Good morning everyone. Bright again here, although the residents of Cole Towers are beset with health niggles. Nothing very serious, just normal old age. And one doesn't recover from even minor niggles as quickly.
Money wise we're atypical; both my (living) children are better off than we were in our mid fifties ...... or at least their life-styles suggest they are. And our adult grandchildren seem 'comfortable' too.
So, to answer Mr (?) Eabhal up thread; I'm personally not too worried about the rise in cost of living, I'd rather see some encouragement for 20/30 year olds.
Appreciate it! I'm very lucky because I got lots of help with my flat from my parents. Once you're on the ladder it becomes much easier. Not brilliant for social mobility.
(Mr Eabhal. He/him. A small bow if you meet me in person.)
You can see why he’s the Minister for Defence, not Foreign Affairs:
During 25 days 🇺🇦 is fighting with 🇷🇺warcriminals. In these days we destroyed almost 1500 armored vehicles,500 tanks of 🇷🇺terrorists.Part of them-thanks to 🇬🇧humanitarian aid.I personally thank @BWallaceMP for the courage&morale of 🇬🇧,which contrasts with some of other partners
But one thing i noticed form todays report. the 2 breakaway pro Russia 'states in the Dombas have now increased the upper age for conscription from 55 to 65. yes they are now looking at men in there 60s to fill there ranks.
There shortage in manpower must be massive for that to seem sensible!
This excerpt jumped out at me:
"Local social media imagery depicted new conscripts equipped with the Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle—which has not been produced since 1973 and was first produced in 1891."
I can't believe that the Russians would have run out of Kalashnikovs, so what do we make of this? Seems to be a particularly cruel and nihilistic move.
And much of their transport relies on the wheel, technology first produced in 2000 BC. Guns last forever if you keep the rust away, and there's nothing obsolete about a bolt action. So what is the problem?
I suspect that the Mosin-Nagants are the equivalent of the wooden cut outs we have seen pictures of Ukrainian recruits with. A training thing....
We bought our first place in Archway, London N19 in 1990: a two bedroom garden flat five minutes from the tube station. It cost £60,000. Our combined income as a probationer primary school teacher and junior copy editor was around £30,000. Fast forward 32 years and the flat would now cost well in excess of £500,000 and the combined salaries would, at best, be around £60,000. And therein lies the problem.
@CorrectHorseBattery - What's curious, is that plenty of people choose to leave their friends and family to go to London. Presumably you agree with me that that is nuts!
It's where the good jobs are, especially for larger companies.
But they're leaving their friends and family?
Travel happens. So you can still see your friends. And you can make new ones. And since I have been an adult I have seen no need to live anywhere near my family.
Indeed, for some of us leaving family behind can be a benefit not a demerit.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Only if they bump off their parents. Average age when both your parents are dead is well into your 60s. I did the maths for you on this before using the ONS data.
Otherwise don't disagree much with the post.
but most kids of well off parents get money before parents death - either in drip feed or ways to get around paying care fees etc. Its not a meritocracy when the prime factor in how well off a generation is is not how much THEY EARN but how much they are given by parents
Not sure that is true especially for those not well off in the south, but that is not the point l was making anyway. Just pointing out you don't inherit generally in 40s and 50s. Nothing else.
@HYUFD to have children you have to survive till about 30 (in my case 41). So life expectancy of parents is greater than from birth. Also to inherit both parents have to die so you have to work out the life expectancy of of the older of 2 people which again is larger. That figure is well into the 90s (in my case 96 and still going strong). Subtract 30 from that figure and you get 60+
I accept you will say parents will help children before they die. That may or may not be true. Less so for those in the south who aren't wealthy.
It is rare even now for even one parent to survive unto their 90s. Average life expectancy in the UK is 82 and some peoples' parents will sadly die before that in their 60s or 70s or even earlier.
So some will inherit even in their 30s or 40s. If you want to be able to buy an affordable property for someone on an average wage move to the Midlands, the North, Scotland or Wales.
If you want to be able to buy in London and the Home counties either get a high earning job in London or have parents who are already home owners in London and the South East who can help you with equity release or in time inheritance to get on the property ladder. That is just the reality of Londom being a global city no matter how many houses we build.
Or else move to somewhere cheap on the margins like Dagenham, Clacton or Margate
King Cole, lack of construction matters more, I'd say.
Round here there's no lack of construction. Actually, I'd be interested, because I genuinely don't know, how the economics of house-building work. How much/what proportion is land, and are materials more expensive in the South East than elsewhere. Are the resultant house-prices simply what the market will bear?
What’s the reason your pints are so dear?
Around £4 here. Sometimes a bit moire. Cheaper, I believe in the Conservative Club, but I won't drink there!
The other logistical nightmare they have is that the Zils have petrol engines (carbureted V8) and the Kamaz has a diesel fueled locally built version of the Cummins 6BT (God-Emperor of all Diesel Engines). I assume at this point they are just stealing fuel as they find it.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Only if they bump off their parents. Average age when both your parents are dead is well into your 60s. I did the maths for you on this before using the ONS data.
Otherwise don't disagree much with the post.
but most kids of well off parents get money before parents death - either in drip feed or ways to get around paying care fees etc. Its not a meritocracy when the prime factor in how well off a generation is is not how much THEY EARN but how much they are given by parents
Not sure that is true especially for those not well off in the south, but that is not the point l was making anyway. Just pointing out you don't inherit generally in 40s and 50s. Nothing else.
@HYUFD to have children you have to survive till about 30 (in my case 41). So life expectancy of parents is greater than from birth. Also to inherit both parents have to die so you have to work out the life expectancy of of the older of 2 people which again is larger. That figure is well into the 90s (in my case 96 and still going strong). Subtract 30 from that figure and you get 60+
I accept you will say parents will help children before they die. That may or may not be true. Less so for those in the south who aren't wealthy.
It is rare even now for even one parent to survive unto their 90s. Average life expectancy in the UK is 82 and some peoples' parents will sadly die before that in their 60s or 70s or even earlier.
So some will inherit even in their 30s or 40s. If you want to be able to buy an affordable property for someone on an average wage move to the Midlands, the North, Scotland or Wales.
If you want to be able to buy in London and the Home counties either get a high earning job in London or have parents who are already home owners in London and the South East who can help you with equity release or in time inheritance to get on the property ladder. That is just the reality of Londom being a global city no matter how many houses we build
So basically if you're poor you can suck it. Jesus Christ dude, London has some of the worst poverty in Europe.
We bought our first place in Archway, London N19 in 1990: a two bedroom garden flat five minutes from the tube station. It cost £60,000. Our combined income as a probationer primary school teacher and junior copy editor was around £30,000. Fast forward 32 years and the flat would now cost well in excess of £500,000 and the combined salaries would, at best, be around £60,000. And therein lies the problem.
But one thing i noticed form todays report. the 2 breakaway pro Russia 'states in the Dombas have now increased the upper age for conscription from 55 to 65. yes they are now looking at men in there 60s to fill there ranks.
There shortage in manpower must be massive for that to seem sensible!
This excerpt jumped out at me:
"Local social media imagery depicted new conscripts equipped with the Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle—which has not been produced since 1973 and was first produced in 1891."
I can't believe that the Russians would have run out of Kalashnikovs, so what do we make of this? Seems to be a particularly cruel and nihilistic move.
And much of their transport relies on the wheel, technology first produced in 2000 BC. Guns last forever if you keep the rust away, and there's nothing obsolete about a bolt action. So what is the problem?
I suspect that the Mosin-Nagants are the equivalent of the wooden cut outs we have seen pictures of Ukrainian recruits with. A training thing....
When I was at University all the boys played that game Diplomacy. You know, the one where you moved tanks and ships and men and made alliances in order to conquer Europe.
I feel that pb.com has become a bit like that of late. 75% of posts are boys with fake toys talking military strategies.
I know there's a real war going on, and it's devastating, but the armchair generals on here ain't gonna solve it.
I dont understand what you want - people discuss policy matters on websites. Follow your logic and we'd never be able to discuss any matter at all.
That's what belittling talk of armchair generals amounts to - suggesting people should not talk about things they are not involved in or can effect, ie 99% of things.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Only if they bump off their parents. Average age when both your parents are dead is well into your 60s. I did the maths for you on this before using the ONS data.
Otherwise don't disagree much with the post.
but most kids of well off parents get money before parents death - either in drip feed or ways to get around paying care fees etc. Its not a meritocracy when the prime factor in how well off a generation is is not how much THEY EARN but how much they are given by parents
Not sure that is true especially for those not well off in the south, but that is not the point l was making anyway. Just pointing out you don't inherit generally in 40s and 50s. Nothing else.
@HYUFD to have children you have to survive till about 30 (in my case 41). So life expectancy of parents is greater than from birth. Also to inherit both parents have to die so you have to work out the life expectancy of of the older of 2 people which again is larger. That figure is well into the 90s (in my case 96 and still going strong). Subtract 30 from that figure and you get 60+
I accept you will say parents will help children before they die. That may or may not be true. Less so for those in the south who aren't wealthy.
The more the Tories rule, the more people need to take into account the standard financial advice - don't give away money to your children if you might need it for your care. Also because the council might regard it as deliberate shedding of resources in order to claim public support for your care. Ditto IHT and GROB as far as HMRC is concerned.
Thanks to Boris care costs are now capped at £82k.
Average property price in the South East now over £400k and in London over £600k
We bought our first place in Archway, London N19 in 1990: a two bedroom garden flat five minutes from the tube station. It cost £60,000. Our combined income as a probationer primary school teacher and junior copy editor was around £30,000. Fast forward 32 years and the flat would now cost well in excess of £500,000 and the combined salaries would, at best, be around £60,000. And therein lies the problem.
I bought my first flat in Archway (north of the bridge) and it cost more than that in 1987!
North of the bridge is Highgate borders! We were on St John’s Way.
Yes, but I was on the main road!
Still N6 though, I think. That said, it is (was) ridiculous. We got a very good deal, there is no denying that. They existed in London back then.
I note P&O ferry names include Pride Of: York, Kent, Canterbury, Hull, Portsmouth and Dover. I suggest PBers in any of those locations write to their City/County Councils asking them to ask P&O to rename them.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Only if they bump off their parents. Average age when both your parents are dead is well into your 60s. I did the maths for you on this before using the ONS data.
Otherwise don't disagree much with the post.
but most kids of well off parents get money before parents death - either in drip feed or ways to get around paying care fees etc. Its not a meritocracy when the prime factor in how well off a generation is is not how much THEY EARN but how much they are given by parents
Not sure that is true especially for those not well off in the south, but that is not the point l was making anyway. Just pointing out you don't inherit generally in 40s and 50s. Nothing else.
@HYUFD to have children you have to survive till about 30 (in my case 41). So life expectancy of parents is greater than from birth. Also to inherit both parents have to die so you have to work out the life expectancy of of the older of 2 people which again is larger. That figure is well into the 90s (in my case 96 and still going strong). Subtract 30 from that figure and you get 60+
I accept you will say parents will help children before they die. That may or may not be true. Less so for those in the south who aren't wealthy.
It is rare even now for even one parent to survive unto their 90s. Average life expectancy in the UK is 82 and some peoples' parents will sadly die before that in their 60s or 70s or even earlier.
So some will inherit even in their 30s or 40s. If you want to be able to buy an affordable property for someone on an average wage move to the Midlands, the North, Scotland or Wales.
If you want to be able to buy in London and the Home counties either get a high earning job in London or have parents who are already home owners in London and the South East who can help you with equity release or in time inheritance to get on the property ladder. That is just the reality of Londom being a global city no matter how many houses we build
So basically if you're poor you can suck it. Jesus Christ dude, London has some of the worst poverty in Europe.
What about all the people who keep the rich London kids shoes shiny? Where do they live? Unbelievable.
I note P&O ferry names include Pride Of: York, Kent, Canterbury, Hull, Portsmouth and Dover. I suggest PBers in any of those locations write to their City/County Councils asking them to ask P&O to rename them.
Pride of Hull? Is the Trade Descriptions Act still a thing?
@kjh Hope you are recovering okay, you'll be running marathons in no time.
Thank you CHB. Going very well, but so boring. I planned a 600 km ride along the Loire and spring skiing in Kaprun for May and June. Both cancelled now.
I am more worried about the recovery and will be taking the advice here re physio. I don't want to lose my fitness.
We bought our first place in Archway, London N19 in 1990: a two bedroom garden flat five minutes from the tube station. It cost £60,000. Our combined income as a probationer primary school teacher and junior copy editor was around £30,000. Fast forward 32 years and the flat would now cost well in excess of £500,000 and the combined salaries would, at best, be around £60,000. And therein lies the problem.
I bought my first flat in Archway (north of the bridge) and it cost more than that in 1987!
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Only if they bump off their parents. Average age when both your parents are dead is well into your 60s. I did the maths for you on this before using the ONS data.
Otherwise don't disagree much with the post.
but most kids of well off parents get money before parents death - either in drip feed or ways to get around paying care fees etc. Its not a meritocracy when the prime factor in how well off a generation is is not how much THEY EARN but how much they are given by parents
Not sure that is true especially for those not well off in the south, but that is not the point l was making anyway. Just pointing out you don't inherit generally in 40s and 50s. Nothing else.
@HYUFD to have children you have to survive till about 30 (in my case 41). So life expectancy of parents is greater than from birth. Also to inherit both parents have to die so you have to work out the life expectancy of of the older of 2 people which again is larger. That figure is well into the 90s (in my case 96 and still going strong). Subtract 30 from that figure and you get 60+
I accept you will say parents will help children before they die. That may or may not be true. Less so for those in the south who aren't wealthy.
It is rare even now for even one parent to survive unto their 90s. Average life expectancy in the UK is 82 and some peoples' parents will sadly die before that in their 60s or 70s or even earlier.
So some will inherit even in their 30s or 40s. If you want to be able to buy an affordable property for someone on an average wage move to the Midlands, the North, Scotland or Wales.
If you want to be able to buy in London and the Home counties either get a high earning job in London or have parents who are already home owners in London and the South East who can help you with equity release or in time inheritance to get on the property ladder. That is just the reality of Londom being a global city no matter how many houses we build
So basically if you're poor you can suck it. Jesus Christ dude, London has some of the worst poverty in Europe.
What about all the people who keep the rich London kids shoes shiny? Where do they live? Unbelievable.
(Obviously that was replying one post up from you CHB!)
@kjh Hope you are recovering okay, you'll be running marathons in no time.
Thank you CHB. Going very well, but so boring. I planned a 600 km ride along the Loire and spring skiing in Kaprun for May and June. Both cancelled now.
I am more worried about the recovery and will be taking the advice here re physio. I don't want to lose my fitness.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Only if they bump off their parents. Average age when both your parents are dead is well into your 60s. I did the maths for you on this before using the ONS data.
Otherwise don't disagree much with the post.
but most kids of well off parents get money before parents death - either in drip feed or ways to get around paying care fees etc. Its not a meritocracy when the prime factor in how well off a generation is is not how much THEY EARN but how much they are given by parents
Not sure that is true especially for those not well off in the south, but that is not the point l was making anyway. Just pointing out you don't inherit generally in 40s and 50s. Nothing else.
@HYUFD to have children you have to survive till about 30 (in my case 41). So life expectancy of parents is greater than from birth. Also to inherit both parents have to die so you have to work out the life expectancy of of the older of 2 people which again is larger. That figure is well into the 90s (in my case 96 and still going strong). Subtract 30 from that figure and you get 60+
I accept you will say parents will help children before they die. That may or may not be true. Less so for those in the south who aren't wealthy.
It is rare even now for even one parent to survive unto their 90s. Average life expectancy in the UK is 82 and some peoples' parents will sadly die before that in their 60s or 70s or even earlier.
So some will inherit even in their 30s or 40s. If you want to be able to buy an affordable property for someone on an average wage move to the Midlands, the North, Scotland or Wales.
If you want to be able to buy in London and the Home counties either get a high earning job in London or have parents who are already home owners in London and the South East who can help you with equity release or in time inheritance to get on the property ladder. That is just the reality of Londom being a global city no matter how many houses we build
So basically if you're poor you can suck it. Jesus Christ dude, London has some of the worst poverty in Europe.
HYUFD's manifesto - Are you waiting for your parents to die ?!
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Only if they bump off their parents. Average age when both your parents are dead is well into your 60s. I did the maths for you on this before using the ONS data.
Otherwise don't disagree much with the post.
but most kids of well off parents get money before parents death - either in drip feed or ways to get around paying care fees etc. Its not a meritocracy when the prime factor in how well off a generation is is not how much THEY EARN but how much they are given by parents
Not sure that is true especially for those not well off in the south, but that is not the point l was making anyway. Just pointing out you don't inherit generally in 40s and 50s. Nothing else.
@HYUFD to have children you have to survive till about 30 (in my case 41). So life expectancy of parents is greater than from birth. Also to inherit both parents have to die so you have to work out the life expectancy of of the older of 2 people which again is larger. That figure is well into the 90s (in my case 96 and still going strong). Subtract 30 from that figure and you get 60+
I accept you will say parents will help children before they die. That may or may not be true. Less so for those in the south who aren't wealthy.
The more the Tories rule, the more people need to take into account the standard financial advice - don't give away money to your children if you might need it for your care. Also because the council might regard it as deliberate shedding of resources in order to claim public support for your care. Ditto IHT and GROB as far as HMRC is concerned.
Thanks to Boris care costs are now capped at £82k.
Average property price in the South East now over £400k and in London over £600k
Care costs are NOT capped at £80K.
This does not start until Oct 2023.
Anyone who begins "the care journey" now will not be eligible for the cap.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Housing everywhere is not really affordable for young people any more. In London I pay half my post-tax salary to rent a small room in a flat with two other people. If I moved back home three hours from London... I'd still be paying half my post-tax salary on rent, because I'd get paid much less (and then I'd get completely fucked on buying, insuring, fueling and maintaining a car because there's no reliable public transport).
But then again I did buy a sandwich from Pret last month so it's probably my fault.
One of the interesting things about moving to New York is trying to get my head around housing costs.
Manhattan is of course grossly expensive and more than comparable with London Zones 1 & 2.
But you don’t need to go out soooo much before prices drop away rapidly. For example, in Montclair, New Jersey - a prosperous and vaguely arty commuter town, 20 miles outside Manhattan - you can get a very nice 2000 or 3000 sq ft house for circa £500k.
Try doing that in Tunbridge Wells.
Americans earn more, are taxed less, and have lower housing (and energy) costs.
Americans also are therefore less wealthy than Brits as their property is worth less on average and inherit less too. Even if Americans on average earn more (though of course New York City is as expensive as London and most now rent there too)
I note P&O ferry names include Pride Of: York, Kent, Canterbury, Hull, Portsmouth and Dover. I suggest PBers in any of those locations write to their City/County Councils asking them to ask P&O to rename them.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Housing everywhere is not really affordable for young people any more. In London I pay half my post-tax salary to rent a small room in a flat with two other people. If I moved back home three hours from London... I'd still be paying half my post-tax salary on rent, because I'd get paid much less (and then I'd get completely fucked on buying, insuring, fueling and maintaining a car because there's no reliable public transport).
But then again I did buy a sandwich from Pret last month so it's probably my fault.
Not really true, average house price in the North East is only £184k and average wage is £29k. Average house price in London is £681k and average wage is £39k, a vastly bigger difference, even for a couple both earning who could easily afford to get a mortgage to buy a house in the North East on the average wage that would still be impossible in London
@kjh Hope you are recovering okay, you'll be running marathons in no time.
Thank you CHB. Going very well, but so boring. I planned a 600 km ride along the Loire and spring skiing in Kaprun for May and June. Both cancelled now.
I am more worried about the recovery and will be taking the advice here re physio. I don't want to lose my fitness.
As soon as the wound is healed (or get a waterproof dressing) get into a pool. The very best for physio in your circumstances. Buy yourself a pair of flippers, put yourself into a corner of the pool, support yourself with the edge of the poolside and then do a range of exercises (up, down, bicycle, etc). You might need to ask the pool people if you can take the flippers in because they don't generally like them (risk of slicing through another swimmer) so explain what you are up to.
Also you can walk/run while in the pool (sans flippers) and swim as well it all helps.
And do it often as you can. If you can't walk in to the pool just about every public pool has a crane/lift. They might also have an on-site wheelchair or take one of your own if you are non-weight bearing (I appreciate you went the zimmer route).
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Only if they bump off their parents. Average age when both your parents are dead is well into your 60s. I did the maths for you on this before using the ONS data.
Otherwise don't disagree much with the post.
but most kids of well off parents get money before parents death - either in drip feed or ways to get around paying care fees etc. Its not a meritocracy when the prime factor in how well off a generation is is not how much THEY EARN but how much they are given by parents
Not sure that is true especially for those not well off in the south, but that is not the point l was making anyway. Just pointing out you don't inherit generally in 40s and 50s. Nothing else.
@HYUFD to have children you have to survive till about 30 (in my case 41). So life expectancy of parents is greater than from birth. Also to inherit both parents have to die so you have to work out the life expectancy of of the older of 2 people which again is larger. That figure is well into the 90s (in my case 96 and still going strong). Subtract 30 from that figure and you get 60+
I accept you will say parents will help children before they die. That may or may not be true. Less so for those in the south who aren't wealthy.
It is rare even now for even one parent to survive unto their 90s. Average life expectancy in the UK is 82 and some peoples' parents will sadly die before that in their 60s or 70s or even earlier.
So some will inherit even in their 30s or 40s. If you want to be able to buy an affordable property for someone on an average wage move to the Midlands, the North, Scotland or Wales.
If you want to be able to buy in London and the Home counties either get a high earning job in London or have parents who are already home owners in London and the South East who can help you with equity release or in time inheritance to get on the property ladder. That is just the reality of London being a global city no matter how many houses we build
So basically if you're poor you can suck it. Jesus Christ dude, London has some of the worst poverty in Europe.
No, you can get council housing or housing benefit.
However for the Conservatives London is now a lost cause overall.
Even in 2019 Labour won London by a 16% margin over the Tories even as the Tories won the UK overall by a 12% margin over Labour and a comfortable majority of 80 seats
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Housing everywhere is not really affordable for young people any more. In London I pay half my post-tax salary to rent a small room in a flat with two other people. If I moved back home three hours from London... I'd still be paying half my post-tax salary on rent, because I'd get paid much less (and then I'd get completely fucked on buying, insuring, fueling and maintaining a car because there's no reliable public transport).
But then again I did buy a sandwich from Pret last month so it's probably my fault.
One of the interesting things about moving to New York is trying to get my head around housing costs.
Manhattan is of course grossly expensive and more than comparable with London Zones 1 & 2.
But you don’t need to go out soooo much before prices drop away rapidly. For example, in Montclair, New Jersey - a prosperous and vaguely arty commuter town, 20 miles outside Manhattan - you can get a very nice 2000 or 3000 sq ft house for circa £500k.
Try doing that in Tunbridge Wells.
Americans earn more, are taxed less, and have lower housing (and energy) costs.
I imagine the NJ zipcode has a big impact on that. Also, direct comparisons on house sizes aren't really fair, as US homes in the suburbs are just bigger.
Also, it depends which way you go from London. But, say Welwyn Garden City, 25 miles from central London. Here is quick random search, you can get a decent house for £500k.
I imagine if you go for say Sussex rather than Surrey, is a bit like NJ vs NY state.
Upstate NY is where is most surprising. Cold Spring type way is really very very nice and properties aren't crazy money and it is still easy to get into the city.
That house is pokey as hell, glazed with UVC, and you can barely swing a cat in the back garden.
It kind of proves my point.
You can get this - looks around 3000 sq ft - for literally less than the one you showed me.
The two houses posted illustrate @Gardenwalker point to a comical degree. The lot size of the US house is over 9000 sq feet ! The obsession in the UK with numbers of bedrooms rather than floor area is probably to blame. Though property tax on the US house is almost 20k a year
Funny how people ignore eye-wateringly high property taxes in at least some states when explaining why they cannot be raised here.
Property taxes in the US are set locally, and paid to state and local governments.
The objections in the UK, relate to national taxes based on a national scale of house prices, which means that almost all of the revenue would come from a small part of the country, sent into the big national pot and not spent locally.
Most of us agree that more taxes raised locally, and fewer taxes raised nationally, with more competition between local authorities, would be a good thing.
I note P&O ferry names include Pride Of: York, Kent, Canterbury, Hull, Portsmouth and Dover. I suggest PBers in any of those locations write to their City/County Councils asking them to ask P&O to rename them.
"Henry VIII established a second principle by statute: that such a vessel must be English-built and a majority of the crew must be English-born."
Quite right
There seems to be a serious lack of understanding of the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, notably among brexiteers - which is odd, because it seems to be mainly what they were after. It is not illegal to pass laws. Judicial Review is of *executive* acts, not of primary *legislation.* The government takes most of their money away in tax, makes them MOT their cars and prohibits them from taking MDMA and having intimate relations with their pet goat, and still they ask piteously "what can government do* rather than what can't it do.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Only if they bump off their parents. Average age when both your parents are dead is well into your 60s. I did the maths for you on this before using the ONS data.
Otherwise don't disagree much with the post.
but most kids of well off parents get money before parents death - either in drip feed or ways to get around paying care fees etc. Its not a meritocracy when the prime factor in how well off a generation is is not how much THEY EARN but how much they are given by parents
Not sure that is true especially for those not well off in the south, but that is not the point l was making anyway. Just pointing out you don't inherit generally in 40s and 50s. Nothing else.
@HYUFD to have children you have to survive till about 30 (in my case 41). So life expectancy of parents is greater than from birth. Also to inherit both parents have to die so you have to work out the life expectancy of of the older of 2 people which again is larger. That figure is well into the 90s (in my case 96 and still going strong). Subtract 30 from that figure and you get 60+
I accept you will say parents will help children before they die. That may or may not be true. Less so for those in the south who aren't wealthy.
It is rare even now for even one parent to survive unto their 90s. Average life expectancy in the UK is 82 and some peoples' parents will sadly die before that in their 60s or 70s or even earlier.
So some will inherit even in their 30s or 40s. If you want to be able to buy an affordable property for someone on an average wage move to the Midlands, the North, Scotland or Wales.
If you want to be able to buy in London and the Home counties either get a high earning job in London or have parents who are already home owners in London and the South East who can help you with equity release or in time inheritance to get on the property ladder. That is just the reality of London being a global city no matter how many houses we build
So basically if you're poor you can suck it. Jesus Christ dude, London has some of the worst poverty in Europe.
No, you can get council housing or housing benefit.
However for the Conservatives London is a lost cause overall.
Even in 2019 Labour won London by a 16% margin over the Tories even as the Tories won the UK overall by a 12% margin over Labour and a comfortable majority of 80 seats
A combination of (domestic and international) immigrants to London making their way up the ladder on the one hand; and those rich enough to be able to afford to vote Labour and for their redistributive policies on the other means that Cons will never succeed in London.
You can see why he’s the Minister for Defence, not Foreign Affairs:
During 25 days 🇺🇦 is fighting with 🇷🇺warcriminals. In these days we destroyed almost 1500 armored vehicles,500 tanks of 🇷🇺terrorists.Part of them-thanks to 🇬🇧humanitarian aid.I personally thank @BWallaceMP for the courage&morale of 🇬🇧,which contrasts with some of other partners
We bought our first place in Archway, London N19 in 1990: a two bedroom garden flat five minutes from the tube station. It cost £60,000. Our combined income as a probationer primary school teacher and junior copy editor was around £30,000. Fast forward 32 years and the flat would now cost well in excess of £500,000 and the combined salaries would, at best, be around £60,000. And therein lies the problem.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Only if they bump off their parents. Average age when both your parents are dead is well into your 60s. I did the maths for you on this before using the ONS data.
Otherwise don't disagree much with the post.
but most kids of well off parents get money before parents death - either in drip feed or ways to get around paying care fees etc. Its not a meritocracy when the prime factor in how well off a generation is is not how much THEY EARN but how much they are given by parents
Not sure that is true especially for those not well off in the south, but that is not the point l was making anyway. Just pointing out you don't inherit generally in 40s and 50s. Nothing else.
@HYUFD to have children you have to survive till about 30 (in my case 41). So life expectancy of parents is greater than from birth. Also to inherit both parents have to die so you have to work out the life expectancy of of the older of 2 people which again is larger. That figure is well into the 90s (in my case 96 and still going strong). Subtract 30 from that figure and you get 60+
I accept you will say parents will help children before they die. That may or may not be true. Less so for those in the south who aren't wealthy.
It is rare even now for even one parent to survive unto their 90s. Average life expectancy in the UK is 82 and some peoples' parents will sadly die before that in their 60s or 70s or even earlier.
So some will inherit even in their 30s or 40s. If you want to be able to buy an affordable property for someone on an average wage move to the Midlands, the North, Scotland or Wales.
If you want to be able to buy in London and the Home counties either get a high earning job in London or have parents who are already home owners in London and the South East who can help you with equity release or in time inheritance to get on the property ladder. That is just the reality of Londom being a global city no matter how many houses we build.
Or else move to somewhere cheap on the margins like Dagenham, Clacton or Margate
I do not disagree with most of your post, but the life expectancy figure is plain wrong. You have taken life expectancy at birth. This is wrong as I explained earlier. Several months ago I worked it out using the ONS data.
To have children you have to reach adulthood. A baby can't have a child. So you have to look up life expectancy of an adult. That is significantly higher. Secondly the life expectancy of one person is less than the life expectancy of both of 2 people dying.
So whereas the life expectancy of a new born is 82 the life expectancy of any one of two 30 year olds is around 93 - 95.
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
NMW and high personal allowances. Modern Apprenticeships.
Help to buy schemes for first time buyers.
As per my last post, the average age of first time buyers is now over 30.
Doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit some people under that age.
Not much of a rallying cry to the under 30s "If you're lucky, you might get some benefits by default of our focus on others".
Like older people had to do the young need to stop whining and get out and work. Country is full of softies wanting it all for nothing.
The labour force participation rate for 25-34 year olds is about as high as it ever has been.
Why are they whinging then , they have never had it so good , they should have experienced the 70's and 80's when times were really tough for young people. Whining softies wanting it all for nothing.
Basically because rents/mortgages have increased far faster than wages. That's pretty much it.
Do you think we should have paid for an 8.3% increase in the state pension, as the triple lock would have dictated? Or are you happy with 3.1% increase (CPI to September 21)?
It does not matter to me as it is a small amount of my income , however in principle it should have been paid, their knee jerk reaction has been proven to be wrong given how dire position now is for people on pension in general. These clowns have no principles and are immoral jerks. PLenty of poor older people also paying mortgages/rents etc, they are not all millionaires in London mansions as thegreedy whiners on here would have you believe. In teh 70's you had to save for years , go through interrogation by your bank manager and hand over most of your wages to buy a property, people just had to get on with it. Tories selling social housing has been the issue that caused the rent increases not pensioners. Envy is not a good look.
You can see why he’s the Minister for Defence, not Foreign Affairs:
During 25 days 🇺🇦 is fighting with 🇷🇺warcriminals. In these days we destroyed almost 1500 armored vehicles,500 tanks of 🇷🇺terrorists.Part of them-thanks to 🇬🇧humanitarian aid.I personally thank @BWallaceMP for the courage&morale of 🇬🇧,which contrasts with some of other partners
There is little doubt which Country Ukraine thinks has helped their military effort the most.
Undoubtedly the United States and in particular Joe Biden, but they are not getting the full credit for it from the Ukrainian government, which is mildly noteworthy.
@kjh Hope you are recovering okay, you'll be running marathons in no time.
Thank you CHB. Going very well, but so boring. I planned a 600 km ride along the Loire and spring skiing in Kaprun for May and June. Both cancelled now.
I am more worried about the recovery and will be taking the advice here re physio. I don't want to lose my fitness.
As soon as the wound is healed (or get a waterproof dressing) get into a pool. The very best for physio in your circumstances. Buy yourself a pair of flippers, put yourself into a corner of the pool, support yourself with the edge of the poolside and then do a range of exercises (up, down, bicycle, etc). You might need to ask the pool people if you can take the flippers in because they don't generally like them (risk of slicing through another swimmer) so explain what you are up to.
Also you can walk/run while in the pool (sans flippers) and swim as well it all helps.
And do it often as you can. If you can't walk in to the pool just about every public pool has a crane/lift. They might also have an on-site wheelchair or take one of your own if you are non-weight bearing (I appreciate you went the zimmer route).
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
NMW and high personal allowances. Modern Apprenticeships.
Help to buy schemes for first time buyers.
As per my last post, the average age of first time buyers is now over 30.
Doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit some people under that age.
Not much of a rallying cry to the under 30s "If you're lucky, you might get some benefits by default of our focus on others".
Like older people had to do the young need to stop whining and get out and work. Country is full of softies wanting it all for nothing.
The labour force participation rate for 25-34 year olds is about as high as it ever has been.
Why are they whinging then , they have never had it so good , they should have experienced the 70's and 80's when times were really tough for young people. Whining softies wanting it all for nothing.
Basically because rents/mortgages have increased far faster than wages. That's pretty much it.
Do you think we should have paid for an 8.3% increase in the state pension, as the triple lock would have dictated? Or are you happy with 3.1% increase (CPI to September 21)?
It does not matter to me as it is a small amount of my income , however in principle it should have been paid, their knee jerk reaction has been proven to be wrong given how dire position now is for people on pension in general. These clowns have no principles and are immoral jerks. PLenty of poor older people also paying mortgages/rents etc, they are not all millionaires in London mansions as thegreedy whiners on here would have you believe. In teh 70's you had to save for years , go through interrogation by your bank manager and hand over most of your wages to buy a property, people just had to get on with it. Tories selling social housing has been the issue that caused the rent increases not pensioners. Envy is not a good look.
Agree MalcG.
There are plenty of pensioners living in a council house or renting on just state pension and high earning investment bankers or Big Tech employees or corporate lawyers in their 20s or early 30s who have bought expensive flats in Central London. Not everyone who is old is wealthy and not everyone who is young is poor.
I also agree Thatcher should have built replacement council houses from council house sales, which some councils now do
Spooks from Langley to Kyiv are likely to be quietly untangling an espionage conundrum that dare not speak its name, according to a former senior intelligence agent who was once regularly involved in such discussions: “Could President Putin really be assassinated?”
“The operation is on every intelligence agency’s design table,” a veteran clandestine operative for France’s General Directorate for External Security (DGSE) told The Daily Beast. “I know this because I used to plan them.”
The Ukrainians are now claiming that the Russians have 3 days of food, fuel and amunition left. I suspect that the picture will be far from uniform, there is no evidence that they are running out of artillary shells, for example, but if there is any truth in that then units of the Russian army will start to collapse. Last night the Ukrainians claim to have recaptured a town 60km from Kyiv and the Russians are making more use of their air power despite having failed to suppress anti aircraft systems. That looks like desperation to me.
My guess is that we are indeed days away from a major Russian collapse on a significant front. That does not mean that the war will be over or anything but the dynamic of Russian advances will change to Russian consolidation and retreat. The Ukrainians don't seem that bothered by the fact that the peace talks are going anywhere, they think that they are winning.
I'll always be wary of any prediction of collapse before it happens, butcwould be welcome good news.
On the latter point, whether they are actually winning or not they're certainly not losing to the point despair overcomes rage. Putin should appreciate 'Russians' are able to endure suffering.
You can see why he’s the Minister for Defence, not Foreign Affairs:
During 25 days 🇺🇦 is fighting with 🇷🇺warcriminals. In these days we destroyed almost 1500 armored vehicles,500 tanks of 🇷🇺terrorists.Part of them-thanks to 🇬🇧humanitarian aid.I personally thank @BWallaceMP for the courage&morale of 🇬🇧,which contrasts with some of other partners
The other logistical nightmare they have is that the Zils have petrol engines (carbureted V8) and the Kamaz has a diesel fueled locally built version of the Cummins 6BT (God-Emperor of all Diesel Engines). I assume at this point they are just stealing fuel as they find it.
Half the truck fleet petrol and half diesel, way to make the logistics easier!
Those Cummins diesels though, they’ll run on sunflower oil, Jet-A, or just about anything else combustible that can be shoved into the tank.
There has been talk for some time about Putin's off ramps over Ukraine, his failure to have any in the run up to this and what the possible off ramps are now.
The collective West needs to give Putin no such route. He either creates it through military gains or not at all. Whilst the outcome of the military conflict is in the balance, the fact its even in the balance should be an indication that the West should redouble its efforts, not open a door.
Russia's military losses are bad. If the larger end of the claims are anywhere near reality, they are very bad. The Russian military cannot sustain those losses without having to pull fresh formations in, but to do that they may have to call up more reservists rather than call on standing military units because there is only so much left of those. Calling up substantive reservists has its own problems.
On the battlefield there are indications the Ukrainians have cut off some advance Russian elements on the left flank of Kyiv via an attack from the west. For the first time there is the possibility of a choke being established. If they pull it off it will represent the first sizeable defeat for Russian forces where they are ceding land.
The South East by the Black Sea and Sea of Azov is another major Russian target and the Ukrainians currently don't seem yet able to halt or reverse the gains. Russia is putting a lot of effort in here and has the better cards to play. Recognition of occupied areas here as Russian territory is considered to be one of the things Putin will look for to claim success in any peace deal. Somewhere along that Azov coast the Ukrainians need to push the Russians out. If they somehow can, Putin loses another bargaining chip and he hasn't got too many right now, hence why he will continue to pursue the conflict.
I mentioned a lot of days back that, despite the talk, the idea of direct Western intervention of some kind isn't as off the table as it looks and that some capitals had already recognised this. A humanitarian situation too severe to ignore is a possibility as is a Russian escalation that is seen as outside the Ukraine borders.
I'm a bit of of a cynic but my view is that the Ukrainians might not be too bothered at relieving Mariupol. As well as draining Russian forces in taking the city and / or preventing redeployment, it would also (1) largely "solve" the issue of the Azov units, which are mainly based there and (2) help Ukraine when it comes to Western public opinion. Given Ukrainian positions, the Ukrainian units in the city and / or the reported low morale of the Russian forces, it would not be impossible to relieve it.
That seems unduly cynical to me. It's just not how Ukraine has conducted the war. The reality is that they have no force of size anywhere near to Mariupol that might attempt such a thing. And no means of getting one there. And their armed forces are fully engaged across the country, with only a few localised successes in pushing back the Russians.
Until the Russians suffer comprehensive defeat elsewhere (eg around Mikolayiv), it's not a possibility.
A genuine fear is that Putin uses chemical weapons in Mariupol, as he did in Syria.
Not saying he won't. But. Part of his miscalculation seemed to be that Ukrainians and Russians are "one people". Hence he's deporting prisoners to Siberia. Summat he notably didn't do in Syria. Using chemicals may not be beyond the pale for him, but for his generals/troops? I notice there has been film of dispersing protests by firing in the air. Then tear gas. Then stun grenades. I am not aware of live fire. Suggests there is a level at least thus far which hasn't been crossed.
Live fire against protestor has happened in Kherson, I think.
The other logistical nightmare they have is that the Zils have petrol engines (carbureted V8) and the Kamaz has a diesel fueled locally built version of the Cummins 6BT (God-Emperor of all Diesel Engines). I assume at this point they are just stealing fuel as they find it.
There are plenty of pensioners living in a council house or renting on just state pension and high earning investment bankers or Big Tech employees or corporate lawyers in their 20s or early 30s who have bought expensive flats in Central London. Not everyone who is old is wealthy and not everyone who is young is poor.
I also agree Thatcher should have built replacement council houses from council house sales, which some councils now do
I agree with your points, but note that Right to Buy does not allow like-for-like replacement - councils like mine get only IIRC 40% of the cost to build a new one, so it's an open plughole. In Waverley we are just staying ahead of thre game with new council houses built partly from wider housing revenue slightly outpacing sales each year, but with 1000 eligible people on the waiting list it's painfully slow. I don't know any councillors (including Conservatives) who support Right to Buy continuing.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Only if they bump off their parents. Average age when both your parents are dead is well into your 60s. I did the maths for you on this before using the ONS data.
Otherwise don't disagree much with the post.
but most kids of well off parents get money before parents death - either in drip feed or ways to get around paying care fees etc. Its not a meritocracy when the prime factor in how well off a generation is is not how much THEY EARN but how much they are given by parents
Not sure that is true especially for those not well off in the south, but that is not the point l was making anyway. Just pointing out you don't inherit generally in 40s and 50s. Nothing else.
@HYUFD to have children you have to survive till about 30 (in my case 41). So life expectancy of parents is greater than from birth. Also to inherit both parents have to die so you have to work out the life expectancy of of the older of 2 people which again is larger. That figure is well into the 90s (in my case 96 and still going strong). Subtract 30 from that figure and you get 60+
I accept you will say parents will help children before they die. That may or may not be true. Less so for those in the south who aren't wealthy.
It is rare even now for even one parent to survive unto their 90s. Average life expectancy in the UK is 82 and some peoples' parents will sadly die before that in their 60s or 70s or even earlier.
So some will inherit even in their 30s or 40s. If you want to be able to buy an affordable property for someone on an average wage move to the Midlands, the North, Scotland or Wales.
If you want to be able to buy in London and the Home counties either get a high earning job in London or have parents who are already home owners in London and the South East who can help you with equity release or in time inheritance to get on the property ladder. That is just the reality of Londom being a global city no matter how many houses we build.
Or else move to somewhere cheap on the margins like Dagenham, Clacton or Margate
I do not disagree with most of your post, but the life expectancy figure is plain wrong. You have taken life expectancy at birth. This is wrong as I explained earlier. Several months ago I worked it out using the ONS data.
To have children you have to reach adulthood. A baby can't have a child. So you have to look up life expectancy of an adult. That is significantly higher. Secondly the life expectancy of one person is less than the life expectancy of both of 2 people dying.
So whereas the life expectancy of a new born is 82 the life expectancy of any one of two 30 year olds is around 93 - 95.
Even if you reach 65 you only have a life expectancy of 83 if male and 86 if female, not over 90
@CorrectHorseBattery - What's curious, is that plenty of people choose to leave their friends and family to go to London. Presumably you agree with me that that is nuts!
It's where the good jobs are, especially for larger companies.
But they're leaving their friends and family?
All we care about is money, the Tories would be proud
Horse - you often say that you could vote Tory, yet the way you refer to them drips with hatred, like the most rabid of the 'never kissed a Tory' types in the labour party.
What you seem to be saying is that could vote Conservative if they weren't the Conservative party.
The current crop are not covering themselves in glory. Too much venality, corruption but worse, plain incompetence. They need to be gone. But much of the country is instinctively conservative in outlook, and so a party that represents the best of that tradition still has a place.
Since the 2019 election the Government has had a once in a century pandemic, and now the worst international crisis in decades is raging in the Europe. These are facts, not excuses. We can demand better, and given the chance vote for it.
But I really don't think you convince with your 'I could vote Tory' claims...
@kjh Hope you are recovering okay, you'll be running marathons in no time.
Thank you CHB. Going very well, but so boring. I planned a 600 km ride along the Loire and spring skiing in Kaprun for May and June. Both cancelled now.
I am more worried about the recovery and will be taking the advice here re physio. I don't want to lose my fitness.
Does your GP surgery have an in house physio?
Funnily enough I went yesterday to ask about additional help and was told as soon as I was weight bearing to call him for additional help over and above any other physio I get from the hospital for which I was grateful. I've made a point of making clear I don't want to hang around.
We bought our first place in Archway, London N19 in 1990: a two bedroom garden flat five minutes from the tube station. It cost £60,000. Our combined income as a probationer primary school teacher and junior copy editor was around £30,000. Fast forward 32 years and the flat would now cost well in excess of £500,000 and the combined salaries would, at best, be around £60,000. And therein lies the problem.
I bought my first flat in Archway (north of the bridge) and it cost more than that in 1987!
The London property market took off in about 1985/86.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Only if they bump off their parents. Average age when both your parents are dead is well into your 60s. I did the maths for you on this before using the ONS data.
Otherwise don't disagree much with the post.
but most kids of well off parents get money before parents death - either in drip feed or ways to get around paying care fees etc. Its not a meritocracy when the prime factor in how well off a generation is is not how much THEY EARN but how much they are given by parents
Not sure that is true especially for those not well off in the south, but that is not the point l was making anyway. Just pointing out you don't inherit generally in 40s and 50s. Nothing else.
@HYUFD to have children you have to survive till about 30 (in my case 41). So life expectancy of parents is greater than from birth. Also to inherit both parents have to die so you have to work out the life expectancy of of the older of 2 people which again is larger. That figure is well into the 90s (in my case 96 and still going strong). Subtract 30 from that figure and you get 60+
I accept you will say parents will help children before they die. That may or may not be true. Less so for those in the south who aren't wealthy.
It is rare even now for even one parent to survive unto their 90s. Average life expectancy in the UK is 82 and some peoples' parents will sadly die before that in their 60s or 70s or even earlier.
So some will inherit even in their 30s or 40s. If you want to be able to buy an affordable property for someone on an average wage move to the Midlands, the North, Scotland or Wales.
If you want to be able to buy in London and the Home counties either get a high earning job in London or have parents who are already home owners in London and the South East who can help you with equity release or in time inheritance to get on the property ladder. That is just the reality of Londom being a global city no matter how many houses we build
So basically if you're poor you can suck it. Jesus Christ dude, London has some of the worst poverty in Europe.
Spooks from Langley to Kyiv are likely to be quietly untangling an espionage conundrum that dare not speak its name, according to a former senior intelligence agent who was once regularly involved in such discussions: “Could President Putin really be assassinated?”
“The operation is on every intelligence agency’s design table,” a veteran clandestine operative for France’s General Directorate for External Security (DGSE) told The Daily Beast. “I know this because I used to plan them.”
You can see why he’s the Minister for Defence, not Foreign Affairs:
During 25 days 🇺🇦 is fighting with 🇷🇺warcriminals. In these days we destroyed almost 1500 armored vehicles,500 tanks of 🇷🇺terrorists.Part of them-thanks to 🇬🇧humanitarian aid.I personally thank @BWallaceMP for the courage&morale of 🇬🇧,which contrasts with some of other partners
There are plenty of pensioners living in a council house or renting on just state pension and high earning investment bankers or Big Tech employees or corporate lawyers in their 20s or early 30s who have bought expensive flats in Central London. Not everyone who is old is wealthy and not everyone who is young is poor.
I also agree Thatcher should have built replacement council houses from council house sales, which some councils now do
I agree with your points, but note that Right to Buy does not allow like-for-like replacement - councils like mine get only IIRC 40% of the cost to build a new one, so it's an open plughole. In Waverley we are just staying ahead of thre game with new council houses built partly from wider housing revenue slightly outpacing sales each year, but with 1000 eligible people on the waiting list it's painfully slow. I don't know any councillors (including Conservatives) who support Right to Buy continuing.
I still support right to buy because it is the only chance those on low incomes will ever have to buy a property. Yes there are still issues with building replacement properties and the level of funds for that but at least now unlike in the 1980s some funds from sales of council houses are going into building replacement council house properties
@CorrectHorseBattery - What's curious, is that plenty of people choose to leave their friends and family to go to London. Presumably you agree with me that that is nuts!
It's where the good jobs are, especially for larger companies.
But they're leaving their friends and family?
All we care about is money, the Tories would be proud
Horse - you often say that you could vote Tory, yet the way you refer to them drips with hatred, like the most rabid of the 'never kissed a Tory' types in the labour party.
What you seem to be saying is that could vote Conservative if they weren't the Conservative party.
The current crop are not covering themselves in glory. Too much venality, corruption but worse, plain incompetence. They need to be gone. But much of the country is instinctively conservative in outlook, and so a party that represents the best of that tradition still has a place.
Since the 2019 election the Government has had a once in a century pandemic, and now the worst international crisis in decades is raging in the Europe. These are facts, not excuses. We can demand better, and given the chance vote for it.
But I really don't think you convince with your 'I could vote Tory' claims...
The Tory Party give a good impression of despising anyone under 40. I think Horse is being more than reasonable in saying he might vote for them if they were different.
< Property taxes in the US are set locally, and paid to state and local governments.
The objections in the UK, relate to national taxes based on a national scale of house prices, which means that almost all of the revenue would come from a small part of the country, sent into the big national pot and not spent locally.
Most of us agree that more taxes raised locally, and fewer taxes raised nationally, with more competition between local authorities, would be a good thing.
I don't know about most of us - I certainly wouldn't support that. It would put councils in poorer areas in an impossible position, needing to raise taxes on low-value homes just to keep solvent, but undercut (or competed with, as you suggest) by councils in richer areas who could get better revenue from a lower percentage tax. Without redistribution from richer areas to poorer it'd be a nightmare, and I don't think it's on any party's agenda.
You can see why he’s the Minister for Defence, not Foreign Affairs:
During 25 days 🇺🇦 is fighting with 🇷🇺warcriminals. In these days we destroyed almost 1500 armored vehicles,500 tanks of 🇷🇺terrorists.Part of them-thanks to 🇬🇧humanitarian aid.I personally thank @BWallaceMP for the courage&morale of 🇬🇧,which contrasts with some of other partners
There is little doubt which Country Ukraine thinks has helped their military effort the most.
Undoubtedly the United States and in particular Joe Biden, but they are not getting the full credit for it from the Ukrainian government, which is mildly noteworthy.
I suspect that's because the Ukrainians, while grateful, know the USA could do so much more, particularly in driving NATO actions. The UK may be doing as much as it can, so even though it too doesnt support NATO intervention, they know our view on that is not as vital.
Or maybe the value of Boris spamming the Kyiv phone lines every day.
Oh no! An absolute genius, every book a masterpiece. How awful.
Did not get on with his writing - maybe I just didn't get the point. I read the whole of When We Were Orphans which seemed to be about an Inspector Clouseau fantasist. Was he actually intended to be a great detective? Or did I miss the point entirely? I'm sure many of you will disagree!
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1505955060408324103 Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu are preparing to involve "Youth Army" minors aged 17-18 years in the Russia-Ukraine war, Defense Intelligence of Ukraine reports
Desperate.
The Ukrainian border agency said today that 400,000 Ukrainians had returned to the country since the start of the war, about 75-80% men, presumably mostly to help defend the country from the Russians.
The gap in willingness to fight is very large.
I'd be surprised if there are many in the Russian military who actually want to be fighting this war, but amongst the Ukrainian population they may not want to fight, but they sure as hell will do so to protect their people and country. This is not some far away war about an issue that ought to be resolvable diplomatically, this very existence of Ukraine rests on the outcome. Other than your own immediate safety there really isn't much greater motivation.
For most people, it would be a case of wanting to do what you can. You would try and help. If you regard the place as home, and are not implacably opposed to the government, you would go back to defend it - you wouldn't want to be a refugee somewhere else. This is how I would feel about Britain, if it were under attack in some way. I can't imagine being able to live with myself knowing that other people are doing the fighting on my behalf.
Interesting the gender dimension to all of this. Suddenly it is just accepted that 'men go to fight in the war'. I've never seen this idea questioned in the discussion about Ukraine. I've been suggesting to my wife that I think that gender norms are so deeply entrenched in human psychology that they can never be truly deconstructed.
I'm not sure that it is like that at all - the Armed Forces in Ukraine seem to be very equal.
The "Russian Ship: Go F*ck Yourself" vid was made by a female. I have seen an interview with a veteran female sniper from 2014 (ie for some years), who has unretired from a previous military career, and come back into the fight. Kill tally: 10.
Checking, women have been in combat roles in Ukraine since 2016, and before this Russian war were 10-20% of the Armed Forces. Which is in line with the norm in eg Western Europe.
Plus you remember that mini-flap in a couple of Western newspapers in I think 2021 about "female soldiers in heels in Ukraine".
But the discrepancy in universal scale conscription is interesting. How would you do it?
But one thing i noticed form todays report. the 2 breakaway pro Russia 'states in the Dombas have now increased the upper age for conscription from 55 to 65. yes they are now looking at men in there 60s to fill there ranks.
There shortage in manpower must be massive for that to seem sensible!
This excerpt jumped out at me:
"Local social media imagery depicted new conscripts equipped with the Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle—which has not been produced since 1973 and was first produced in 1891."
I can't believe that the Russians would have run out of Kalashnikovs, so what do we make of this? Seems to be a particularly cruel and nihilistic move.
And much of their transport relies on the wheel, technology first produced in 2000 BC. Guns last forever if you keep the rust away, and there's nothing obsolete about a bolt action. So what is the problem?
I suspect that the Mosin-Nagants are the equivalent of the wooden cut outs we have seen pictures of Ukrainian recruits with. A training thing....
IIRC I've actually shot one - a friend had it as a cheap rifle, long time back. After the fall of the Soviet Union, they showed up in big numbers on the civilian markets around the world.
Giving them to front line soldiers would make as much sense as giving them Lee-Enfield No.4s. They might be sniper conversions that are being talked about? The ones they made from the No.4s were supposed to be not bad...
Otherwise it just reminds me of the cadet thing of giving you a heavy item to drill with - and if the instructor is particularly scared of the recruits (LOL) he can take the bolts away, easily.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1505955060408324103 Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu are preparing to involve "Youth Army" minors aged 17-18 years in the Russia-Ukraine war, Defense Intelligence of Ukraine reports
Desperate.
The Ukrainian border agency said today that 400,000 Ukrainians had returned to the country since the start of the war, about 75-80% men, presumably mostly to help defend the country from the Russians.
The gap in willingness to fight is very large.
I'd be surprised if there are many in the Russian military who actually want to be fighting this war, but amongst the Ukrainian population they may not want to fight, but they sure as hell will do so to protect their people and country. This is not some far away war about an issue that ought to be resolvable diplomatically, this very existence of Ukraine rests on the outcome. Other than your own immediate safety there really isn't much greater motivation.
For most people, it would be a case of wanting to do what you can. You would try and help. If you regard the place as home, and are not implacably opposed to the government, you would go back to defend it - you wouldn't want to be a refugee somewhere else. This is how I would feel about Britain, if it were under attack in some way. I can't imagine being able to live with myself knowing that other people are doing the fighting on my behalf.
Interesting the gender dimension to all of this. Suddenly it is just accepted that 'men go to fight in the war'. I've never seen this idea questioned in the discussion about Ukraine. I've been suggesting to my wife that I think that gender norms are so deeply entrenched in human psychology that they can never be truly deconstructed.
I'm not sure that it is like that at all - the Armed Forces in Ukraine seem to be very equal.
The "Russian Ship: Go F*ck Yourself" vid was made by a female. I have seen an interview with a veteran female sniper from 2014 (ie for some years), who has unretired from a previous military career, and come back into the fight. Kill tally: 10.
Checking, women have been in combat roles in Ukraine since 2016, and before this Russian war were 10-20% of the Armed Forces. Which is in line with the norm in eg Western Europe.
Plus you remember that mini-flap in a couple of Western newspapers in I think 2021 about "female soldiers in heels in Ukraine".
But the discrepancy in universal scale conscription is interesting. How would you do it?
I think Sweden has conscription for men and women now.
You can see why he’s the Minister for Defence, not Foreign Affairs:
During 25 days 🇺🇦 is fighting with 🇷🇺warcriminals. In these days we destroyed almost 1500 armored vehicles,500 tanks of 🇷🇺terrorists.Part of them-thanks to 🇬🇧humanitarian aid.I personally thank @BWallaceMP for the courage&morale of 🇬🇧,which contrasts with some of other partners
There is little doubt which Country Ukraine thinks has helped their military effort the most.
Undoubtedly the United States and in particular Joe Biden, but they are not getting the full credit for it from the Ukrainian government, which is mildly noteworthy.
I suspect that's because the Ukrainians, while grateful, know the USA could do so much more, particularly in driving NATO actions. The UK may be doing as much as it can, so even though it too doesnt support NATO intervention, they know our view on that is not as vital.
Or maybe the value of Boris spamming the Kyiv phone lines every day.
Maybe. I do note the Ukrainian Defence minister has issued dozens of tweets in many languages acknowledging help from different countries including the UK and USA. But the US help was critical to the Ukrainian success so far. Without it they would probably be defeated now. But it is being somewhat downplayed for whatever reason.
When I was at University all the boys played that game Diplomacy. You know, the one where you moved tanks and ships and men and made alliances in order to conquer Europe.
I feel that pb.com has become a bit like that of late. 75% of posts are boys with fake toys talking military strategies.
I know there's a real war going on, and it's devastating, but the armchair generals on here ain't gonna solve it.
You have consistently called for an NFZ on here. Do you count yourself amongst the 'armchair generals' ? Your comment is little more than a poor effort at trolling. D-
BTW, at times there has apparently been an active Diplomacy group on here.
Yes, for what it's worth I was World Champion at Diplomacy a while back (so-called by the big American convention that runs week-long events). Heathener is right that we're all speculating with more or less experience and direct knowledge of what's happening, and fortunately none of us are in a position to implement whatever half-baked military plans we think up. But as others have said, it's one of PB's attractions that there are quite a few people who know what they're talking about on any given subject, including this one.
"Boris Johnson "desperate" to go to Ukraine - senior Conservative
The Tory chairman, Oliver Dowden, has claimed British prime minister Boris Johnson is “desperate to go to Ukraine” and has a “real emotional connection” with the Ukrainian people."
Boris being Boris, I suppose. There is no situation so tragic that the man will not make it about him and his self-promotion.
In fairness it is Churchillian - Churchill wanted to be on the beaches at D-Day and it took a direct order from the King to stop him. Both are/were terrible ideas....
Was it a direct order?
I thought it was a case of Eisenhower telling King George VI about Churchill's plans to be in Normandy on D-Day and the King telling Churchill that if Churchill went to Normandy on D-Day then so would he (so to stop Churchill going.)
That led to Churchill having the same fears as Eisenhower, one lucky German attack and the King dies on D-Day then no matter how much of a success D-Day was the death of the King/Churchill would overshadow the invasion and possibly a morale destroying event which could impact the outcome of the war, so Churchill decided not go.
The leaders of Poland, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic visited Lviv last week.
I'm not sure any was quite so crass as to claim a 'real emotional connection' with the entire Ukraine population.
I guess this flows from his viewing of the war as akin to Brexit. As the leader of our own national independence movement he feels spiritually close to the Ukrainian people as they seek their equivalent. He watches them fight the Russian tanks, refuse to surrender to the pitiless shelling, give 2 fingers to Putin, and it triggers memories of his own struggle against the odds.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Housing everywhere is not really affordable for young people any more. In London I pay half my post-tax salary to rent a small room in a flat with two other people. If I moved back home three hours from London... I'd still be paying half my post-tax salary on rent, because I'd get paid much less (and then I'd get completely fucked on buying, insuring, fueling and maintaining a car because there's no reliable public transport).
But then again I did buy a sandwich from Pret last month so it's probably my fault.
One of the interesting things about moving to New York is trying to get my head around housing costs.
Manhattan is of course grossly expensive and more than comparable with London Zones 1 & 2.
But you don’t need to go out soooo much before prices drop away rapidly. For example, in Montclair, New Jersey - a prosperous and vaguely arty commuter town, 20 miles outside Manhattan - you can get a very nice 2000 or 3000 sq ft house for circa £500k.
Try doing that in Tunbridge Wells.
Americans earn more, are taxed less, and have lower housing (and energy) costs.
I imagine the NJ zipcode has a big impact on that. Also, direct comparisons on house sizes aren't really fair, as US homes in the suburbs are just bigger.
Also, it depends which way you go from London. But, say Welwyn Garden City, 25 miles from central London. Here is quick random search, you can get a decent house for £500k.
I imagine if you go for say Sussex rather than Surrey, is a bit like NJ vs NY state.
Upstate NY is where is most surprising. Cold Spring type way is really very very nice and properties aren't crazy money and it is still easy to get into the city.
That house is pokey as hell, glazed with UVC, and you can barely swing a cat in the back garden.
It kind of proves my point.
You can get this - looks around 3000 sq ft - for literally less than the one you showed me.
The two houses posted illustrate @Gardenwalker point to a comical degree. The lot size of the US house is over 9000 sq feet ! The obsession in the UK with numbers of bedrooms rather than floor area is probably to blame. Though property tax on the US house is almost 20k a year
Funny how people ignore eye-wateringly high property taxes in at least some states when explaining why they cannot be raised here.
Property taxes in the US are set locally, and paid to state and local governments.
The objections in the UK, relate to national taxes based on a national scale of house prices, which means that almost all of the revenue would come from a small part of the country, sent into the big national pot and not spent locally.
Most of us agree that more taxes raised locally, and fewer taxes raised nationally, with more competition between local authorities, would be a good thing.
Not sure if that - "almost all" - is actually the case, the small part of the country is more like 20-30% perhaps, and the "almost all" is perhaps more like 50%.
That is the part of the nation that has benefited from the same overinflated proportion of tax subsidised house price increases, so it seems more like justice than a problem.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Housing everywhere is not really affordable for young people any more. In London I pay half my post-tax salary to rent a small room in a flat with two other people. If I moved back home three hours from London... I'd still be paying half my post-tax salary on rent, because I'd get paid much less (and then I'd get completely fucked on buying, insuring, fueling and maintaining a car because there's no reliable public transport).
But then again I did buy a sandwich from Pret last month so it's probably my fault.
One of the interesting things about moving to New York is trying to get my head around housing costs.
Manhattan is of course grossly expensive and more than comparable with London Zones 1 & 2.
But you don’t need to go out soooo much before prices drop away rapidly. For example, in Montclair, New Jersey - a prosperous and vaguely arty commuter town, 20 miles outside Manhattan - you can get a very nice 2000 or 3000 sq ft house for circa £500k.
Try doing that in Tunbridge Wells.
Americans earn more, are taxed less, and have lower housing (and energy) costs.
I imagine the NJ zipcode has a big impact on that. Also, direct comparisons on house sizes aren't really fair, as US homes in the suburbs are just bigger.
Also, it depends which way you go from London. But, say Welwyn Garden City, 25 miles from central London. Here is quick random search, you can get a decent house for £500k.
I imagine if you go for say Sussex rather than Surrey, is a bit like NJ vs NY state.
Upstate NY is where is most surprising. Cold Spring type way is really very very nice and properties aren't crazy money and it is still easy to get into the city.
That house is pokey as hell, glazed with UVC, and you can barely swing a cat in the back garden.
It kind of proves my point.
You can get this - looks around 3000 sq ft - for literally less than the one you showed me.
The two houses posted illustrate @Gardenwalker point to a comical degree. The lot size of the US house is over 9000 sq feet ! The obsession in the UK with numbers of bedrooms rather than floor area is probably to blame. Though property tax on the US house is almost 20k a year
Funny how people ignore eye-wateringly high property taxes in at least some states when explaining why they cannot be raised here.
Property taxes in the US are set locally, and paid to state and local governments.
The objections in the UK, relate to national taxes based on a national scale of house prices, which means that almost all of the revenue would come from a small part of the country, sent into the big national pot and not spent locally.
Most of us agree that more taxes raised locally, and fewer taxes raised nationally, with more competition between local authorities, would be a good thing.
"Most of us agree..." that that is a wonderful bullshit start to any line - I must use it more often.
Most of us agree that Brexit is a heap of shite.
Most of us agree that Radiohead are... [Complete it yourself - I don't want to be banned yet.]
You can see why he’s the Minister for Defence, not Foreign Affairs:
During 25 days 🇺🇦 is fighting with 🇷🇺warcriminals. In these days we destroyed almost 1500 armored vehicles,500 tanks of 🇷🇺terrorists.Part of them-thanks to 🇬🇧humanitarian aid.I personally thank @BWallaceMP for the courage&morale of 🇬🇧,which contrasts with some of other partners
There is little doubt which Country Ukraine thinks has helped their military effort the most.
Undoubtedly the United States and in particular Joe Biden, but they are not getting the full credit for it from the Ukrainian government, which is mildly noteworthy.
I suspect that's because the Ukrainians, while grateful, know the USA could do so much more, particularly in driving NATO actions. The UK may be doing as much as it can, so even though it too doesnt support NATO intervention, they know our view on that is not as vital.
Or maybe the value of Boris spamming the Kyiv phone lines every day.
Maybe. I do note the Ukrainian Defence minister has issued dozens of tweets in many languages acknowledging help from different countries including the UK and USA. But the US help was critical to the Ukrainian success so far. Without it they would probably be defeated now. But it is being somewhat downplayed for whatever reason.
Could be same reason Russia seems to be shittalking the UK at times more than the US - doesnt want to lob too many direct verbal attacks at the big boys. Maybe it suits everyone to subtly underplay how central the US is.
I went to school with one semi-famous person - a film director. Oddly, it was not at one of my private schools, but one of my state ones. Reading up on him, we were definitely in the same year.
But I cannot remember him. Not one bit. I do remember something about him, though, and the ensuing sadness. But it was as a vague 'oh, sh*t' about someone.
It was not a big school, or a big year. So I must have played with him. I just cannot remember him.
In a coincidence, a cousin is in a band with someone who knows him well. I keep on meaning to ask if the director remembers me, as I was rather (ahem) noticeable at the time...
< Property taxes in the US are set locally, and paid to state and local governments.
The objections in the UK, relate to national taxes based on a national scale of house prices, which means that almost all of the revenue would come from a small part of the country, sent into the big national pot and not spent locally.
Most of us agree that more taxes raised locally, and fewer taxes raised nationally, with more competition between local authorities, would be a good thing.
I don't know about most of us - I certainly wouldn't support that. It would put councils in poorer areas in an impossible position, needing to raise taxes on low-value homes just to keep solvent, but undercut (or competed with, as you suggest) by councils in richer areas who could get better revenue from a lower percentage tax. Without redistribution from richer areas to poorer it'd be a nightmare, and I don't think it's on any party's agenda.
But unless you do something the current council tax bands are utterly useless but can't be changed because it would reveal the scale of the difference between prices in the north and south.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Housing everywhere is not really affordable for young people any more. In London I pay half my post-tax salary to rent a small room in a flat with two other people. If I moved back home three hours from London... I'd still be paying half my post-tax salary on rent, because I'd get paid much less (and then I'd get completely fucked on buying, insuring, fueling and maintaining a car because there's no reliable public transport).
But then again I did buy a sandwich from Pret last month so it's probably my fault.
One of the interesting things about moving to New York is trying to get my head around housing costs.
Manhattan is of course grossly expensive and more than comparable with London Zones 1 & 2.
But you don’t need to go out soooo much before prices drop away rapidly. For example, in Montclair, New Jersey - a prosperous and vaguely arty commuter town, 20 miles outside Manhattan - you can get a very nice 2000 or 3000 sq ft house for circa £500k.
Try doing that in Tunbridge Wells.
Americans earn more, are taxed less, and have lower housing (and energy) costs.
I imagine the NJ zipcode has a big impact on that. Also, direct comparisons on house sizes aren't really fair, as US homes in the suburbs are just bigger.
Also, it depends which way you go from London. But, say Welwyn Garden City, 25 miles from central London. Here is quick random search, you can get a decent house for £500k.
I imagine if you go for say Sussex rather than Surrey, is a bit like NJ vs NY state.
Upstate NY is where is most surprising. Cold Spring type way is really very very nice and properties aren't crazy money and it is still easy to get into the city.
That house is pokey as hell, glazed with UVC, and you can barely swing a cat in the back garden.
It kind of proves my point.
You can get this - looks around 3000 sq ft - for literally less than the one you showed me.
The two houses posted illustrate @Gardenwalker point to a comical degree. The lot size of the US house is over 9000 sq feet ! The obsession in the UK with numbers of bedrooms rather than floor area is probably to blame. Though property tax on the US house is almost 20k a year
Funny how people ignore eye-wateringly high property taxes in at least some states when explaining why they cannot be raised here.
Property taxes in the US are set locally, and paid to state and local governments.
The objections in the UK, relate to national taxes based on a national scale of house prices, which means that almost all of the revenue would come from a small part of the country, sent into the big national pot and not spent locally.
Most of us agree that more taxes raised locally, and fewer taxes raised nationally, with more competition between local authorities, would be a good thing.
Not sure if that - "almost all" - is actually the case, the small part of the country is more like 20-30% perhaps, and the "almost all" is perhaps more like 50%.
That is the part of the nation that has benefited from the same overinflated proportion of tax subsidised house price increases, so it seems more like justice than a problem.
@Sandpit struggling with proportions this morning... 'almost all' = quite a bit; 'most of us' = me and the missus.
You can see why he’s the Minister for Defence, not Foreign Affairs:
During 25 days 🇺🇦 is fighting with 🇷🇺warcriminals. In these days we destroyed almost 1500 armored vehicles,500 tanks of 🇷🇺terrorists.Part of them-thanks to 🇬🇧humanitarian aid.I personally thank @BWallaceMP for the courage&morale of 🇬🇧,which contrasts with some of other partners
There is little doubt which Country Ukraine thinks has helped their military effort the most.
Undoubtedly the United States and in particular Joe Biden, but they are not getting the full credit for it from the Ukrainian government, which is mildly noteworthy.
I suspect that's because the Ukrainians, while grateful, know the USA could do so much more, particularly in driving NATO actions. The UK may be doing as much as it can, so even though it too doesnt support NATO intervention, they know our view on that is not as vital.
Or maybe the value of Boris spamming the Kyiv phone lines every day.
Maybe. I do note the Ukrainian Defence minister has issued dozens of tweets in many languages acknowledging help from different countries including the UK and USA. But the US help was critical to the Ukrainian success so far. Without it they would probably be defeated now. But it is being somewhat downplayed for whatever reason.
Could be same reason Russia seems to be shittalking the UK at times more than the US - doesnt want to lob too many direct verbal attacks at the big boys. Maybe it suits everyone to subtly underplay how central the US is.
Possibly Ukraine is trying to go for as wide a coalition of support as possible and realising some of its potential partners don't get along with the US is downplaying the criticality of the support from that country. It's an observation and maybe it doesn't matter.
< Property taxes in the US are set locally, and paid to state and local governments.
The objections in the UK, relate to national taxes based on a national scale of house prices, which means that almost all of the revenue would come from a small part of the country, sent into the big national pot and not spent locally.
Most of us agree that more taxes raised locally, and fewer taxes raised nationally, with more competition between local authorities, would be a good thing.
I don't know about most of us - I certainly wouldn't support that. It would put councils in poorer areas in an impossible position, needing to raise taxes on low-value homes just to keep solvent, but undercut (or competed with, as you suggest) by councils in richer areas who could get better revenue from a lower percentage tax. Without redistribution from richer areas to poorer it'd be a nightmare, and I don't think it's on any party's agenda.
But unless you do something the current council tax bands are utterly useless but can't be changed because it would reveal the scale of the difference between prices in the north and south.
Theres a difference between prices in the north and south? That's shocking!
Good job council tax bands completely mask it, eh?
< Property taxes in the US are set locally, and paid to state and local governments.
The objections in the UK, relate to national taxes based on a national scale of house prices, which means that almost all of the revenue would come from a small part of the country, sent into the big national pot and not spent locally.
Most of us agree that more taxes raised locally, and fewer taxes raised nationally, with more competition between local authorities, would be a good thing.
I don't know about most of us - I certainly wouldn't support that. It would put councils in poorer areas in an impossible position, needing to raise taxes on low-value homes just to keep solvent, but undercut (or competed with, as you suggest) by councils in richer areas who could get better revenue from a lower percentage tax. Without redistribution from richer areas to poorer it'd be a nightmare, and I don't think it's on any party's agenda.
But unless you do something the current council tax bands are utterly useless but can't be changed because it would reveal the scale of the difference between prices in the north and south.
And lots of Labour voters in London would be stung. It's a big problem for Labour as you just know that Londoner's don't feel rich and don't think that they owe northerners anything.
You can see why he’s the Minister for Defence, not Foreign Affairs:
During 25 days 🇺🇦 is fighting with 🇷🇺warcriminals. In these days we destroyed almost 1500 armored vehicles,500 tanks of 🇷🇺terrorists.Part of them-thanks to 🇬🇧humanitarian aid.I personally thank @BWallaceMP for the courage&morale of 🇬🇧,which contrasts with some of other partners
There is little doubt which Country Ukraine thinks has helped their military effort the most.
Undoubtedly the United States and in particular Joe Biden, but they are not getting the full credit for it from the Ukrainian government, which is mildly noteworthy.
I suspect that's because the Ukrainians, while grateful, know the USA could do so much more, particularly in driving NATO actions. The UK may be doing as much as it can, so even though it too doesnt support NATO intervention, they know our view on that is not as vital.
Or maybe the value of Boris spamming the Kyiv phone lines every day.
And ignoring "part of them" in the original tweet. Britain is doing a lot and more than most but we must suspect each message is carefully tuned to its audience.
@CorrectHorseBattery - What's curious, is that plenty of people choose to leave their friends and family to go to London. Presumably you agree with me that that is nuts!
It's where the good jobs are, especially for larger companies.
But they're leaving their friends and family?
All we care about is money, the Tories would be proud
Horse - you often say that you could vote Tory, yet the way you refer to them drips with hatred, like the most rabid of the 'never kissed a Tory' types in the labour party.
What you seem to be saying is that could vote Conservative if they weren't the Conservative party.
The current crop are not covering themselves in glory. Too much venality, corruption but worse, plain incompetence. They need to be gone. But much of the country is instinctively conservative in outlook, and so a party that represents the best of that tradition still has a place.
Since the 2019 election the Government has had a once in a century pandemic, and now the worst international crisis in decades is raging in the Europe. These are facts, not excuses. We can demand better, and given the chance vote for it.
But I really don't think you convince with your 'I could vote Tory' claims...
I'd like them to be a proper competitor to Labour, at least prior to May they at least pretended to care about anyone under 90. You don't have to believe me but I am pro capitalism and a social democrat, there should be no reason why they cannot get votes from my age group. But right now they make it obvious they don't want them.
So if that's your attitude, then you're not going to win our votes anytime soon. Perhaps question why we hate them, as opposed to just hitting me with Tory propaganda points/
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Only if they bump off their parents. Average age when both your parents are dead is well into your 60s. I did the maths for you on this before using the ONS data.
Otherwise don't disagree much with the post.
but most kids of well off parents get money before parents death - either in drip feed or ways to get around paying care fees etc. Its not a meritocracy when the prime factor in how well off a generation is is not how much THEY EARN but how much they are given by parents
Not sure that is true especially for those not well off in the south, but that is not the point l was making anyway. Just pointing out you don't inherit generally in 40s and 50s. Nothing else.
@HYUFD to have children you have to survive till about 30 (in my case 41). So life expectancy of parents is greater than from birth. Also to inherit both parents have to die so you have to work out the life expectancy of of the older of 2 people which again is larger. That figure is well into the 90s (in my case 96 and still going strong). Subtract 30 from that figure and you get 60+
I accept you will say parents will help children before they die. That may or may not be true. Less so for those in the south who aren't wealthy.
It is rare even now for even one parent to survive unto their 90s. Average life expectancy in the UK is 82 and some peoples' parents will sadly die before that in their 60s or 70s or even earlier.
So some will inherit even in their 30s or 40s. If you want to be able to buy an affordable property for someone on an average wage move to the Midlands, the North, Scotland or Wales.
If you want to be able to buy in London and the Home counties either get a high earning job in London or have parents who are already home owners in London and the South East who can help you with equity release or in time inheritance to get on the property ladder. That is just the reality of Londom being a global city no matter how many houses we build.
Or else move to somewhere cheap on the margins like Dagenham, Clacton or Margate
I do not disagree with most of your post, but the life expectancy figure is plain wrong. You have taken life expectancy at birth. This is wrong as I explained earlier. Several months ago I worked it out using the ONS data.
To have children you have to reach adulthood. A baby can't have a child. So you have to look up life expectancy of an adult. That is significantly higher. Secondly the life expectancy of one person is less than the life expectancy of both of 2 people dying.
So whereas the life expectancy of a new born is 82 the life expectancy of any one of two 30 year olds is around 93 - 95.
Even if you reach 65 you only have a life expectancy of 83 if male and 86 if female, not over 90
Well to be accurate it is 84 and 87 from the ONS calculator using latest data, but you have missed the point of the average life expectancy of the survivor of 2 people. Remember both have to die to inherit. The life expectancy of a single person is less than the life expectancy of the survivor of 2 people. On average any one of two people will live longer than one person. That is where the 93 - 95 comes from. It requires a little maths.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Only if they bump off their parents. Average age when both your parents are dead is well into your 60s. I did the maths for you on this before using the ONS data.
Otherwise don't disagree much with the post.
but most kids of well off parents get money before parents death - either in drip feed or ways to get around paying care fees etc. Its not a meritocracy when the prime factor in how well off a generation is is not how much THEY EARN but how much they are given by parents
Not sure that is true especially for those not well off in the south, but that is not the point l was making anyway. Just pointing out you don't inherit generally in 40s and 50s. Nothing else.
@HYUFD to have children you have to survive till about 30 (in my case 41). So life expectancy of parents is greater than from birth. Also to inherit both parents have to die so you have to work out the life expectancy of of the older of 2 people which again is larger. That figure is well into the 90s (in my case 96 and still going strong). Subtract 30 from that figure and you get 60+
I accept you will say parents will help children before they die. That may or may not be true. Less so for those in the south who aren't wealthy.
It is rare even now for even one parent to survive unto their 90s. Average life expectancy in the UK is 82 and some peoples' parents will sadly die before that in their 60s or 70s or even earlier.
So some will inherit even in their 30s or 40s. If you want to be able to buy an affordable property for someone on an average wage move to the Midlands, the North, Scotland or Wales.
If you want to be able to buy in London and the Home counties either get a high earning job in London or have parents who are already home owners in London and the South East who can help you with equity release or in time inheritance to get on the property ladder. That is just the reality of Londom being a global city no matter how many houses we build.
Or else move to somewhere cheap on the margins like Dagenham, Clacton or Margate
I do not disagree with most of your post, but the life expectancy figure is plain wrong. You have taken life expectancy at birth. This is wrong as I explained earlier. Several months ago I worked it out using the ONS data.
To have children you have to reach adulthood. A baby can't have a child. So you have to look up life expectancy of an adult. That is significantly higher. Secondly the life expectancy of one person is less than the life expectancy of both of 2 people dying.
So whereas the life expectancy of a new born is 82 the life expectancy of any one of two 30 year olds is around 93 - 95.
Even if you reach 65 you only have a life expectancy of 83 if male and 86 if female, not over 90
Well to be accurate it is 84 and 87 from the ONS calculator using latest data, but you have missed the point of the average life expectancy of the survivor of 2 people. Remember both have to die to inherit. The life expectancy of a single person is less than the life expectancy of the survivor of 2 people. On average any one of two people will live longer than one person. That is where the 93 - 95 comes from. It requires a little maths.
We bought our first place in Archway, London N19 in 1990: a two bedroom garden flat five minutes from the tube station. It cost £60,000. Our combined income as a probationer primary school teacher and junior copy editor was around £30,000. Fast forward 32 years and the flat would now cost well in excess of £500,000 and the combined salaries would, at best, be around £60,000. And therein lies the problem.
Retford is not low priced for the area, by any means.
And since the general area is in reach of Sheffield / Nottingham / Derby / Chesterfield, there are likely to be plenty of jobs of all types available.
Also commutable from London. Move to Retford. Buy a cheaper but bigger home. Use some of the savings on a season ticket. Use some on regular weekends in London at a nice hotel. You know it makes sense!
You can see why he’s the Minister for Defence, not Foreign Affairs:
During 25 days 🇺🇦 is fighting with 🇷🇺warcriminals. In these days we destroyed almost 1500 armored vehicles,500 tanks of 🇷🇺terrorists.Part of them-thanks to 🇬🇧humanitarian aid.I personally thank @BWallaceMP for the courage&morale of 🇬🇧,which contrasts with some of other partners
There is little doubt which Country Ukraine thinks has helped their military effort the most.
Undoubtedly the United States and in particular Joe Biden, but they are not getting the full credit for it from the Ukrainian government, which is mildly noteworthy.
I suspect that's because the Ukrainians, while grateful, know the USA could do so much more, particularly in driving NATO actions. The UK may be doing as much as it can, so even though it too doesnt support NATO intervention, they know our view on that is not as vital.
Or maybe the value of Boris spamming the Kyiv phone lines every day.
Maybe. I do note the Ukrainian Defence minister has issued dozens of tweets in many languages acknowledging help from different countries including the UK and USA. But the US help was critical to the Ukrainian success so far. Without it they would probably be defeated now. But it is being somewhat downplayed for whatever reason.
Could be same reason Russia seems to be shittalking the UK at times more than the US - doesnt want to lob too many direct verbal attacks at the big boys. Maybe it suits everyone to subtly underplay how central the US is.
Or maybe the UK has been supplying them with weapons and training for the past 7 years. I realise its very hard to give the past and present UK Governments any credit in this, but maybe the Ukrainian chap was just saying how it is..
When I was at University all the boys played that game Diplomacy. You know, the one where you moved tanks and ships and men and made alliances in order to conquer Europe.
I feel that pb.com has become a bit like that of late. 75% of posts are boys with fake toys talking military strategies.
I know there's a real war going on, and it's devastating, but the armchair generals on here ain't gonna solve it.
You have consistently called for an NFZ on here. Do you count yourself amongst the 'armchair generals' ? Your comment is little more than a poor effort at trolling. D-
BTW, at times there has apparently been an active Diplomacy group on here.
Yes, for what it's worth I was World Champion at Diplomacy a while back (so-called by the big American convention that runs week-long events). Heathener is right that we're all speculating with more or less experience and direct knowledge of what's happening, and fortunately none of us are in a position to implement whatever half-baked military plans we think up. But as others have said, it's one of PB's attractions that there are quite a few people who know what they're talking about on any given subject, including this one.
If you got re-elected you could be Keir Starmer’s Defence Minister!
Hmm. Maybe a hope of a real spring in the offing ?
"Earlier, Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych said in a televised interview that active hostilities between Ukraine and Russia could end within 2-3 weeks."
Comments
(Mr Eabhal. He/him. A small bow if you meet me in person.)
During 25 days 🇺🇦 is fighting with 🇷🇺warcriminals. In these days we destroyed almost 1500 armored vehicles,500 tanks of 🇷🇺terrorists.Part of them-thanks to 🇬🇧humanitarian aid.I personally thank @BWallaceMP for the courage&morale of 🇬🇧,which contrasts with some of other partners
https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1505913672241192961
So some will inherit even in their 30s or 40s. If you want to be able to buy an affordable property for someone on an average wage move to the Midlands, the North, Scotland or Wales.
If you want to be able to buy in London and the Home counties either get a high earning job in London or have parents who are already home owners in London and the South East who can help you with equity release or in time inheritance to get on the property ladder. That is just the reality of Londom being a global city no matter how many houses we build.
Or else move to somewhere cheap on the margins like Dagenham, Clacton or Margate
That's what belittling talk of armchair generals amounts to - suggesting people should not talk about things they are not involved in or can effect, ie 99% of things.
Average property price in the South East now over £400k and in London over £600k
I am more worried about the recovery and will be taking the advice here re physio. I don't want to lose my fitness.
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/117421043#/?channel=RES_BUY
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/120655205#/?channel=RES_BUY
https://twitter.com/FaberBooksUK/status/1506183312456486912
This does not start until Oct 2023.
Anyone who begins "the care journey" now will not be eligible for the cap.
"Henry VIII established a second principle by statute: that such a vessel must be English-built and a majority of the crew must be English-born."
Also you can walk/run while in the pool (sans flippers) and swim as well it all helps.
And do it often as you can. If you can't walk in to the pool just about every public pool has a crane/lift. They might also have an on-site wheelchair or take one of your own if you are non-weight bearing (I appreciate you went the zimmer route).
I have a latest just waiting to be read by my desk!
However for the Conservatives London is now a lost cause overall.
Even in 2019 Labour won London by a 16% margin over the Tories even as the Tories won the UK overall by a 12% margin over Labour and a comfortable majority of 80 seats
The objections in the UK, relate to national taxes based on a national scale of house prices, which means that almost all of the revenue would come from a small part of the country, sent into the big national pot and not spent locally.
Most of us agree that more taxes raised locally, and fewer taxes raised nationally, with more competition between local authorities, would be a good thing.
There seems to be a serious lack of understanding of the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, notably among brexiteers - which is odd, because it seems to be mainly what they were after. It is not illegal to pass laws. Judicial Review is of *executive* acts, not of primary *legislation.* The government takes most of their money away in tax, makes them MOT their cars and prohibits them from taking MDMA and having intimate relations with their pet goat, and still they ask piteously "what can government do* rather than what can't it do.
And since the general area is in reach of Sheffield / Nottingham / Derby / Chesterfield, there are likely to be plenty of jobs of all types available.
To have children you have to reach adulthood. A baby can't have a child. So you have to look up life expectancy of an adult. That is significantly higher. Secondly the life expectancy of one person is less than the life expectancy of both of 2 people dying.
So whereas the life expectancy of a new born is 82 the life expectancy of any one of two 30 year olds is around 93 - 95.
https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1505997812785365001
These clowns have no principles and are immoral jerks. PLenty of poor older people also paying mortgages/rents etc, they are not all millionaires in London mansions as thegreedy whiners on here would have you believe. In teh 70's you had to save for years , go through interrogation by your bank manager and hand over most of your wages to buy a property, people just had to get on with it.
Tories selling social housing has been the issue that caused the rent increases not pensioners.
Envy is not a good look.
There are plenty of pensioners living in a council house or renting on just state pension and high earning investment bankers or Big Tech employees or corporate lawyers in their 20s or early 30s who have bought expensive flats in Central London. Not everyone who is old is wealthy and not everyone who is young is poor.
I also agree Thatcher should have built replacement council houses from council house sales, which some councils now do
“The operation is on every intelligence agency’s design table,” a veteran clandestine operative for France’s General Directorate for External Security (DGSE) told The Daily Beast. “I know this because I used to plan them.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-black-ops-agent-explains-how-putin-could-meet-his-end
On the latter point, whether they are actually winning or not they're certainly not losing to the point despair overcomes rage. Putin should appreciate 'Russians' are able to endure suffering.
🎵 STRONG BORIS 🎵 GREAT NATION 🎵
Those Cummins diesels though, they’ll run on sunflower oil, Jet-A, or just about anything else combustible that can be shoved into the tank.
Now I am aware.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2017to2019
What you seem to be saying is that could vote Conservative if they weren't the Conservative party.
The current crop are not covering themselves in glory. Too much venality, corruption but worse, plain incompetence. They need to be gone. But much of the country is instinctively conservative in outlook, and so a party that represents the best of that tradition still has a place.
Since the 2019 election the Government has had a once in a century pandemic, and now the worst international crisis in decades is raging in the Europe. These are facts, not excuses. We can demand better, and given the chance vote for it.
But I really don't think you convince with your 'I could vote Tory' claims...
Putin needs to go, in a manner that ends Putinism. Makes it clear to be a failure, in of itself.
Or maybe the value of Boris spamming the Kyiv phone lines every day.
I'm sure many of you will disagree!
The "Russian Ship: Go F*ck Yourself" vid was made by a female. I have seen an interview with a veteran female sniper from 2014 (ie for some years), who has unretired from a previous military career, and come back into the fight. Kill tally: 10.
Checking, women have been in combat roles in Ukraine since 2016, and before this Russian war were 10-20% of the Armed Forces. Which is in line with the norm in eg Western Europe.
Plus you remember that mini-flap in a couple of Western newspapers in I think 2021 about "female soldiers in heels in Ukraine".
But the discrepancy in universal scale conscription is interesting. How would you do it?
Giving them to front line soldiers would make as much sense as giving them Lee-Enfield No.4s. They might be sniper conversions that are being talked about? The ones they made from the No.4s were supposed to be not bad...
Otherwise it just reminds me of the cadet thing of giving you a heavy item to drill with - and if the instructor is particularly scared of the recruits (LOL) he can take the bolts away, easily.
Real faberbooks doesn't have UK in the name
https://twitter.com/FaberBooksUK
That is the part of the nation that has benefited from the same overinflated proportion of tax subsidised house price increases, so it seems more like justice than a problem.
Most of us agree that Brexit is a heap of shite.
Most of us agree that Radiohead are... [Complete it yourself - I don't want to be banned yet.]
But I cannot remember him. Not one bit. I do remember something about him, though, and the ensuing sadness. But it was as a vague 'oh, sh*t' about someone.
It was not a big school, or a big year. So I must have played with him. I just cannot remember him.
In a coincidence, a cousin is in a band with someone who knows him well. I keep on meaning to ask if the director remembers me, as I was rather (ahem) noticeable at the time...
Good job council tax bands completely mask it, eh?
So if that's your attitude, then you're not going to win our votes anytime soon. Perhaps question why we hate them, as opposed to just hitting me with Tory propaganda points/
Honestly the anti-London attitude of the current Tory Party and some people here makes me sick.
"Earlier, Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych said in a televised interview that active hostilities between Ukraine and Russia could end within 2-3 weeks."