons for the Home Secretary of the day to appoint the Met Commissioner
Surely much better to have that decision in the hands of someone the people of London actually want. Yes yes, the Met Police have a bigger role than just London but really, the important part here is policing by consent. The risk that a national government that's poorly supported in London imposes someone the people of London don't want is the worst outcome here.
I still think it is the Home Secretary of the days responsibility
Because you side with the Conservatives
No - I genuinely believe it should be the home secretary whoever is in office
I am not attempting to make a party political case in this instance
How is it breaking a law when a new law is passed through the HOC
Indeed there is some sense in this as the Met Commissioner has a far wider role than just London policing
BigG. do you not see the parallels here between Johnson and Trump? An act looking particularly seedy in the light of Johnson currently being investigated by the Met police.
Certainly not on this
There are very good reasons for the Home Secretary of the day to appoint the Met Commissioner
Khan didn't sack Dick. He told her he didn't have confidence in her and she resigned. The Chancellor can't sack the Treasury Permanent Secretary but no one would stay in the role under those circumstances. Those are the accepted norms which allow the state to function. Any head of the Met would be contemptible to hide behind such a law.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
I have a bit, but only a little bit, of sympathy with this line of argumentation. But it relies on two points being taken as absolute facts, which is not entirely the case:
1. That NATO expansion is of itself a provocation. It is not; it is only a provocation if interpreted that way. 2. That NATO has actively recruited former Soviet-sphere nations to join. If at all true, it is only so indirectly, in that the West does espouse and encourage other nations to embrace democracy, market economics, human rights, separation of military and civilian powers, rule of law, etc... etc... And these are the prerequisites for NATO application. It may well be that states that have lived under Soviet rule and have struggled to achieve those same societal norms that are the prerequisite for NATO membership also see Russia under Putin as a potential threat to those hard-earned gains and so view NATO membership as something to be desired.
This argument ignores the essence of the US position, which is that it is not for either the US or the Russian Federation to decide the alliances independent countries wish to make, but would rather condemn former Soviet satellites to perpetual vassalage.
2. Much of this is about people who voted for Boris johnson in 2019 walking away. Since early 2020, support among 2019 Conservatives has crashed by 20 points with a particularly sharp drop since #partygate
3. These losses are especially visible among the Brexit voters who voted for Johnson in 2019 to 'Get Brexit Done'. Johnson has lost support among Conservative Remainers but they are a much smaller part of his new electorate. His support among Leavers is now down nearly 20 pts
So in 2019, Johnson won because he identified a Bad Guy and said "vote for me, I'll sort the bad guy out".
If Johnson wants to be re-elected in 2023/4, expect him to follow the same playbook. Identify a Bad Guy; associate the Bad Guy with the opposition; say "vote for me, I'll sort the bad guy out".
It won't be "Get Brexit Done" this time. It will be "Get Rid of Woke".
Hmm. There's a lot I don't know, but I don't see this. So Tory campaigners fan out to Redcar and tell apathetic voters, "you know you want to get rid of Woke" and the voters say, "show us the way to the polling station"
How is it breaking a law when a new law is passed through the HOC
Indeed there is some sense in this as the Met Commissioner has a far wider role than just London policing
BigG. do you not see the parallels here between Johnson and Trump? An act looking particularly seedy in the light of Johnson currently being investigated by the Met police.
Certainly not on this
There are very good reasons for the Home Secretary of the day to appoint the Met Commissioner
Khan didn't sack Dick. He told her he didn't have confidence in her and she resigned. The Chancellor can't sack the Treasury Permanent Secretary but no one would stay in the role under those circumstances. Those are the accepted norms which allow the state to function. Any head of the Met would be contemptible to hide behind such a law.
As soon as Khan said that her career was over
However, I am not arguing a party political case just seems that the Home Secretary of the day should appoint the most senior police officer in the UK but of course in consultation with the mayor, whoever that is
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
2. Much of this is about people who voted for Boris johnson in 2019 walking away. Since early 2020, support among 2019 Conservatives has crashed by 20 points with a particularly sharp drop since #partygate
3. These losses are especially visible among the Brexit voters who voted for Johnson in 2019 to 'Get Brexit Done'. Johnson has lost support among Conservative Remainers but they are a much smaller part of his new electorate. His support among Leavers is now down nearly 20 pts
So in 2019, Johnson won because he identified a Bad Guy and said "vote for me, I'll sort the bad guy out".
If Johnson wants to be re-elected in 2023/4, expect him to follow the same playbook. Identify a Bad Guy; associate the Bad Guy with the opposition; say "vote for me, I'll sort the bad guy out".
It won't be "Get Brexit Done" this time. It will be "Get Rid of Woke".
Hmm. There's a lot I don't know, but I don't see this. So Tory campaigners fan out to Redcar and tell apathetic voters, "you know you want to get rid of Woke" and the voters say, "show us the way to the polling station"
I should add, I think the market for Anti-Woke is more likely Conservative MPs and activists. That's the electorate Johnson is concerned with right now, not the the public,
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
Lots of people don't inherit property from their parents at all...
Is that Penny? Her star hasn't exactly shone these last two years. But I don't thi k she's put a foot wrong either.
She has kept a low profile, is sensible and is a good outside bet if there is a leadership election. However she is an outside chance. DYOR
My favourite fact about her is she is a descendant of Harriet Mordaunt who was the subject of one of the most sensational divorce cases of the Victorian era. It ended up dragging the Prince of Wales into the dock as he was strongly suspected as her lover.b
But more to the point - how do you pronounce her surname? It's not obvious. I'm still slightly reeling from hearing g that Buttigieg is pronounced Butt-edge-edge.
How is it breaking a law when a new law is passed through the HOC
Indeed there is some sense in this as the Met Commissioner has a far wider role than just London policing
BigG. do you not see the parallels here between Johnson and Trump? An act looking particularly seedy in the light of Johnson currently being investigated by the Met police.
Certainly not on this
There are very good reasons for the Home Secretary of the day to appoint the Met Commissioner
The more important issue is should the current PM, who is in under investigation by the same force recuse himself of any input into the recruitment process. Of course he won't.
2. Much of this is about people who voted for Boris johnson in 2019 walking away. Since early 2020, support among 2019 Conservatives has crashed by 20 points with a particularly sharp drop since #partygate
3. These losses are especially visible among the Brexit voters who voted for Johnson in 2019 to 'Get Brexit Done'. Johnson has lost support among Conservative Remainers but they are a much smaller part of his new electorate. His support among Leavers is now down nearly 20 pts
So in 2019, Johnson won because he identified a Bad Guy and said "vote for me, I'll sort the bad guy out".
If Johnson wants to be re-elected in 2023/4, expect him to follow the same playbook. Identify a Bad Guy; associate the Bad Guy with the opposition; say "vote for me, I'll sort the bad guy out".
It won't be "Get Brexit Done" this time. It will be "Get Rid of Woke".
Hmm. There's a lot I don't know, but I don't see this. So Tory campaigners fan out to Redcar and tell apathetic voters, "you know you want to get rid of Woke" and the voters say, "show us the way to the polling station"
More likely to be along the lines of "save OUR Brexit" than "Stop Woke Lawyers" I suspect.
V doubtful it will be "our economy is booming don't let Labour ruin it" this time around.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Is that Penny? Her star hasn't exactly shone these last two years. But I don't thi k she's put a foot wrong either.
She has kept a low profile, is sensible and is a good outside bet if there is a leadership election. However she is an outside chance. DYOR
My favourite fact about her is she is a descendant of Harriet Mordaunt who was the subject of one of the most sensational divorce cases of the Victorian era. It ended up dragging the Prince of Wales into the dock as he was strongly suspected as her lover.b
But more to the point - how do you pronounce her surname? It's not obvious. I'm still slightly reeling from hearing g that Buttigieg is pronounced Butt-edge-edge.
Because it comes to his name from Arabic via Maltese. Dajaj is chicken, abu is father or owner. Abu-ddajaj (elided to 'bu-ddajaj) is chicken daddy or (more likely but less fun) chicken farmer. So the letter is really a j, not a g.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
Lots of people don't inherit property from their parents at all...
Quite, but HYUFD always focuses relentlessly on those who gain from any system and is doggedly blind to the rest. If you want to get through to HYUFD, bad luck, nobody ever gets through to HYUFD. But your best chance is by directly taking on the point he's making. Of course, he'll come back with some stats from a 1951 Harvard study about Andean farm subsidies that will be fascinatingly irrelevant, and claim that his "point still stands", but at least everyone else will see what happened.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
Lots of people don't inherit property from their parents at all...
Indeed. And those that do are inheriting these days in their mid to late 60s. Not exactly what people have in mind when you say "younger generations".
Labour needs a decent swing at the Erdington by-election. Single figures would be worrying for the party.
I think a lot of CON will stay at home. However quite a few LAB might go to Nellist who is standing for TUSC. Not sure how much enthusiasm there will be for Starmer. So LAB to win comfortably but not much swing, so not a lot for LAB to shout about. Again DYOR I have no local knowledge.
Probably not too inaccurate. Nellist is from Coventry not Birmingham, so doubt whether he has much local support. Just another minor candidate I would have thought. I could be wrong of course.
2. Much of this is about people who voted for Boris johnson in 2019 walking away. Since early 2020, support among 2019 Conservatives has crashed by 20 points with a particularly sharp drop since #partygate
3. These losses are especially visible among the Brexit voters who voted for Johnson in 2019 to 'Get Brexit Done'. Johnson has lost support among Conservative Remainers but they are a much smaller part of his new electorate. His support among Leavers is now down nearly 20 pts
So in 2019, Johnson won because he identified a Bad Guy and said "vote for me, I'll sort the bad guy out".
If Johnson wants to be re-elected in 2023/4, expect him to follow the same playbook. Identify a Bad Guy; associate the Bad Guy with the opposition; say "vote for me, I'll sort the bad guy out".
It won't be "Get Brexit Done" this time. It will be "Get Rid of Woke".
Hmm. There's a lot I don't know, but I don't see this. So Tory campaigners fan out to Redcar and tell apathetic voters, "you know you want to get rid of Woke" and the voters say, "show us the way to the polling station"
I should add, I think the market for Anti-Woke is more likely Conservative MPs and activists. That's the electorate Johnson is concerned with right now, not the the public,
If they're going to use this argument, then they need to be able to point to so.e evidence of being willing to actually take on woke and do something about it, rather than simply tut at it.
How is it breaking a law when a new law is passed through the HOC
Indeed there is some sense in this as the Met Commissioner has a far wider role than just London policing
BigG. do you not see the parallels here between Johnson and Trump? An act looking particularly seedy in the light of Johnson currently being investigated by the Met police.
Certainly not on this
There are very good reasons for the Home Secretary of the day to appoint the Met Commissioner
Khan didn't sack Dick. He told her he didn't have confidence in her and she resigned. The Chancellor can't sack the Treasury Permanent Secretary but no one would stay in the role under those circumstances. Those are the accepted norms which allow the state to function. Any head of the Met would be contemptible to hide behind such a law.
As soon as Khan said that her career was over
However, I am not arguing a party political case just seems that the Home Secretary of the day should appoint the most senior police officer in the UK but of course in consultation with the mayor, whoever that is
Seeing as none of them ever do a good job and it is tough to serve a Home Sec and MoL from different parties, it is beyond obvious to split the role into two. A London chief for London and a national chief for the terrorism et al.
FPT TimT Posts: 5,222 5:42PM edited 5:43PM Pulpstar said: » show previous quotes They aren't constrained by human level tech, but they are constrained by the laws of physics. Places in space are... far apart.
By our own admission, human understanding of the laws of physics is primitive, to say the least. We admit to not being able even to observe the majority (85%) of matter, for example. Who knows what a more complete understanding of the laws of physics might enable?
There are ways of travelling faster than light without actually doing so, the theoretical Alcubierre drive is an example of this, though it does rely on oddball ideas like negative mass (matter which is repelled by gravity - which is theorised). The idea that we have hard and fast laws of physics is a bit of a misnomer too, the standard model of physics isn't fixed, we actually know it's wrong. It's more like the best understanding we have of the physical universe at this point in time.
I have no doubt that humans will one day become a space faring species with faster than light propulsion. Building an energy surplus with controlled nuclear fusion is a necessary first step.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
Lots of people don't inherit property from their parents at all...
The young today will on average inherit more property than their grandparents could dream of
How is it breaking a law when a new law is passed through the HOC
Indeed there is some sense in this as the Met Commissioner has a far wider role than just London policing
BigG. do you not see the parallels here between Johnson and Trump? An act looking particularly seedy in the light of Johnson currently being investigated by the Met police.
Certainly not on this
There are very good reasons for the Home Secretary of the day to appoint the Met Commissioner
The more important issue is should the current PM, who is in under investigation by the same force recuse himself of any input into the recruitment process. Of course he won't.
They should involve Sajid Javid in the process somehow and then go for Javid's brother, just to wind up those who believe in our systems integrity a bit further.
I think the NEV will be something like Lab 35 Con 33 LD 18 and the Tories will be able to spin that as OK.
I honestly expect the Tories to hold up in Scotland as well and cannot see big losses elsewhere. Losing 1/2 councils in London like Wandsworth and/or Barnet is already priced in.
In some ways there is more riding on these elections for the LDs than Con or Lab. The LDs absolutely must win Somerset for example
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
The average child per woman today in the UK is 1.8, plenty of children today do not even have siblings or 1 at most
FPT TimT Posts: 5,222 5:42PM edited 5:43PM Pulpstar said: » show previous quotes They aren't constrained by human level tech, but they are constrained by the laws of physics. Places in space are... far apart.
By our own admission, human understanding of the laws of physics is primitive, to say the least. We admit to not being able even to observe the majority (85%) of matter, for example. Who knows what a more complete understanding of the laws of physics might enable?
There are ways of travelling faster than light without actually doing so, the theoretical Alcubierre drive is an example of this, though it does rely on oddball ideas like negative mass (matter which is repelled by gravity - which is theorised). The idea that we have hard and fast laws of physics is a bit of a misnomer too, the standard model of physics isn't fixed, we actually know it's wrong. It's more like the best understanding we have of the physical universe at this point in time.
I have no doubt that humans will one day become a space faring species with faster than light propulsion. Building an energy surplus with controlled nuclear fusion is a necessary first step.
Thanks, Max. That was rather my point. Pulpstar was either saying the aliens are constrained to human-level understanding of physics, or humans already have a complete understanding of the laws of physics. I reject both ideas.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
Lots of people don't inherit property from their parents at all...
The young today will on average inherit more property than their grandparents could dream of
I have a bit, but only a little bit, of sympathy with this line of argumentation. But it relies on two points being taken as absolute facts, which is not entirely the case:
1. That NATO expansion is of itself a provocation. It is not; it is only a provocation if interpreted that way. 2. That NATO has actively recruited former Soviet-sphere nations to join. If at all true, it is only so indirectly, in that the West does espouse and encourage other nations to embrace democracy, market economics, human rights, separation of military and civilian powers, rule of law, etc... etc... And these are the prerequisites for NATO application. It may well be that states that have lived under Soviet rule and have struggled to achieve those same societal norms that are the prerequisite for NATO membership also see Russia under Putin as a potential threat to those hard-earned gains and so view NATO membership as something to be desired.
This argument ignores the essence of the US position, which is that it is not for either the US or the Russian Federation to decide the alliances independent countries wish to make, but would rather condemn former Soviet satellites to perpetual vassalage.
I would first ask what is the purpose of NATO?
It has no purpose since the end of the Cold War. Anything useful that NATO currently does could be done by the UN.
NATO should be disbanded.
The expansion of an organisation that has no purpose is ridiculous.
Especially as the expansion threatens to bring down upon Ukraine the very thing that the organisation is (allegedly) trying to prevent.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
Lots of people don't inherit property from their parents at all...
Indeed. And those that do are inheriting these days in their mid to late 60s. Not exactly what people have in mind when you say "younger generations".
Plenty of people in their 20s and 30s also get help from their parents with their first deposit, especially in the Home Counties.
Of course north of Watford property is cheaper so more younger people can afford to buy property without assistance anyway
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
The average child per woman today in the UK is 1.8, plenty of children today do not even have siblings or 1 at most
You need to be a bit more precise in your description of that stat. It's certainly not true of the generation who are nearing the end of their lives now.
How is it breaking a law when a new law is passed through the HOC
Indeed there is some sense in this as the Met Commissioner has a far wider role than just London policing
BigG. do you not see the parallels here between Johnson and Trump? An act looking particularly seedy in the light of Johnson currently being investigated by the Met police.
Certainly not on this
There are very good reasons for the Home Secretary of the day to appoint the Met Commissioner
The more important issue is should the current PM, who is in under investigation by the same force recuse himself of any input into the recruitment process. Of course he won't.
I understand Cressida Dick is to remain in post until the conclusion of the police investigations but I expect Patel is her own person on this
The SNP pensions fiasco has thrown up an interesting issue:
One of the matters that @rosaltmann didn't consider is the fact that Scottish independence would greatly conplicate payment of UK state pensions to people living overseas. 1/
As a member of the UK, Scotland is jointly responsible with the rest of the UK for these pensions. It could not simply walk away leaving the rest of the UK to pick up the entire tab. 2/
I have a bit, but only a little bit, of sympathy with this line of argumentation. But it relies on two points being taken as absolute facts, which is not entirely the case:
1. That NATO expansion is of itself a provocation. It is not; it is only a provocation if interpreted that way. 2. That NATO has actively recruited former Soviet-sphere nations to join. If at all true, it is only so indirectly, in that the West does espouse and encourage other nations to embrace democracy, market economics, human rights, separation of military and civilian powers, rule of law, etc... etc... And these are the prerequisites for NATO application. It may well be that states that have lived under Soviet rule and have struggled to achieve those same societal norms that are the prerequisite for NATO membership also see Russia under Putin as a potential threat to those hard-earned gains and so view NATO membership as something to be desired.
This argument ignores the essence of the US position, which is that it is not for either the US or the Russian Federation to decide the alliances independent countries wish to make, but would rather condemn former Soviet satellites to perpetual vassalage.
I would first ask what is the purpose of NATO?
It has no purpose since the end of the Cold War. Anything useful that NATO currently does could be done by the UN.
NATO should be disbanded.
The expansion of an organisation that has no purpose is ridiculous.
Especially as the expansion threatens to bring down upon Ukraine the very thing that the organisation is (allegedly) trying to prevent.
It is Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff.
By saying that NATO 'has no purpose since the end of the Cold War', you are saying that there is no need for open, democratic societies to organize themselves politically and militarily to be able to defend their way of life if need be against any potential aggressor. I disagree.
And far from the Ukraine situation proving that NATO is the cause of tension, I think it proves the need for a NATO-like organization.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
The average child per woman today in the UK is 1.8, plenty of children today do not even have siblings or 1 at most
You need to be a bit more precise in your description of that stat. It's certainly not true of the generation who are nearing the end of their lives now.
In fact it is even lower, now just 1.66 children on average in the UK per woman. Most of those nearing the end of their lives already are home owners and will pass that down the generations
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
Thatcher: "I do not know anyone who has got to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top but should get you pretty near."
Boris Fan Club: "Forget hard work. Wait for your parents to die".
I have a bit, but only a little bit, of sympathy with this line of argumentation. But it relies on two points being taken as absolute facts, which is not entirely the case:
1. That NATO expansion is of itself a provocation. It is not; it is only a provocation if interpreted that way. 2. That NATO has actively recruited former Soviet-sphere nations to join. If at all true, it is only so indirectly, in that the West does espouse and encourage other nations to embrace democracy, market economics, human rights, separation of military and civilian powers, rule of law, etc... etc... And these are the prerequisites for NATO application. It may well be that states that have lived under Soviet rule and have struggled to achieve those same societal norms that are the prerequisite for NATO membership also see Russia under Putin as a potential threat to those hard-earned gains and so view NATO membership as something to be desired.
This argument ignores the essence of the US position, which is that it is not for either the US or the Russian Federation to decide the alliances independent countries wish to make, but would rather condemn former Soviet satellites to perpetual vassalage.
I would first ask what is the purpose of NATO?
It has no purpose since the end of the Cold War. Anything useful that NATO currently does could be done by the UN.
NATO should be disbanded.
The expansion of an organisation that has no purpose is ridiculous.
Especially as the expansion threatens to bring down upon Ukraine the very thing that the organisation is (allegedly) trying to prevent.
It is Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff.
What a ludicrous argument. Russia and China are in the UN with a UN Security Council veto on any UN action.
NATO can contain Russia and China, the UN is powerless to contain them
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
I have a bit, but only a little bit, of sympathy with this line of argumentation. But it relies on two points being taken as absolute facts, which is not entirely the case:
1. That NATO expansion is of itself a provocation. It is not; it is only a provocation if interpreted that way. 2. That NATO has actively recruited former Soviet-sphere nations to join. If at all true, it is only so indirectly, in that the West does espouse and encourage other nations to embrace democracy, market economics, human rights, separation of military and civilian powers, rule of law, etc... etc... And these are the prerequisites for NATO application. It may well be that states that have lived under Soviet rule and have struggled to achieve those same societal norms that are the prerequisite for NATO membership also see Russia under Putin as a potential threat to those hard-earned gains and so view NATO membership as something to be desired.
This argument ignores the essence of the US position, which is that it is not for either the US or the Russian Federation to decide the alliances independent countries wish to make, but would rather condemn former Soviet satellites to perpetual vassalage.
I would first ask what is the purpose of NATO?
It has no purpose since the end of the Cold War. Anything useful that NATO currently does could be done by the UN.
NATO should be disbanded.
The expansion of an organisation that has no purpose is ridiculous.
Especially as the expansion threatens to bring down upon Ukraine the very thing that the organisation is (allegedly) trying to prevent.
It is Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff.
By saying that NATO 'has no purpose since the end of the Cold War', you are saying that there is no need for open, democratic societies to organize themselves politically and militarily to be able to defend their way of life if need be against any potential aggressor. I disagree.
NATO has nothing to do other than prepare for a war that will never come ... and endlessly contemplate its role in the world.
Unless, of course, it actually precipitates the war ... in which case its rationale is conveniently justified.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
The average child per woman today in the UK is 1.8, plenty of children today do not even have siblings or 1 at most
You need to be a bit more precise in your description of that stat. It's certainly not true of the generation who are nearing the end of their lives now.
In fact it is even lower, now just 1.66 children on average in the UK per woman. Most of those nearing the end of their lives already are home owners and will pass that down the generations
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
Lots of people don't inherit property from their parents at all...
Indeed. And those that do are inheriting these days in their mid to late 60s. Not exactly what people have in mind when you say "younger generations".
Plenty of people in their 20s and 30s also get help from their parents with their first deposit, especially in the Home Counties.
Of course north of Watford property is cheaper so more younger people can afford to buy property without assistance anyway
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
Thatcher: "I do not know anyone who has got to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top but should get you pretty near."
Boris Fan Club: "Forget hard work. Wait for your parents to die".
What on earth has happened to the Tory party?
It says the age the biggest inheritance is most commonly received is 61, most however have received an inheritance before then.
I am a traditional Tory, I believe in inherited wealth. Thatcher was arguably more of a Gladstonian Liberal and a free marketeer than a Disraeli or Macmillan patrician Tory.
The Tory Party's core vote is made up of inherited wealth and landowners as much as high earners
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
The average child per woman today in the UK is 1.8, plenty of children today do not even have siblings or 1 at most
You need to be a bit more precise in your description of that stat. It's certainly not true of the generation who are nearing the end of their lives now.
We have three children and most of our age group had at least 2 and even 4
I have a bit, but only a little bit, of sympathy with this line of argumentation. But it relies on two points being taken as absolute facts, which is not entirely the case:
1. That NATO expansion is of itself a provocation. It is not; it is only a provocation if interpreted that way. 2. That NATO has actively recruited former Soviet-sphere nations to join. If at all true, it is only so indirectly, in that the West does espouse and encourage other nations to embrace democracy, market economics, human rights, separation of military and civilian powers, rule of law, etc... etc... And these are the prerequisites for NATO application. It may well be that states that have lived under Soviet rule and have struggled to achieve those same societal norms that are the prerequisite for NATO membership also see Russia under Putin as a potential threat to those hard-earned gains and so view NATO membership as something to be desired.
This argument ignores the essence of the US position, which is that it is not for either the US or the Russian Federation to decide the alliances independent countries wish to make, but would rather condemn former Soviet satellites to perpetual vassalage.
I would first ask what is the purpose of NATO?
It has no purpose since the end of the Cold War. Anything useful that NATO currently does could be done by the UN.
NATO should be disbanded.
The expansion of an organisation that has no purpose is ridiculous.
Especially as the expansion threatens to bring down upon Ukraine the very thing that the organisation is (allegedly) trying to prevent.
It is Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff.
What a ludicrous argument. Russia and China are in the UN with a UN Security Council veto on any UN action.
NATO can contain Russia and China, the UN is powerless to contain them
How many tank battalions, currently wending their way to Berwick, can you get to the Dneiper by Wednesday, Commander HYUFD?
I have a bit, but only a little bit, of sympathy with this line of argumentation. But it relies on two points being taken as absolute facts, which is not entirely the case:
1. That NATO expansion is of itself a provocation. It is not; it is only a provocation if interpreted that way. 2. That NATO has actively recruited former Soviet-sphere nations to join. If at all true, it is only so indirectly, in that the West does espouse and encourage other nations to embrace democracy, market economics, human rights, separation of military and civilian powers, rule of law, etc... etc... And these are the prerequisites for NATO application. It may well be that states that have lived under Soviet rule and have struggled to achieve those same societal norms that are the prerequisite for NATO membership also see Russia under Putin as a potential threat to those hard-earned gains and so view NATO membership as something to be desired.
This argument ignores the essence of the US position, which is that it is not for either the US or the Russian Federation to decide the alliances independent countries wish to make, but would rather condemn former Soviet satellites to perpetual vassalage.
I would first ask what is the purpose of NATO?
It has no purpose since the end of the Cold War. Anything useful that NATO currently does could be done by the UN.
NATO should be disbanded.
The expansion of an organisation that has no purpose is ridiculous.
Especially as the expansion threatens to bring down upon Ukraine the very thing that the organisation is (allegedly) trying to prevent.
It is Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff.
By saying that NATO 'has no purpose since the end of the Cold War', you are saying that there is no need for open, democratic societies to organize themselves politically and militarily to be able to defend their way of life if need be against any potential aggressor. I disagree.
NATO has nothing to do other than prepare for a war that will never come ... and endlessly contemplate its role in the world.
Unless, of course, it actually precipitates the war ... in which case its rationale is conveniently justified.
I guess you never buy any insurance of any kind, then.
To me, preparing for a war that never comes is a pretty good outcome.
"How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"
+++++
That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.
What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno
There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....
Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"
And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....
Hi @Leon you have repeated the same flawed argument. Before I explain why again just let me say I have not a clue whether life exists elsewhere and although my background is as a mathematician these theories are way above anything I can understand but I accept they give credence to the likelihood of life hence my doubt one way or another.
However your assumption doesn't hold. It is flawed and I can explain why that is the case because that isn't such advanced maths. You have assumed that because life exists here and there are a huge number of stars and planets that it probably exists elsewhere. This is flawed probability because you are only able to have that thought because it is after the event. You don't exist on Mercury to have the opposite thought. So we could equally be unique. Even if the probability of life is so small that it probably won't happen you are at the after event where it did (probability of 1).Try this analogy: If you win the lottery jackpot one week you could easily be the only winner, but you don't think if I have won there has to be other winners do you? But that is exactly what you are doing.
Does that make sense?
I'm not sure the lottery analogy holds up, if I'm honest. Sure, you might be the sole lucky guy who beat the odds this week in this discrete event. But you know other folk have beaten the same odds before at different times. Doesn't mean you know you will win, but it means you know it can be done.
The point is if you do the thing that leads to the incredibly unlikely thing enough times, you start to build up a cohort of instances where someone somewhere's beaten the odds.
I'm not really sure that that's much different with the emergence of life, with the only real limiting factor being that space is big. Really big. So even when it happens, noone else is nearby enough to see it.
Clearly life can exist because we are here but it could be a one off event. Would the lottery analogy hold up for you if you imagined we only had a lottery once. A straight ' there are lots of planets and we are here therefore life exists elsewhere'' does not hold. However the other theories, right or wrong, do provide stronger evidence of life elsewhere, but that goes over my head.
It definitely could be just a one-off event here.
But statistically, which seems likelier? That we're truly special and alone in the entirety of the vast cosmos which has been around for billions of years before us? Or that us, being here, is in itself evidence that it's unlikely, sure but not wildly so, probability MUST be greater than zero even if still negligible, and the galaxy is large enough and old enough for other instances of it to happen just on sheer scale, even if it's so far away or so long ago we never see it?
My money is on the latter. The former is just too anthropocentric, I'm afraid.
Oh I don't disagree. I was just pointing out Leon's argument for this was flawed (see my previous posts where I mention some of the various theories that do argue for the case of life elsewhere more rigerously). Leon's argument is often sited as a reason for believing life exists elsewhere but it is far too simplistic and makes a common error in the application of probability.
My (probably flawed) argument goes:
The probability of life occurring is clearly not zero.
For life to have occurred only once in the entire universe then the range of prior probabilities for that to have happened must be infinitesimally small - up to a chance of about 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 per star system.
For life to exist in more than one place, you can have any probability from 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 all the way to 1.
Which is the most likely range?
Of course, the argument fails somewhat if there are a very large numbers of universes and it is only in this one where someone is able to ask this question.
I have a bit, but only a little bit, of sympathy with this line of argumentation. But it relies on two points being taken as absolute facts, which is not entirely the case:
1. That NATO expansion is of itself a provocation. It is not; it is only a provocation if interpreted that way. 2. That NATO has actively recruited former Soviet-sphere nations to join. If at all true, it is only so indirectly, in that the West does espouse and encourage other nations to embrace democracy, market economics, human rights, separation of military and civilian powers, rule of law, etc... etc... And these are the prerequisites for NATO application. It may well be that states that have lived under Soviet rule and have struggled to achieve those same societal norms that are the prerequisite for NATO membership also see Russia under Putin as a potential threat to those hard-earned gains and so view NATO membership as something to be desired.
This argument ignores the essence of the US position, which is that it is not for either the US or the Russian Federation to decide the alliances independent countries wish to make, but would rather condemn former Soviet satellites to perpetual vassalage.
I would first ask what is the purpose of NATO?
It has no purpose since the end of the Cold War. Anything useful that NATO currently does could be done by the UN.
NATO should be disbanded.
The expansion of an organisation that has no purpose is ridiculous.
Especially as the expansion threatens to bring down upon Ukraine the very thing that the organisation is (allegedly) trying to prevent.
It is Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff.
By saying that NATO 'has no purpose since the end of the Cold War', you are saying that there is no need for open, democratic societies to organize themselves politically and militarily to be able to defend their way of life if need be against any potential aggressor. I disagree.
NATO has nothing to do other than prepare for a war that will never come ... and endlessly contemplate its role in the world.
Unless, of course, it actually precipitates the war ... in which case its rationale is conveniently justified.
Thats it exactly. both US & UK transporters have been flying to Lviv over the last 24-48 hours. Both embassies are prepping a move there as are the Ukrainian government.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
Lots of people don't inherit property from their parents at all...
Indeed. And those that do are inheriting these days in their mid to late 60s. Not exactly what people have in mind when you say "younger generations".
Yes we have had this argument before with @HYUFD. I'm 67 and still waiting to inherit. I might get nothing if my father needs it to pay for a home. If he doesn't need to do that it will be split with my sister which halves it. Having got to 67 I have paid off my mortgage and what I will inherit from his home is 1/10 of the value of my own home.
So none of this can be considered a transfer of property by parents to their children. At best I will inherit some money that I don't need. 40 years ago it would have been useful, but now not so much. Don't know where HYUFD gets his ideas about youngster inheriting property from their parents from. In most cases an inherited house is sold and the money split by 60+ year old children.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
The article makes clear 64% expect to receive an inheritance and only a quarter will ever need residential care
So we’ve gone from “England will send money to Scotland to pay pensions - just like they do for expats”, to “Scotland will send money to England to contribute to expat pension payments”.
Great work by the fat crofter - thanks for raising the topic!
You can tell when HYUFD is on the canvas in an argument:
"I am a traditional Tory, I believe in kicking cats and weevils in the porridge . Heath was arguably a more Cameronian Peelite, but Peel was a one-nation Disrael follower in the Churchill-Major axis. You, of course, are an impure voter, in the tradition of the Liberal party in late winter and early spring 1886, so we can all safely discount your views"
I have a bit, but only a little bit, of sympathy with this line of argumentation. But it relies on two points being taken as absolute facts, which is not entirely the case:
1. That NATO expansion is of itself a provocation. It is not; it is only a provocation if interpreted that way. 2. That NATO has actively recruited former Soviet-sphere nations to join. If at all true, it is only so indirectly, in that the West does espouse and encourage other nations to embrace democracy, market economics, human rights, separation of military and civilian powers, rule of law, etc... etc... And these are the prerequisites for NATO application. It may well be that states that have lived under Soviet rule and have struggled to achieve those same societal norms that are the prerequisite for NATO membership also see Russia under Putin as a potential threat to those hard-earned gains and so view NATO membership as something to be desired.
This argument ignores the essence of the US position, which is that it is not for either the US or the Russian Federation to decide the alliances independent countries wish to make, but would rather condemn former Soviet satellites to perpetual vassalage.
I would first ask what is the purpose of NATO?
It has no purpose since the end of the Cold War. Anything useful that NATO currently does could be done by the UN.
NATO should be disbanded.
The expansion of an organisation that has no purpose is ridiculous.
Especially as the expansion threatens to bring down upon Ukraine the very thing that the organisation is (allegedly) trying to prevent.
It is Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff.
What a ludicrous argument. Russia and China are in the UN with a UN Security Council veto on any UN action.
NATO can contain Russia and China, the UN is powerless to contain them
How many tank battalions, currently wending their way to Berwick, can you get to the Dneiper by Wednesday, Commander HYUFD?
Ukraine is not in NATO, economic sanctions v Russia maybe but only military action is needed to defend NATO nations
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
The article makes clear 64% expect to receive an inheritance and only a quarter will ever need residential care
So people think they're going to get a windfall, but they're actually more likely to get dementia instead. Cheerful.
I have a bit, but only a little bit, of sympathy with this line of argumentation. But it relies on two points being taken as absolute facts, which is not entirely the case:
1. That NATO expansion is of itself a provocation. It is not; it is only a provocation if interpreted that way. 2. That NATO has actively recruited former Soviet-sphere nations to join. If at all true, it is only so indirectly, in that the West does espouse and encourage other nations to embrace democracy, market economics, human rights, separation of military and civilian powers, rule of law, etc... etc... And these are the prerequisites for NATO application. It may well be that states that have lived under Soviet rule and have struggled to achieve those same societal norms that are the prerequisite for NATO membership also see Russia under Putin as a potential threat to those hard-earned gains and so view NATO membership as something to be desired.
This argument ignores the essence of the US position, which is that it is not for either the US or the Russian Federation to decide the alliances independent countries wish to make, but would rather condemn former Soviet satellites to perpetual vassalage.
I would first ask what is the purpose of NATO?
It has no purpose since the end of the Cold War. Anything useful that NATO currently does could be done by the UN.
NATO should be disbanded.
The expansion of an organisation that has no purpose is ridiculous.
Especially as the expansion threatens to bring down upon Ukraine the very thing that the organisation is (allegedly) trying to prevent.
It is Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff.
By saying that NATO 'has no purpose since the end of the Cold War', you are saying that there is no need for open, democratic societies to organize themselves politically and militarily to be able to defend their way of life if need be against any potential aggressor. I disagree.
NATO has nothing to do other than prepare for a war that will never come ... and endlessly contemplate its role in the world.
Unless, of course, it actually precipitates the war ... in which case its rationale is conveniently justified.
I guess you never buy any insurance of any kind, then.
To me, preparing for a war that never comes is a pretty good outcome.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
Lots of people don't inherit property from their parents at all...
Indeed. And those that do are inheriting these days in their mid to late 60s. Not exactly what people have in mind when you say "younger generations".
Yes we have had this argument before with @HYUFD. I'm 67 and still waiting to inherit. I might get nothing if my father needs it to pay for a home. If he doesn't need to do that it will be split with my sister which halves it. Having got to 67 I have paid off my mortgage and what I will inherit from his home is 1/10 of the value of my own home.
So none of this can be considered a transfer of property by parents to their children. At best I will inherit some money that I don't need. 40 years ago it would have been useful, but now not so much. Don't know where HYUFD gets his ideas about youngster inheriting property from their parents from. In most cases an inherited house is sold and the money split by 60+ year old children.
In the Home Counties certainly many if not most now get parental assistance with deposits in their 30s
Most will see their parents die by their mid 50s not mid 60s on average life expectancy and thus inherit too
I have a bit, but only a little bit, of sympathy with this line of argumentation. But it relies on two points being taken as absolute facts, which is not entirely the case:
1. That NATO expansion is of itself a provocation. It is not; it is only a provocation if interpreted that way. 2. That NATO has actively recruited former Soviet-sphere nations to join. If at all true, it is only so indirectly, in that the West does espouse and encourage other nations to embrace democracy, market economics, human rights, separation of military and civilian powers, rule of law, etc... etc... And these are the prerequisites for NATO application. It may well be that states that have lived under Soviet rule and have struggled to achieve those same societal norms that are the prerequisite for NATO membership also see Russia under Putin as a potential threat to those hard-earned gains and so view NATO membership as something to be desired.
This argument ignores the essence of the US position, which is that it is not for either the US or the Russian Federation to decide the alliances independent countries wish to make, but would rather condemn former Soviet satellites to perpetual vassalage.
I would first ask what is the purpose of NATO?
It has no purpose since the end of the Cold War. Anything useful that NATO currently does could be done by the UN.
NATO should be disbanded.
The expansion of an organisation that has no purpose is ridiculous.
Especially as the expansion threatens to bring down upon Ukraine the very thing that the organisation is (allegedly) trying to prevent.
It is Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff.
By saying that NATO 'has no purpose since the end of the Cold War', you are saying that there is no need for open, democratic societies to organize themselves politically and militarily to be able to defend their way of life if need be against any potential aggressor. I disagree.
NATO has nothing to do other than prepare for a war that will never come ... and endlessly contemplate its role in the world.
Unless, of course, it actually precipitates the war ... in which case its rationale is conveniently justified.
I guess you never buy any insurance of any kind, then.
To me, preparing for a war that never comes is a pretty good outcome.
The point is that buying house insurance doesn't cause your house to burn down.
NATO isn't insurance.
It is more like Kyle Rittenhouse.
It is like going out at night armed with a couple of military-style semi-automatic weapons to try and guard businesses against attack. And fatally shooting two men and causing a riot.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
The average child per woman today in the UK is 1.8, plenty of children today do not even have siblings or 1 at most
You need to be a bit more precise in your description of that stat. It's certainly not true of the generation who are nearing the end of their lives now.
We have three children and most of our age group had at least 2 and even 4
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
The article makes clear 64% expect to receive an inheritance and only a quarter will ever need residential care
Individuals should not 'expect to receive an inheritance' and should instead get on due to their own hard work 👍❤️
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
Lots of people don't inherit property from their parents at all...
Indeed. And those that do are inheriting these days in their mid to late 60s. Not exactly what people have in mind when you say "younger generations".
Plenty of people in their 20s and 30s also get help from their parents with their first deposit, especially in the Home Counties.
Of course north of Watford property is cheaper so more younger people can afford to buy property without assistance anyway
Your last sentence is utter garbage
No it isn't, average house prices in the North East for instance are only a third of those in London
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
Thatcher: "I do not know anyone who has got to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top but should get you pretty near."
Boris Fan Club: "Forget hard work. Wait for your parents to die".
What on earth has happened to the Tory party?
@HYUFD attitude is unedyfying and in our case would likely see him disinherited if we knew that is all we meant to him
I have a bit, but only a little bit, of sympathy with this line of argumentation. But it relies on two points being taken as absolute facts, which is not entirely the case:
1. That NATO expansion is of itself a provocation. It is not; it is only a provocation if interpreted that way. 2. That NATO has actively recruited former Soviet-sphere nations to join. If at all true, it is only so indirectly, in that the West does espouse and encourage other nations to embrace democracy, market economics, human rights, separation of military and civilian powers, rule of law, etc... etc... And these are the prerequisites for NATO application. It may well be that states that have lived under Soviet rule and have struggled to achieve those same societal norms that are the prerequisite for NATO membership also see Russia under Putin as a potential threat to those hard-earned gains and so view NATO membership as something to be desired.
This argument ignores the essence of the US position, which is that it is not for either the US or the Russian Federation to decide the alliances independent countries wish to make, but would rather condemn former Soviet satellites to perpetual vassalage.
I would first ask what is the purpose of NATO?
It has no purpose since the end of the Cold War. Anything useful that NATO currently does could be done by the UN.
NATO should be disbanded.
The expansion of an organisation that has no purpose is ridiculous.
Especially as the expansion threatens to bring down upon Ukraine the very thing that the organisation is (allegedly) trying to prevent.
It is Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff.
What a ludicrous argument. Russia and China are in the UN with a UN Security Council veto on any UN action.
NATO can contain Russia and China, the UN is powerless to contain them
How many tank battalions, currently wending their way to Berwick, can you get to the Dneiper by Wednesday, Commander HYUFD?
Ukraine is not in NATO, economic sanctions v Russia maybe but only military action is needed to defend NATO nations
How about no more Russian govt linked individuals having tennis matches with Tory PMs in exchange for £100k to party funds? And returning the funds already received....
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
The average child per woman today in the UK is 1.8, plenty of children today do not even have siblings or 1 at most
You need to be a bit more precise in your description of that stat. It's certainly not true of the generation who are nearing the end of their lives now.
We have three children and most of our age group had at least 2 and even 4
That was then, now most have 1 to 2 children max
Everyone. Hurry up and die so HYUFD can move from being really wrong to only slightly wrong. Thanks in advance.
I have a bit, but only a little bit, of sympathy with this line of argumentation. But it relies on two points being taken as absolute facts, which is not entirely the case:
1. That NATO expansion is of itself a provocation. It is not; it is only a provocation if interpreted that way. 2. That NATO has actively recruited former Soviet-sphere nations to join. If at all true, it is only so indirectly, in that the West does espouse and encourage other nations to embrace democracy, market economics, human rights, separation of military and civilian powers, rule of law, etc... etc... And these are the prerequisites for NATO application. It may well be that states that have lived under Soviet rule and have struggled to achieve those same societal norms that are the prerequisite for NATO membership also see Russia under Putin as a potential threat to those hard-earned gains and so view NATO membership as something to be desired.
This argument ignores the essence of the US position, which is that it is not for either the US or the Russian Federation to decide the alliances independent countries wish to make, but would rather condemn former Soviet satellites to perpetual vassalage.
I would first ask what is the purpose of NATO?
It has no purpose since the end of the Cold War. Anything useful that NATO currently does could be done by the UN.
NATO should be disbanded.
The expansion of an organisation that has no purpose is ridiculous.
Especially as the expansion threatens to bring down upon Ukraine the very thing that the organisation is (allegedly) trying to prevent.
It is Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff.
By saying that NATO 'has no purpose since the end of the Cold War', you are saying that there is no need for open, democratic societies to organize themselves politically and militarily to be able to defend their way of life if need be against any potential aggressor. I disagree.
NATO has nothing to do other than prepare for a war that will never come ... and endlessly contemplate its role in the world.
Unless, of course, it actually precipitates the war ... in which case its rationale is conveniently justified.
I guess you never buy any insurance of any kind, then.
To me, preparing for a war that never comes is a pretty good outcome.
The point is that buying house insurance doesn't cause your house to burn down.
NATO isn't insurance.
It is more like Kyle Rittenhouse.
It is like going out at night armed with a couple of military-style semi-automatic weapons to try and guard businesses against attack. And fatally shooting two men and causing a riot.
I don't think you can really believe that. But if you do, then there is no point continuing our discussion on this point further. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
Thatcher: "I do not know anyone who has got to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top but should get you pretty near."
Boris Fan Club: "Forget hard work. Wait for your parents to die".
What on earth has happened to the Tory party?
@HYUFD attitude is unedyfying and in our case would likely see him disinherited if we knew that is all we meant to him
The essence of Toryism is support for property and inherited wealth.
Support for earned income above all and taxing wealth instead makes you more a Liberal than a Tory.
Neither Liberals nor Tories are Socialists but Tories are distinct from Liberals
I have a bit, but only a little bit, of sympathy with this line of argumentation. But it relies on two points being taken as absolute facts, which is not entirely the case:
1. That NATO expansion is of itself a provocation. It is not; it is only a provocation if interpreted that way. 2. That NATO has actively recruited former Soviet-sphere nations to join. If at all true, it is only so indirectly, in that the West does espouse and encourage other nations to embrace democracy, market economics, human rights, separation of military and civilian powers, rule of law, etc... etc... And these are the prerequisites for NATO application. It may well be that states that have lived under Soviet rule and have struggled to achieve those same societal norms that are the prerequisite for NATO membership also see Russia under Putin as a potential threat to those hard-earned gains and so view NATO membership as something to be desired.
This argument ignores the essence of the US position, which is that it is not for either the US or the Russian Federation to decide the alliances independent countries wish to make, but would rather condemn former Soviet satellites to perpetual vassalage.
I would first ask what is the purpose of NATO?
It has no purpose since the end of the Cold War. Anything useful that NATO currently does could be done by the UN.
NATO should be disbanded.
The expansion of an organisation that has no purpose is ridiculous.
Especially as the expansion threatens to bring down upon Ukraine the very thing that the organisation is (allegedly) trying to prevent.
It is Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff.
By saying that NATO 'has no purpose since the end of the Cold War', you are saying that there is no need for open, democratic societies to organize themselves politically and militarily to be able to defend their way of life if need be against any potential aggressor. I disagree.
NATO has nothing to do other than prepare for a war that will never come ... and endlessly contemplate its role in the world.
Unless, of course, it actually precipitates the war ... in which case its rationale is conveniently justified.
I guess you never buy any insurance of any kind, then.
To me, preparing for a war that never comes is a pretty good outcome.
The point is that buying house insurance doesn't cause your house to burn down.
NATO isn't insurance.
It is more like Kyle Rittenhouse.
It is like going out at night armed with a couple of military-style semi-automatic weapons to try and guard businesses against attack. And fatally shooting two men and causing a riot.
I don't think you can really believe that. But if you do, then there is no point continuing our discussion on this point further. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
The article makes clear 64% expect to receive an inheritance and only a quarter will ever need residential care
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
Thatcher: "I do not know anyone who has got to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top but should get you pretty near."
Boris Fan Club: "Forget hard work. Wait for your parents to die".
What on earth has happened to the Tory party?
It says the age the biggest inheritance is most commonly received is 61, most however have received an inheritance before then.
I am a traditional Tory, I believe in inherited wealth. Thatcher was arguably more of a Gladstonian Liberal and a free marketeer than a Disraeli or Macmillan patrician Tory.
The Tory Party's core vote is made up of inherited wealth and landowners as much as high earners
You were talking about inheriting property. The article you referred to was all inheritance. It even split it out by who people inherited from down to even cousins. So your reference to 47 is very misleading. I have received an inheritance from my grandparents, but that was £500! Most inheritances of property comes from parents which is when children are in their 60s. Many people will receive nominal inheritances from grandparents, etc when younger, but not property or values that are anything other than nominal.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
Lots of people don't inherit property from their parents at all...
Indeed. And those that do are inheriting these days in their mid to late 60s. Not exactly what people have in mind when you say "younger generations".
Yes we have had this argument before with @HYUFD. I'm 67 and still waiting to inherit. I might get nothing if my father needs it to pay for a home. If he doesn't need to do that it will be split with my sister which halves it. Having got to 67 I have paid off my mortgage and what I will inherit from his home is 1/10 of the value of my own home.
So none of this can be considered a transfer of property by parents to their children. At best I will inherit some money that I don't need. 40 years ago it would have been useful, but now not so much. Don't know where HYUFD gets his ideas about youngster inheriting property from their parents from. In most cases an inherited house is sold and the money split by 60+ year old children.
In the Home Counties certainly many if not most now get parental assistance with deposits in their 30s
Most will see their parents die by their mid 50s not mid 60s on average life expectancy and thus inherit too
Again you trot out nonsense
A few may get assistance but in some cases that will come from equity release and of course with more than one sibling that becomes a matter of fairness and complicates estate planning
You seem almost to take pleasure in killing us oldies off so you can get your grubby hands on our money so to speak
I am so pleased none of my 3 children have a mindset like yours
Has the meaning of live or replay changed? Are the editors not aware of the meanings of live or replay? Have they found the ways to distort our known laws of physics and the space time continuum?
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
Lots of people don't inherit property from their parents at all...
Indeed. And those that do are inheriting these days in their mid to late 60s. Not exactly what people have in mind when you say "younger generations".
Yes we have had this argument before with @HYUFD. I'm 67 and still waiting to inherit. I might get nothing if my father needs it to pay for a home. If he doesn't need to do that it will be split with my sister which halves it. Having got to 67 I have paid off my mortgage and what I will inherit from his home is 1/10 of the value of my own home.
So none of this can be considered a transfer of property by parents to their children. At best I will inherit some money that I don't need. 40 years ago it would have been useful, but now not so much. Don't know where HYUFD gets his ideas about youngster inheriting property from their parents from. In most cases an inherited house is sold and the money split by 60+ year old children.
Exactly. Similar here. Parents not wanting to spend any 'inheritance' but it is far too late for such a thing to change our lives much at all. Despite quite a big age gap, we'll probably be retired already.
It is the next generation that actually needs it, although I suspect a modest amount - enough to start a business, get through college, or act as a deposit on a house - might be best. Perhaps that's just my Protestant work ethic speaking.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
The article makes clear 64% expect to receive an inheritance and only a quarter will ever need residential care
Individuals should not 'expect to receive an inheritance' and should instead get on due to their own hard work 👍❤️
I've liked, but liked so much I also wanted to say so.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
Most people inheriting from their parents are splitting it with siblings. Even those "lucky" enough to have something to inherit are not inheriting a whole property.
The average child per woman today in the UK is 1.8, plenty of children today do not even have siblings or 1 at most
You need to be a bit more precise in your description of that stat. It's certainly not true of the generation who are nearing the end of their lives now.
We have three children and most of our age group had at least 2 and even 4
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
Thatcher: "I do not know anyone who has got to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top but should get you pretty near."
Boris Fan Club: "Forget hard work. Wait for your parents to die".
What on earth has happened to the Tory party?
@HYUFD attitude is unedyfying and in our case would likely see him disinherited if we knew that is all we meant to him
The essence of Toryism is support for property and inherited wealth.
Support for earned income above all and taxing wealth instead makes you more a Liberal than a Tory.
Neither Liberals nor Tories are Socialists but Tories are distinct from Liberals
And you are a dreadful advert for a compassionate caring conservative party and frankly your views are unacceptable
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
The article makes clear 64% expect to receive an inheritance and only a quarter will ever need residential care
Individuals should not 'expect to receive an inheritance' and should instead get on due to their own hard work 👍❤️
I've liked, but liked so much I also wanted to say so.
I am baffled that this even needs debating. That hard work should give success is a core part of the social contract.
Replacing it with the lottery of birth to drive success takes us backwards a century.
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
The article makes clear 64% expect to receive an inheritance and only a quarter will ever need residential care
You really are a rather unpleasant individual
No I support the family and inheriting wealth over the generations via the family.
The key Tory principle, just as much as keeping income taxes low
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
Thatcher: "I do not know anyone who has got to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top but should get you pretty near."
Boris Fan Club: "Forget hard work. Wait for your parents to die".
What on earth has happened to the Tory party?
It says the age the biggest inheritance is most commonly received is 61, most however have received an inheritance before then.
I am a traditional Tory, I believe in inherited wealth. Thatcher was arguably more of a Gladstonian Liberal and a free marketeer than a Disraeli or Macmillan patrician Tory.
The Tory Party's core vote is made up of inherited wealth and landowners as much as high earners
You were talking about inheriting property. The article you referred to was all inheritance. It even split it out by who people inherited from down to even cousins. So your reference to 47 is very misleading. I have received an inheritance from my grandparents, but that was £500! Most inheritances of property comes from parents which is when children are in their 60s. Many people will receive nominal inheritances from grandparents, etc when younger, but not property or values that are anything other than nominal.
@HYUFD has talked the most unmitigated rubbish tonight and frankly his perceived entitlement to his inheritance leaves a bad taste
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:
People aged 65 and over
1993
own outright: 55.7% own with mortgage: 5.8% private rental sector: 6.3% social rental sector: 32.2%
2017
own outright: 74.2% own with mortgage: 4.4% private rental sector: 5.6% social rental sector: 15.8%
People aged 16 to 64
1993
own outright: 14.0% own with mortgage: 56.2% private rental sector: 10.8% social rental sector: 19.0%
2017
own outright: 17.4% own with mortgage: 40.0% private rental sector: 25.2% social rental sector: 17.5%
In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.
+ Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.
+ Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.
+ People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.
+ Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.
+ Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.
+ The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.
An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.
Depends where you go, in the North and Midlands and Wales for example property is still relatively cheap to buy and so more can get on the housing ladder earlier.
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
The average age of receiving inheritance, for those who do, is around 61. Only someone who spends their time in local Conservative party association meetings considers them the younger generations.
Rubbish. The average age of receiving an inheritance is 47 not 61
And only 22% receive an inheritance, which due to longevity and long term care costs will diminish cash and not forgetting parents who have taken out equity release at punishing interest rates leaving very little to share among their siblings
The article makes clear 64% expect to receive an inheritance and only a quarter will ever need residential care
Individuals should not 'expect to receive an inheritance' and should instead get on due to their own hard work 👍❤️
I've liked, but liked so much I also wanted to say so.
Much appreciated thanks. I suspected you had as you have liked similar posts of mine before. However as I am on a non sophisticated phone I cannot see who has liked the post, only the number of likes!
Comments
Lab 38%
Con 33%
LD 11%
Grn 6%
Ref 5%
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1493355606467657731?s=20&t=zDeiA-TtyBFszDhbFJ6p8g
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-stand-with-diane-abbott
https://twitter.com/OliverDowden/status/1493266949429682181
5:42PM edited 5:43PM
Pulpstar said:
» show previous quotes
They aren't constrained by human level tech, but they are constrained by the laws of physics. Places in space are... far apart.
By our own admission, human understanding of the laws of physics is primitive, to say the least. We admit to not being able even to observe the majority (85%) of matter, for example. Who knows what a more complete understanding of the laws of physics might enable?
- The Scottish Labour leader reflected on the state he found the party in when he became leader in February last year.
… he said the party raised just £250 in the year before he took over.
https://news.stv.tv/politics/sarwar-i-didnt-grasp-how-hollowed-out-scottish-labour-was?amp
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1493281340359426048
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1493137504656109568
2. Much of this is about people who voted for Boris johnson in 2019 walking away. Since early 2020, support among 2019 Conservatives has crashed by 20 points with a particularly sharp drop since #partygate
3. These losses are especially visible among the Brexit voters who voted for Johnson in 2019 to 'Get Brexit Done'. Johnson has lost support among Conservative Remainers but they are a much smaller part of his new electorate. His support among Leavers is now down nearly 20 pts
So in 2019, Johnson won because he identified a Bad Guy and said "vote for me, I'll sort the bad guy out".
If Johnson wants to be re-elected in 2023/4, expect him to follow the same playbook. Identify a Bad Guy; associate the Bad Guy with the opposition; say "vote for me, I'll sort the bad guy out".
It won't be "Get Brexit Done" this time. It will be "Get Rid of Woke".
I am not attempting to make a party political case in this instance
Note too the clear majority of over 35s still own property with a mortgage at least. As for the higher number of pensioners who own outright, that will of course generally filter down to younger generations too via inheritance
1. That NATO expansion is of itself a provocation. It is not; it is only a provocation if interpreted that way.
2. That NATO has actively recruited former Soviet-sphere nations to join. If at all true, it is only so indirectly, in that the West does espouse and encourage other nations to embrace democracy, market economics, human rights, separation of military and civilian powers, rule of law, etc... etc... And these are the prerequisites for NATO application. It may well be that states that have lived under Soviet rule and have struggled to achieve those same societal norms that are the prerequisite for NATO membership also see Russia under Putin as a potential threat to those hard-earned gains and so view NATO membership as something to be desired.
This argument ignores the essence of the US position, which is that it is not for either the US or the Russian Federation to decide the alliances independent countries wish to make, but would rather condemn former Soviet satellites to perpetual vassalage.
However, I am not arguing a party political case just seems that the Home Secretary of the day should appoint the most senior police officer in the UK but of course in consultation with the mayor, whoever that is
‘The Met has a race problem’
I'm still slightly reeling from hearing g that Buttigieg is pronounced Butt-edge-edge.
V doubtful it will be "our economy is booming don't let Labour ruin it" this time around.
If you want to get through to HYUFD, bad luck, nobody ever gets through to HYUFD. But your best chance is by directly taking on the point he's making.
Of course, he'll come back with some stats from a 1951 Harvard study about Andean farm subsidies that will be fascinatingly irrelevant, and claim that his "point still stands", but at least everyone else will see what happened.
I have no doubt that humans will one day become a space faring species with faster than light propulsion. Building an energy surplus with controlled nuclear fusion is a necessary first step.
Lab 35 Con 33 LD 18 and the Tories will be able to spin that as OK.
I honestly expect the Tories to hold up in Scotland as well and cannot see big losses elsewhere. Losing 1/2 councils in London like Wandsworth and/or Barnet is already priced in.
In some ways there is more riding on these elections for the LDs than Con or Lab. The LDs absolutely must win Somerset for example
It has no purpose since the end of the Cold War. Anything useful that NATO currently does could be done by the UN.
NATO should be disbanded.
The expansion of an organisation that has no purpose is ridiculous.
Especially as the expansion threatens to bring down upon Ukraine the very thing that the organisation is (allegedly) trying to prevent.
It is Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass stuff.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-9973249/Over-11m-Britons-received-inheritance-windfall-past-decade.html
Of course north of Watford property is cheaper so more younger people can afford to buy property without assistance anyway
One of the matters that @rosaltmann didn't consider is the fact that Scottish independence would greatly conplicate payment of UK state pensions to people living overseas. 1/
As a member of the UK, Scotland is jointly responsible with the rest of the UK for these pensions. It could not simply walk away leaving the rest of the UK to pick up the entire tab. 2/
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1493366708429594626?s=20&t=09j9NuRElH7SVKc1K-10Ew
And far from the Ukraine situation proving that NATO is the cause of tension, I think it proves the need for a NATO-like organization.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-6334045/Longing-big-inheritance-wait-bit-average-age-inheritance-61-years.html
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2019#:~:text=7.-,Fertility rates by geographic area,decrease from the previous year.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-6334045/Longing-big-inheritance-wait-bit-average-age-inheritance-61-years.html
Thatcher: "I do not know anyone who has got to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top but should get you pretty near."
Boris Fan Club: "Forget hard work. Wait for your parents to die".
What on earth has happened to the Tory party?
NATO can contain Russia and China, the UN is powerless to contain them
Unless, of course, it actually precipitates the war ... in which case its rationale is conveniently justified.
Perhaps you're just arguing for more abortions, so people can inherit the full whack. Good on you.
I am a traditional Tory, I believe in inherited wealth. Thatcher was arguably more of a Gladstonian Liberal and a free marketeer than a Disraeli or Macmillan patrician Tory.
The Tory Party's core vote is made up of inherited wealth and landowners as much as high earners
To me, preparing for a war that never comes is a pretty good outcome.
The probability of life occurring is clearly not zero.
For life to have occurred only once in the entire universe then the range of prior probabilities for that to have happened must be infinitesimally small - up to a chance of about 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 per star system.
For life to exist in more than one place, you can have any probability from 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 all the way to 1.
Which is the most likely range?
Of course, the argument fails somewhat if there are a very large numbers of universes and it is only in this one where someone is able to ask this question.
So none of this can be considered a transfer of property by parents to their children. At best I will inherit some money that I don't need. 40 years ago it would have been useful, but now not so much. Don't know where HYUFD gets his ideas about youngster inheriting property from their parents from. In most cases an inherited house is sold and the money split by 60+ year old children.
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1493368734249107457
So we’ve gone from “England will send money to Scotland to pay pensions - just like they do for expats”, to “Scotland will send money to England to contribute to expat pension payments”.
Great work by the fat crofter - thanks for raising the topic!
"I am a traditional Tory, I believe in kicking cats and weevils in the porridge . Heath was arguably a more Cameronian Peelite, but Peel was a one-nation Disrael follower in the Churchill-Major axis. You, of course, are an impure voter, in the tradition of the Liberal party in late winter and early spring 1886, so we can all safely discount your views"
Cheerful.
If you want peace prepare for war
Most will see their parents die by their mid 50s not mid 60s on average life expectancy and thus inherit too
NATO isn't insurance.
It is more like Kyle Rittenhouse.
It is like going out at night armed with a couple of military-style semi-automatic weapons to try and guard businesses against attack. And fatally shooting two men and causing a riot.
Support for earned income above all and taxing wealth instead makes you more a Liberal than a Tory.
Neither Liberals nor Tories are Socialists but Tories are distinct from Liberals
A few may get assistance but in some cases that will come from equity release and of course with more than one sibling that becomes a matter of fairness and complicates estate planning
You seem almost to take pleasure in killing us oldies off so you can get your grubby hands on our money so to speak
I am so pleased none of my 3 children have a mindset like yours
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/winter-olympics/57276800
Has the meaning of live or replay changed?
Are the editors not aware of the meanings of live or replay?
Have they found the ways to distort our known laws of physics and the space time continuum?
Incompetence is everywhere.....
It is the next generation that actually needs it, although I suspect a modest amount - enough to start a business, get through college, or act as a deposit on a house - might be best. Perhaps that's just my Protestant work ethic speaking.
Some charity or other might benefit...
Replacing it with the lottery of birth to drive success takes us backwards a century.
The key Tory principle, just as much as keeping income taxes low
GN all 👍