@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."
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.
My guess is that the what the Ukrainians think of as really, really helpful was the military training and support since 2014.
I would be fascinated to read about the turn around of the Ukrainian military since 2014 - there must be a fascinating tale of "who and how" they rebuilt their armed forces. It is an incredible change.
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.
My guess is that the what the Ukrainians think of as really, really helpful was the military training and support since 2014.
I would be fascinated to read about the turn around of the Ukrainian military since 2014 - there must be a fascinating tale of "who and how" they rebuilt their armed forces. It is an incredible change.
Agreed. And on a very small economy as well.
But they had one advantage; they knew this was coming. Seven years is plenty long enough to work out a good defence plan, squirrel away equipment and train the people who need to be trained.
It'll be interesting to see how well Ukraine manages if they ever get to a large-scale counter-attack. Possibly not well.
Interesting to note that in 2019 — the same year as a general election where the Tories won an 80 seat majority — the local election projected vote shares were Con 28%, Lab 28%, LD 19%.
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...
In my case also a small 6th form. I sometimes use him as an analogy of the failure of selection of children for grammar schools rather than streaming ( not that I want to get into that argument again). He got to the grammar school. I failed and got there for the 6th form. Having got there I was fast streamed and took A levels early. He wasn't (I know because I would have known him if he was). So at various stages we leap frogged each other. Who is to say what is the right point to judge (well maybe now and he wins as I don't have a Nobel prize)
I'll concede that the current government have talked about reversing a small smidgeon of the blatant tilt-to-London bias that we have suffered from for many decades. Look, for example, at figures for transport investment over the last 30 years.
And have not done very much about it, except for a few bits of window dressing. That no money is claimed to be available for HS2 NE, and seems to have been p*ss*d away on stuffing the mouths of Nimbyland with gold, is just offensive.
The major questions have simply not been addressed.
I don't think either they or Labour will bite the necessary bullets - far too many people with influence are wealthy as a result of tax-free property speculation on their own houses, rather than earning it by work or business.
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.]
the Brexit of Rock Bands.
That would convey somewhat more excitement than is actually the case.
The current Tory approach is that levelling up isn't relevant to poor people in London, who get shat on at every single turn.
Honestly the anti-London attitude of the current Tory Party and some people here makes me sick.
Do you consider yourself to be poor?
No I do not. And yet I still can't afford a house.
Are you near a big station for your work & where do you live at the moment. I'm not trying to dox you - but I'd have thought there were options available outside central 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
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.
My guess is that the what the Ukrainians think of as really, really helpful was the military training and support since 2014.
I would be fascinated to read about the turn around of the Ukrainian military since 2014 - there must be a fascinating tale of "who and how" they rebuilt their armed forces. It is an incredible change.
Agreed. And on a very small economy as well.
But they had one advantage; they knew this was coming. Seven years is plenty long enough to work out a good defence plan, squirrel away equipment and train the people who need to be trained.
It'll be interesting to see how well Ukraine manages if they ever get to a large-scale counter-attack. Possibly not well.
I think that the biggest advantage they had was how badly beaten they were in 2014. This must have totally discredited the existing military structure - allowing radical re-thinking.
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."
Interesting to note that in 2019 — the same year as a general election where the Tories won an 80 seat majority — the local election projected vote shares were Con 28%, Lab 28%, LD 19%.
Though plenty of Tories stayed home or voted for Independents or UKIP or LD if nimby in May's last local elections
Interesting to note that in 2019 — the same year as a general election where the Tories won an 80 seat majority — the local election projected vote shares were Con 28%, Lab 28%, LD 19%.
Though plenty of Tories stayed home or voted for Independents or UKIP or LD if nimby in May's last local elections
Yes but it just shows how the projected vote share isn't very good at telling you what's going to happen at a general election. Con 28%, Lab 28%, LD 19% looks pretty bad for the Tories but then they had their best GE result for 32 years a few months later.
I don't see why the Ukraine war can't go on for years -
Russia reckons they've taken 1/2 of Mariupol (Territory and armies defeated) - so realistically that's going to be more like 30%. So that alone will probably take another month to clear out. Then the focus likely moves to Odessa or Kharki/ov. Neither of those is going to fall overnight after cauldron/encirclement - which hasn't even begun yet in the case of Odessa or completed for Kharkiv.
This might go on for a very long time indeed, the battle of Aleppo took 4 years.
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.
The average life expectancy will be under 90.
The average Briton does not have a parent who will live over 90, either mother or father. The average Briton will outlive their parents.
Interesting to note that in 2019 — the same year as a general election where the Tories won an 80 seat majority — the local election projected vote shares were Con 28%, Lab 28%, LD 19%.
Though plenty of Tories stayed home or voted for Independents or UKIP or LD if nimby in May's last local elections
Yes but it just shows how the projected vote share isn't very good at telling you what's going to happen at a general election. Con 28%, Lab 28%, LD 19% looks pretty bad for the Tories but then they had their best GE result for 32 years a few months later.
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 think it is worth bearing in mind that much of that artillery will be being fired from outside of Ukrainian territory where the logistics and supply problems for the Russians will be much reduced. Sadly if they chose to the Russians could simply withdraw to their own borders and still flatten a significant amount of Ukraine with long range artillery and missiles.
Kharkiv is well within range of large amounts of Russian artillery from over the border. Many of the southern cities are within range of Russian naval forces and the whole country is within range of things like their Iskander medium range missiles.
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 think it is worth bearing in mind that much of that artillery will be being fired from outside of Ukrainian territory where the logistics and supply problems for the Russians will be much reduced. Sadly if they chose to the Russians could simply withdraw to their own borders and still flatten a significant amount of Ukraine with long range artillery and missiles.
Kharkiv is well within range of large amounts of Russian artillery from over the border. Many of the southern cities are within range of Russian naval forces and the whole country is within range of things like their Iskander medium range missiles.
True, but whilst artillery shells are not that expensive, missiles are.
If it pans out that way, I can see there being some rapid advances in western anti-artillery (not counter-battery) technology.
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
Average life expectancy at birth is 82. No newborns are parents.
Life expectancy is an estimate of the age at which half of a given cohort will die, given constant medical, disease, and lifestyle levels (spoiler: they aren't constant).
It also means that it changes (increases) as you age, because all of the people who have died are no longer in the new cohort used to calculate the new 50% point. Because they're dead.
Life expectancy for a 29-year-old female is 88 years old (with one in four living past age 96). If the mother of a given family unit gives birth for the first time at age 29 (as is the average age of first birth as of 2020) and is the last of the parents to die, then the oldest child of the group will be 59 (or, in 25% of cases, they'll be approaching 70).
I'd say this is a lot closer to kjh's "60s" (especially when inheritances have gone through all the legal steps) than "40s"
This will be the median age. About half will be younger and about half will be in their 60s or older.
(Those who are the children of mothers who gave birth in their early twenties will obviously be more likely to be in their sixties. Fewer than 20% of women give birth after age 35, so their youngest children will average in their fifties).
I'd say 55-70 is a fair estimate of inheritance ages.
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.
But unfortunately they're rarely the ones talking particularly on this one.
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.
Nowt wrong with the MN. There is a lot of stopping power in that 7.62x53 round. It's still in production in Finland and there must be thousands still in use all over the world. Possibly used as a designated marksman weapon as the British forces do with the 7.62 L129.
There could be quite a few huntsman in that 55-65 bracket they are calling up. They might even have volunteered for that duty.
And if you have enough chucking them that you don't mind die as they do, Zulu spears are still effective. Not what you want on the social media feed though.
Quite a few Maxims still in use in that part of the world I believe.
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
Average life expectancy at birth is 82. No newborns are parents.
Life expectancy is an estimate of the age at which half of a given cohort will die, given constant medical, disease, and lifestyle levels (spoiler: they aren't constant).
It also means that it changes (increases) as you age, because all of the people who have died are no longer in the new cohort used to calculate the new 50% point. Because they're dead.
Life expectancy for a 29-year-old female is 88 years old (with one in four living past age 96). If the mother of a given family unit gives birth for the first time at age 29 (as is the average age of first birth as of 2020) and is the last of the parents to die, then the oldest child of the group will be 59 (or, in 25% of cases, they'll be approaching 70).
I'd say this is a lot closer to kjh's "60s" (especially when inheritances have gone through all the legal steps) than "40s"
This will be the median age. About half will be younger and about half will be in their 60s or older.
(Those who are the children of mothers who gave birth in their early twenties will obviously be more likely to be in their sixties. Fewer than 20% of women give birth after age 35, so their youngest children will average in their fifties).
I'd say 55-70 is a fair estimate of inheritance ages.
I'm going to leave this on the old thread, because no need to continue arguments on the new one, but I think there's an element of inheritance skipping generations.
I'm in my early 40s, I have a daughter at University, and I'm providing her with a modest amount of financial support to help her there.
If my Dad lives to be as old as his Dad (and ignoring for the moment the survival of his younger second wife), then I would be 63 at that point. If my daughter has any children then it's quite likely they would receive some of the inheritance, as would my daughter, though that would be attenuated as divided between my Dad's 4 children, 5 grandchildren (so far) and however many great-grandchildren at that stage.
So, people won't have to wait until they're in their 60s to receive any inheritance, but they're rarely likely to inherit a house-buying sum all in one go.
Comments
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."
Here's one example of how the French approach employment of seafarers and jurisdiction.
This is to do with superyacts, and their international flagging open contract habits.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clarification-specific-french-regime-seafarers-working-guatteri/
I would be fascinated to read about the turn around of the Ukrainian military since 2014 - there must be a fascinating tale of "who and how" they rebuilt their armed forces. It is an incredible change.
But they had one advantage; they knew this was coming. Seven years is plenty long enough to work out a good defence plan, squirrel away equipment and train the people who need to be trained.
It'll be interesting to see how well Ukraine manages if they ever get to a large-scale counter-attack. Possibly not well.
I'll concede that the current government have talked about reversing a small smidgeon of the blatant tilt-to-London bias that we have suffered from for many decades. Look, for example, at figures for transport investment over the last 30 years.
And have not done very much about it, except for a few bits of window dressing. That no money is claimed to be available for HS2 NE, and seems to have been p*ss*d away on stuffing the mouths of Nimbyland with gold, is just offensive.
The major questions have simply not been addressed.
I don't think either they or Labour will bite the necessary bullets - far too many people with influence are wealthy as a result of tax-free property speculation on their own houses, rather than earning it by work or business.
Russia reckons they've taken 1/2 of Mariupol (Territory and armies defeated) - so realistically that's going to be more like 30%. So that alone will probably take another month to clear out. Then the focus likely moves to Odessa or Kharki/ov. Neither of those is going to fall overnight after cauldron/encirclement - which hasn't even begun yet in the case of Odessa or completed for Kharkiv.
This might go on for a very long time indeed, the battle of Aleppo took 4 years.
The average Briton does not have a parent who will live over 90, either mother or father. The average Briton will outlive their parents.
So my point still stands absolutely
Kharkiv is well within range of large amounts of Russian artillery from over the border. Many of the southern cities are within range of Russian naval forces and the whole country is within range of things like their Iskander medium range missiles.
If it pans out that way, I can see there being some rapid advances in western anti-artillery (not counter-battery) technology.
Govt need to stop driving the demand side.
No newborns are parents.
Life expectancy is an estimate of the age at which half of a given cohort will die, given constant medical, disease, and lifestyle levels (spoiler: they aren't constant).
It also means that it changes (increases) as you age, because all of the people who have died are no longer in the new cohort used to calculate the new 50% point. Because they're dead.
Life expectancy for a 29-year-old female is 88 years old (with one in four living past age 96). If the mother of a given family unit gives birth for the first time at age 29 (as is the average age of first birth as of 2020) and is the last of the parents to die, then the oldest child of the group will be 59 (or, in 25% of cases, they'll be approaching 70).
I'd say this is a lot closer to kjh's "60s" (especially when inheritances have gone through all the legal steps) than "40s"
This will be the median age. About half will be younger and about half will be in their 60s or older.
(Those who are the children of mothers who gave birth in their early twenties will obviously be more likely to be in their sixties. Fewer than 20% of women give birth after age 35, so their youngest children will average in their fifties).
I'd say 55-70 is a fair estimate of inheritance ages.
(Field Marshall Sean T excepted)
I'm in my early 40s, I have a daughter at University, and I'm providing her with a modest amount of financial support to help her there.
If my Dad lives to be as old as his Dad (and ignoring for the moment the survival of his younger second wife), then I would be 63 at that point. If my daughter has any children then it's quite likely they would receive some of the inheritance, as would my daughter, though that would be attenuated as divided between my Dad's 4 children, 5 grandchildren (so far) and however many great-grandchildren at that stage.
So, people won't have to wait until they're in their 60s to receive any inheritance, but they're rarely likely to inherit a house-buying sum all in one go.