This is a good little threadlet on “Miserable Britain”.
We don't talk about what I describe as 'Miserable Britain' enough. The masochistic policies where our highest officials are forced to fly long-haul economy and visiting heads of state get invoiced for the cup of tea and three biscuits they get in the Number 10 waiting room.
On balance, I prefer this to the opposite, but it’s definitely a thing, this curtain-twitching puritanism.
I think the theory is the good shit is for the royals. Why is the PM getting an Audi A8 for his next car? Because the XJ was cancelled, the police insist on a saloon, and he can't be seen in a Phantom or a Mulsanne - too fancy.
(By the way, does anyone know why the police specify a saloon? Other countries use SUVs, and a Range Rover would not be seen as too posh)
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
The truth is there is no 'conservative' party standing for office right now, offering boring competence and gradual movement. It's different shades of radicals who want to cause disruption.
The snag the Tories have is that they don't have much of an answer to 'how can Labour be significantly worse than you have been?'
I don't think we're talking so much about conservative or radical philosophies, as we are about a complete lack of any coherent platform beyond a reverse Robin Hood that, broadly, shunts money from poor young people to rich old ones. That's the entire purpose of the Tory Party, and we simply don't know whether Labour will offer significant change or simply apply a veneer of redistribution to the existing model.
To the extent that there's any radicalism left, it's in the form of the suspicion of the ERG wing of the Tory party of any muddy compromises with the hated EU. That's probably about it.
Yes, there's truth in this.
But I think Keir Starmer's Labour is entirely insincere - it will pursue a left-wing agenda and its own pecadillos once safely esconsed in office in ways small c-conservatives will hate, and I'm astounded some people are taken in by this.
It's possible that hatred for the Tories is now so strong that people simply don't care, though. In which case Labour is probably a fantastic value bet.
Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.
Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.
Net Takers as opposed to Net Contributors is hard to assess. Eg the notion that it's all about how much tax you pay is very Simple Simon.
Of course. You need to factor things in like impact on housing cost and transport congestion, which raise the bar higher for a migrant to qualify as a net benefit.
And things like real value added vs remuneration extracted. The upshot is most low paid people are net contributors and many highly paid people are net takers. Counterintuitive yet true.
Me1 is an astute spotter of underpriced assets. I buy and sell them - not changing them in any way - and make £50m in a year, paying £10m tax, netting £40m.
Me2 is a low wage toiler in a factory earning £25k, paying £3k tax, netting £22k.
Me2 (low skill, low pay) is a Net Contributor, Me1 (high skill, high pay) is a Net Taker.
Haven't you just generalised bond, currency, share etc trading?
Interesting to meet someone who doesn’t believe that finding the best market for an item doesn’t add value. That’s an old old belief.
It's a hopelessly romantic view of trading to think that this is what it usually entails.
A couple of things I have read.
One (it was an article about tracker funds) pointed out that every City trade was someone getting it right and someone getting it wrong. If medicine or education worked on the basis of "half our decisions are wrong", we'd rightly be crucified.
Another was PJ O'Rourke (that famous lefty) talking to people on Wall Street. On condition of strict anonymity, none of them could justify Wall St salaries, and none of them tried. We need liquidity, and we need the noise to generate it. But most of the noise is random.
Trades aren't purely speculative: a lot of trades are made to shift delta / risk-taking away from one area and into another, based on things we learn about the economy like unemployment rates, financing conditions or even the weather. Different people have different preferences about which risks to take and how much risk to take. Ex post, one person was right and one was wrong in the sense of making more money, but ex ante, they are both satisfying their preferences for risk versus reward, and we can't choose a strategy based on ex-post outcomes from the random shocks that occur.
The justification for a Wall Street salary is that you take a share of the revenue you generate for your employer, and on average, those employers make a lot of money in a way that wouldn't happen if it were just mutual betting on a coin flip. If anyone could internally finance a long-term / international investment without paying Goldman Sachs and friends, they would.
Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.
As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21
By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.
The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
They are now.
The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.
For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.
As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!
Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,
Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.
This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.
Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.
Your call.
Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.
As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
10 exclamation marks. I think we're finally getting through to him. Who wants to try the IQ conversation again?
What would HYUFD do if the Tories really did experience electoral oblivion ?
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
Also, using immigration to solve age dependency issues often doesn't make sense. The aging problem is that you have an increasing number of net taker old people compared to net contributor working age people. For this to be solved by immigration, you need the people coming in to be net contributors. Working age people who are net takers worsen the problem, even if they are on the positive side of the ledger from an age perspective.
Again, it's people that don't have an intuitive grasp for mathematical effects and connecting them to real meaning that miss this stuff.
Net Takers as opposed to Net Contributors is hard to assess. Eg the notion that it's all about how much tax you pay is very Simple Simon.
Of course. You need to factor things in like impact on housing cost and transport congestion, which raise the bar higher for a migrant to qualify as a net benefit.
And things like real value added vs remuneration extracted. The upshot is most low paid people are net contributors and many highly paid people are net takers. Counterintuitive yet true.
Me1 is an astute spotter of underpriced assets. I buy and sell them - not changing them in any way - and make £50m in a year, paying £10m tax, netting £40m.
Me2 is a low wage toiler in a factory earning £25k, paying £3k tax, netting £22k.
Me2 (low skill, low pay) is a Net Contributor, Me1 (high skill, high pay) is a Net Taker.
Haven't you just generalised bond, currency, share etc trading?
Interesting to meet someone who doesn’t believe that finding the best market for an item doesn’t add value. That’s an old old belief.
It's a hopelessly romantic view of trading to think that this is what it usually entails.
A couple of things I have read.
One (it was an article about tracker funds) pointed out that every City trade was someone getting it right and someone getting it wrong. If medicine or education worked on the basis of "half our decisions are wrong", we'd rightly be crucified.
Another was PJ O'Rourke (that famous lefty) talking to people on Wall Street. On condition of strict anonymity, none of them could justify Wall St salaries, and none of them tried. We need liquidity, and we need the noise to generate it. But most of the noise is random.
And yet....
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
Markets are interesting - vast amounts of stupid decisions adding up to, in the long run, a more rational take than the economists (see Communism) can manage.
One thing that is a constant in command economies - piles of X in one place, massive demand for X in another. An no, even bigger computers don't solve that.
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
You have your reasons; he, his. It’s pretty rude to assume naïveté,
Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.
As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21
By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.
The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
They are now.
The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.
For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.
As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!
Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,
Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.
This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.
Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.
Your call.
Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.
As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, but look at the actual graphs;
Before 2015, there was a "get more Conservative as you get older" thing going on, but it was fairly gentle. In 1997, Conservatives got a bit less than 30 percent from Da Yoot, and a bit less than 40 percent from the retired. Yes, Labour beat them in every age range. But 30 percent isn't bad; it's better than the Conservatives are doing with the population as a whole right now.
Something happened between 2015 and 2017. That Referendum is the obvious factor, though it could well be that there was a common thing causing both results. Now, Conservatives are massively more popular with the old (more popular than they were in their 1992 or 2015 victories) and Labour are massively more popular with the young (Labour did better with under 35s in 2017 and 2019 than they did in their 1997 and 2001 landslides).
That something, its cause and how it plays out, obviously matters. If it's an age thing- people start more left-wing than before but rapidly become more conservative, then the blue team are sitting pretty. If it's a cohort thing- millenials and later have turned against the conservatives and aren't coming back, then you have a problem. And as far as we can tell, the data point to the latter.
Drown that out with exclamation marks if you like, but the future of the centre-right in the UK depends on understanding this right.
This is the right way to think about the question, but in so far as the only data we have for this new era are 2017-19, and the pattern is continuing or even intensifying, the data are pointing toward the "conservative acceleration" hypothesis.
Is that the case? When we look at the crosstabs in polls there has been a significant Con to Lab swing in the 65+ group.
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
You have your reasons; he, his. It’s pretty rude to assume naïveté,
Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.
As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21
By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.
The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
They are now.
The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.
For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.
As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!
Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,
Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.
This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.
Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.
Your call.
Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.
As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, but look at the actual graphs;
Before 2015, there was a "get more Conservative as you get older" thing going on, but it was fairly gentle. In 1997, Conservatives got a bit less than 30 percent from Da Yoot, and a bit less than 40 percent from the retired. Yes, Labour beat them in every age range. But 30 percent isn't bad; it's better than the Conservatives are doing with the population as a whole right now.
Something happened between 2015 and 2017. That Referendum is the obvious factor, though it could well be that there was a common thing causing both results. Now, Conservatives are massively more popular with the old (more popular than they were in their 1992 or 2015 victories) and Labour are massively more popular with the young (Labour did better with under 35s in 2017 and 2019 than they did in their 1997 and 2001 landslides).
That something, its cause and how it plays out, obviously matters. If it's an age thing- people start more left-wing than before but rapidly become more conservative, then the blue team are sitting pretty. If it's a cohort thing- millenials and later have turned against the conservatives and aren't coming back, then you have a problem. And as far as we can tell, the data point to the latter.
Drown that out with exclamation marks if you like, but the future of the centre-right in the UK depends on understanding this right.
This is the right way to think about the question, but in so far as the only data we have for this new era are 2017-19, and the pattern is continuing or even intensifying, the data are pointing toward the "conservative acceleration" hypothesis.
Is that the case? When we look at the crosstabs in polls there has been a significant Con to Lab swing in the 65+ group.
Like all the other groups, so it's not really a generational thing.
Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.
As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21
By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.
The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
They are now.
The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.
For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.
As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!
Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,
Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.
This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.
Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.
Your call.
Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.
As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, but look at the actual graphs;
Before 2015, there was a "get more Conservative as you get older" thing going on, but it was fairly gentle. In 1997, Conservatives got a bit less than 30 percent from Da Yoot, and a bit less than 40 percent from the retired. Yes, Labour beat them in every age range. But 30 percent isn't bad; it's better than the Conservatives are doing with the population as a whole right now.
Something happened between 2015 and 2017. That Referendum is the obvious factor, though it could well be that there was a common thing causing both results. Now, Conservatives are massively more popular with the old (more popular than they were in their 1992 or 2015 victories) and Labour are massively more popular with the young (Labour did better with under 35s in 2017 and 2019 than they did in their 1997 and 2001 landslides).
That something, its cause and how it plays out, obviously matters. If it's an age thing- people start more left-wing than before but rapidly become more conservative, then the blue team are sitting pretty. If it's a cohort thing- millenials and later have turned against the conservatives and aren't coming back, then you have a problem. And as far as we can tell, the data point to the latter.
Drown that out with exclamation marks if you like, but the future of the centre-right in the UK depends on understanding this right.
This is the right way to think about the question, but in so far as the only data we have for this new era are 2017-19, and the pattern is continuing or even intensifying, the data are pointing toward the "conservative acceleration" hypothesis.
It's tricky, because lots of things (uniform swing, age effects, cohort effects) can look pretty similar on the surface, and it can be tricky to prise them apart. Take the most recent Mori poll. That has C14L59 for 18-34s, C26L52 for 55-64, C44L34 for 75+. Is that the blue line moving down, to the right or what? It must be fun working out.
Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.
As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21
By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.
The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
They are now.
The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.
For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.
As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!
Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,
Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.
This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.
Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.
Your call.
Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.
As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, but look at the actual graphs;
Before 2015, there was a "get more Conservative as you get older" thing going on, but it was fairly gentle. In 1997, Conservatives got a bit less than 30 percent from Da Yoot, and a bit less than 40 percent from the retired. Yes, Labour beat them in every age range. But 30 percent isn't bad; it's better than the Conservatives are doing with the population as a whole right now.
Something happened between 2015 and 2017. That Referendum is the obvious factor, though it could well be that there was a common thing causing both results. Now, Conservatives are massively more popular with the old (more popular than they were in their 1992 or 2015 victories) and Labour are massively more popular with the young (Labour did better with under 35s in 2017 and 2019 than they did in their 1997 and 2001 landslides).
That something, its cause and how it plays out, obviously matters. If it's an age thing- people start more left-wing than before but rapidly become more conservative, then the blue team are sitting pretty. If it's a cohort thing- millenials and later have turned against the conservatives and aren't coming back, then you have a problem. And as far as we can tell, the data point to the latter.
Drown that out with exclamation marks if you like, but the future of the centre-right in the UK depends on understanding this right.
I think the start of the big change happened in the coalition years, between 2010 and 2015, as suggested by this other analysis of the figures.
This suggests that it was the austerity choices of the coalition that were a major factor in creating the divide. Massive tuition fees for the young, triple-locked pensions for the old. Support at all costs for the current high level of house prices and sod those forced to rent.
Arguably, Labour under Brown were headed in the same direction, which is why the bias was relatively low in 2010. Incumbent governments will be attracted to the idea of buying the votes of the old, and the old are willing to be bought.
This might not be a particularly party political thing. It's possible the age-related voting patterns will change quite drastically if Labour form the next government and don't dramatically break with the current political consensus.
This is a good little threadlet on “Miserable Britain”.
We don't talk about what I describe as 'Miserable Britain' enough. The masochistic policies where our highest officials are forced to fly long-haul economy and visiting heads of state get invoiced for the cup of tea and three biscuits they get in the Number 10 waiting room.
On balance, I prefer this to the opposite, but it’s definitely a thing, this curtain-twitching puritanism.
I think the theory is the good shit is for the royals. Why is the PM getting an Audi A8 for his next car? Because the XJ was cancelled, the police insist on a saloon, and he can't be seen in a Phantom or a Mulsanne - too fancy.
(By the way, does anyone know why the police specify a saloon? Other countries use SUVs, and a Range Rover would not be seen as too posh)
Isn't the problem fitting the armour, not the style of car?
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
You are the last person on this site I'd ever listen to on the subject, particularly given your personal and nasty comments about me and my family the other day.
Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.
As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21
By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.
The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
They are now.
The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.
For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.
As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!
Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,
Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.
This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.
Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.
Your call.
Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.
As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
10 exclamation marks. I think we're finally getting through to him. Who wants to try the IQ conversation again?
What would HYUFD do if the Tories really did experience electoral oblivion ?
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
You are the last person on this site I'd ever listen to on the subject, particularly given your personal and nasty comments about me and my family the other day.
Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.
As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21
By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.
The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
They are now.
The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.
For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.
As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!
Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,
Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.
This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.
Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.
Your call.
Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.
As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, but look at the actual graphs;
Before 2015, there was a "get more Conservative as you get older" thing going on, but it was fairly gentle. In 1997, Conservatives got a bit less than 30 percent from Da Yoot, and a bit less than 40 percent from the retired. Yes, Labour beat them in every age range. But 30 percent isn't bad; it's better than the Conservatives are doing with the population as a whole right now.
Something happened between 2015 and 2017. That Referendum is the obvious factor, though it could well be that there was a common thing causing both results. Now, Conservatives are massively more popular with the old (more popular than they were in their 1992 or 2015 victories) and Labour are massively more popular with the young (Labour did better with under 35s in 2017 and 2019 than they did in their 1997 and 2001 landslides).
That something, its cause and how it plays out, obviously matters. If it's an age thing- people start more left-wing than before but rapidly become more conservative, then the blue team are sitting pretty. If it's a cohort thing- millenials and later have turned against the conservatives and aren't coming back, then you have a problem. And as far as we can tell, the data point to the latter.
Drown that out with exclamation marks if you like, but the future of the centre-right in the UK depends on understanding this right.
This is the right way to think about the question, but in so far as the only data we have for this new era are 2017-19, and the pattern is continuing or even intensifying, the data are pointing toward the "conservative acceleration" hypothesis.
Is that the case? When we look at the crosstabs in polls there has been a significant Con to Lab swing in the 65+ group.
Like all the other groups, so it's not really a generational thing.
There may well be differential swings in different age groups. In part maybe Labour reaching a ceiling in the young. A bigger swing to Labour in the older age range does have implications in some seats perhaps, particularly the Red Wall.
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
You are the last person on this site I'd ever listen to on the subject, particularly given your personal and nasty comments about me and my family the other day.
Please don't respond to my posts again.
I'll respond to whatever posts I want to.
Go fuck yourself.
Did it take you long to think that one up?
I bear you or you family no ill. I simply doubted that on £130k a year you would struggle to fund the VAT on your daughter's school fees.
If you genuinely cannot afford that, welcome to the rest of the world.
This is a good little threadlet on “Miserable Britain”.
We don't talk about what I describe as 'Miserable Britain' enough. The masochistic policies where our highest officials are forced to fly long-haul economy and visiting heads of state get invoiced for the cup of tea and three biscuits they get in the Number 10 waiting room.
On balance, I prefer this to the opposite, but it’s definitely a thing, this curtain-twitching puritanism.
I think the theory is the good shit is for the royals. Why is the PM getting an Audi A8 for his next car? Because the XJ was cancelled, the police insist on a saloon, and he can't be seen in a Phantom or a Mulsanne - too fancy.
(By the way, does anyone know why the police specify a saloon? Other countries use SUVs, and a Range Rover would not be seen as too posh)
Isn't the problem fitting the armour, not the style of car?
Since the royals go around in Range Rovers, I'd have thought that problem was resolved.
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
You are the last person on this site I'd ever listen to on the subject, particularly given your personal and nasty comments about me and my family the other day.
Please don't respond to my posts again.
I'll respond to whatever posts I want to.
Go fuck yourself.
Why don't you just calm down? That's what you normally condescendingly send to me
This is a good little threadlet on “Miserable Britain”.
We don't talk about what I describe as 'Miserable Britain' enough. The masochistic policies where our highest officials are forced to fly long-haul economy and visiting heads of state get invoiced for the cup of tea and three biscuits they get in the Number 10 waiting room.
On balance, I prefer this to the opposite, but it’s definitely a thing, this curtain-twitching puritanism.
I think the theory is the good shit is for the royals. Why is the PM getting an Audi A8 for his next car? Because the XJ was cancelled, the police insist on a saloon, and he can't be seen in a Phantom or a Mulsanne - too fancy.
(By the way, does anyone know why the police specify a saloon? Other countries use SUVs, and a Range Rover would not be seen as too posh)
Isn't the problem fitting the armour, not the style of car?
Since the royals go around in Range Rovers, I'd have thought that problem was resolved.
It appears that supply chain problems from Brexit are the reason:
This is a good little threadlet on “Miserable Britain”.
We don't talk about what I describe as 'Miserable Britain' enough. The masochistic policies where our highest officials are forced to fly long-haul economy and visiting heads of state get invoiced for the cup of tea and three biscuits they get in the Number 10 waiting room.
On balance, I prefer this to the opposite, but it’s definitely a thing, this curtain-twitching puritanism.
I think the theory is the good shit is for the royals. Why is the PM getting an Audi A8 for his next car? Because the XJ was cancelled, the police insist on a saloon, and he can't be seen in a Phantom or a Mulsanne - too fancy.
(By the way, does anyone know why the police specify a saloon? Other countries use SUVs, and a Range Rover would not be seen as too posh)
Isn't the problem fitting the armour, not the style of car?
Since the royals go around in Range Rovers, I'd have thought that problem was resolved.
It appears that supply chain problems from Brexit are the reason:
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
You are the last person on this site I'd ever listen to on the subject, particularly given your personal and nasty comments about me and my family the other day.
If this is true, its huge....its the machine that makes the machines....and only one company in the world can currently do it.
China cracks advanced microchip technology in blow to Western sanctions Huawei patents method of making ultra-small microchips closely guarded by the West
Far from the whole story, as getting to production machines is a much longer road (took ASML a decade and a half) - and there’s rather more to advanced production than just the ASML machines - but it certainly bears watching.
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
You are the last person on this site I'd ever listen to on the subject, particularly given your personal and nasty comments about me and my family the other day.
Please don't respond to my posts again.
I'll respond to whatever posts I want to.
Go fuck yourself.
Language, Timothy
Baiting someone who is clearly a little tetchy is not a good look.
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
You are the last person on this site I'd ever listen to on the subject, particularly given your personal and nasty comments about me and my family the other day.
Please don't respond to my posts again.
I'll respond to whatever posts I want to.
Go fuck yourself.
Language, Timothy
Baiting someone who is clearly a little tetchy is not a good look.
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
You are the last person on this site I'd ever listen to on the subject, particularly given your personal and nasty comments about me and my family the other day.
Please don't respond to my posts again.
I'll respond to whatever posts I want to.
Go fuck yourself.
Language, Timothy
Baiting someone who is clearly a little tetchy is not a good look.
I can resist everything but temptation.
I love that quote as much as ‘nostalgia isnt what it was’
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
You are the last person on this site I'd ever listen to on the subject, particularly given your personal and nasty comments about me and my family the other day.
Please don't respond to my posts again.
I'll respond to whatever posts I want to.
Go fuck yourself.
Language, Timothy
Baiting someone who is clearly a little tetchy is not a good look.
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
You are the last person on this site I'd ever listen to on the subject, particularly given your personal and nasty comments about me and my family the other day.
Please don't respond to my posts again.
I'll respond to whatever posts I want to.
Go fuck yourself.
Language, Timothy
Baiting someone who is clearly a little tetchy is not a good look.
Oh behave. If Casino throws a wobbler he needs to be called out.
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
You are the last person on this site I'd ever listen to on the subject, particularly given your personal and nasty comments about me and my family the other day.
Please don't respond to my posts again.
I'll respond to whatever posts I want to.
Go fuck yourself.
Language, Timothy
Baiting someone who is clearly a little tetchy is not a good look.
This is a good little threadlet on “Miserable Britain”.
We don't talk about what I describe as 'Miserable Britain' enough. The masochistic policies where our highest officials are forced to fly long-haul economy and visiting heads of state get invoiced for the cup of tea and three biscuits they get in the Number 10 waiting room.
On balance, I prefer this to the opposite, but it’s definitely a thing, this curtain-twitching puritanism.
I think the theory is the good shit is for the royals. Why is the PM getting an Audi A8 for his next car? Because the XJ was cancelled, the police insist on a saloon, and he can't be seen in a Phantom or a Mulsanne - too fancy.
(By the way, does anyone know why the police specify a saloon? Other countries use SUVs, and a Range Rover would not be seen as too posh)
Isn't the problem fitting the armour, not the style of car?
Since the royals go around in Range Rovers, I'd have thought that problem was resolved.
It appears that supply chain problems from Brexit are the reason:
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
I don’t think @Casino_Royale needs to worry too much. My guess is that Labour won’t do very much at all. The VAT on school fees thing will affect too many Labour people. It won’t see the light of day.
Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.
As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21
By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.
The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
They are now.
The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.
For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.
As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!
Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,
Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.
This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.
Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.
Your call.
Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.
As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
10 exclamation marks. I think we're finally getting through to him. Who wants to try the IQ conversation again?
What would HYUFD do if the Tories really did experience electoral oblivion ?
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
You are the last person on this site I'd ever listen to on the subject, particularly given your personal and nasty comments about me and my family the other day.
Please don't respond to my posts again.
I'll respond to whatever posts I want to.
Go fuck yourself.
Language, Timothy
Baiting someone who is clearly a little tetchy is not a good look.
Oh behave. If Casino throws a wobbler he needs to be called out.
Well said. He's the first to jump on anyone, immediately in with his condescending replies.
The justification for a Wall Street salary is that you take a share of the revenue you generate for your employer, and on average, those employers make a lot of money in a way that wouldn't happen if it were just mutual betting on a coin flip. If anyone could internally finance a long-term / international investment without paying Goldman Sachs and friends, they would.
True, but I don't personally think that implies that from a wider social perspective all finance industry salaries are justified. My mental model of this is that the international financial system is like a massively complicated set of flows of liquid. It's really important to the world that the system keeps flowing, and some of what financial institutions do is that work; but there are also cases where somebody's spotted a flow and a handy way to tap some of it off for themselves, and because we don't understand the system as a whole we have no way to deal with the parasitical tapping-off without being likely to mess up the parts we depend on. (Indeed, I don't think we can even reliably distinguish one from the other, let alone devise measures which improve things without imposing unintended collateral damage.) And individual employees can get fraction-of-the-generated-revenue salaries whether their employer is getting that revenue from keeping the system rolling around, or from tapping into a passing stream of money without doing anything useful.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
This is a good little threadlet on “Miserable Britain”.
We don't talk about what I describe as 'Miserable Britain' enough. The masochistic policies where our highest officials are forced to fly long-haul economy and visiting heads of state get invoiced for the cup of tea and three biscuits they get in the Number 10 waiting room.
On balance, I prefer this to the opposite, but it’s definitely a thing, this curtain-twitching puritanism.
I think the theory is the good shit is for the royals. Why is the PM getting an Audi A8 for his next car? Because the XJ was cancelled, the police insist on a saloon, and he can't be seen in a Phantom or a Mulsanne - too fancy.
(By the way, does anyone know why the police specify a saloon? Other countries use SUVs, and a Range Rover would not be seen as too posh)
Isn't the problem fitting the armour, not the style of car?
Since the royals go around in Range Rovers, I'd have thought that problem was resolved.
It appears that supply chain problems from Brexit are the reason:
The next XJ was planned to be all electric, which may of course not have been thought suitable anyway.
Classic modern media reporting where one outlet simply copy / pastes a story from another outlet, whose had a headline added is spiced up (and not accurate)....I would suspect so that it gets engagement when they tweet it.
This is a good little threadlet on “Miserable Britain”.
We don't talk about what I describe as 'Miserable Britain' enough. The masochistic policies where our highest officials are forced to fly long-haul economy and visiting heads of state get invoiced for the cup of tea and three biscuits they get in the Number 10 waiting room.
On balance, I prefer this to the opposite, but it’s definitely a thing, this curtain-twitching puritanism.
I think the theory is the good shit is for the royals. Why is the PM getting an Audi A8 for his next car? Because the XJ was cancelled, the police insist on a saloon, and he can't be seen in a Phantom or a Mulsanne - too fancy.
(By the way, does anyone know why the police specify a saloon? Other countries use SUVs, and a Range Rover would not be seen as too posh)
Isn't the problem fitting the armour, not the style of car?
Since the royals go around in Range Rovers, I'd have thought that problem was resolved.
It appears that supply chain problems from Brexit are the reason:
The next XJ was planned to be all electric, which may of course not have been thought suitable anyway.
Classic modern media reporting where one outlet simply copy / pastes a story from another article, whose had a headline added is spiced up (and not accurate)....I would suspect so that it gets clicks when they tweet it.
The Birmingham Mail ought to be able to do better though, JLR being in Solihull.
This is a good little threadlet on “Miserable Britain”.
We don't talk about what I describe as 'Miserable Britain' enough. The masochistic policies where our highest officials are forced to fly long-haul economy and visiting heads of state get invoiced for the cup of tea and three biscuits they get in the Number 10 waiting room.
On balance, I prefer this to the opposite, but it’s definitely a thing, this curtain-twitching puritanism.
I think the theory is the good shit is for the royals. Why is the PM getting an Audi A8 for his next car? Because the XJ was cancelled, the police insist on a saloon, and he can't be seen in a Phantom or a Mulsanne - too fancy.
(By the way, does anyone know why the police specify a saloon? Other countries use SUVs, and a Range Rover would not be seen as too posh)
Isn't the problem fitting the armour, not the style of car?
Since the royals go around in Range Rovers, I'd have thought that problem was resolved.
It appears that supply chain problems from Brexit are the reason:
The next XJ was planned to be all electric, which may of course not have been thought suitable anyway.
Classic modern media reporting where one outlet simply copy / pastes a story from another article, whose had a headline added is spiced up (and not accurate)....I would suspect so that it gets clicks when they tweet it.
The Birmingham Mail ought to be able to do better though, JLR being in Solihull.
Aren't they just part of Reach plc these days (i.e. the Mirror Group), who bought up a massive load of local newspapers and basically gutted them....its all about the owning a network of websites that they can use to drive traffic / clicks, it ain't about high quality local journalism.
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.
As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21
By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.
The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
They are now.
The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.
For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.
As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!
Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,
Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.
This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.
Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.
Your call.
Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.
As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
10 exclamation marks. I think we're finally getting through to him. Who wants to try the IQ conversation again?
What would HYUFD do if the Tories really did experience electoral oblivion ?
If the Tories did go extinct or at least were replaced as the main party of the right, then the experience of the Canadian Tories, Forza Italia and Les Republicains is they would be replaced by an even harder right party.
Indeed in France and Italy the far right have proved more successful at attracting younger voters than the centre right now. So be careful what you wish for!!
Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.
As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21
By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.
The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
They are now.
The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.
For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.
As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!
Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,
Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.
This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.
Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.
Your call.
Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.
As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, but look at the actual graphs;
Before 2015, there was a "get more Conservative as you get older" thing going on, but it was fairly gentle. In 1997, Conservatives got a bit less than 30 percent from Da Yoot, and a bit less than 40 percent from the retired. Yes, Labour beat them in every age range. But 30 percent isn't bad; it's better than the Conservatives are doing with the population as a whole right now.
Something happened between 2015 and 2017. That Referendum is the obvious factor, though it could well be that there was a common thing causing both results. Now, Conservatives are massively more popular with the old (more popular than they were in their 1992 or 2015 victories) and Labour are massively more popular with the young (Labour did better with under 35s in 2017 and 2019 than they did in their 1997 and 2001 landslides).
That something, its cause and how it plays out, obviously matters. If it's an age thing- people start more left-wing than before but rapidly become more conservative, then the blue team are sitting pretty. If it's a cohort thing- millenials and later have turned against the conservatives and aren't coming back, then you have a problem. And as far as we can tell, the data point to the latter.
Drown that out with exclamation marks if you like, but the future of the centre-right in the UK depends on understanding this right.
The biggest mistake the Conservatives made in alienating those cohorts was forcing Truss out. When she returns we’ll see their fortunes recover and it the Tories will ride a wave of all generations to a handsome victory at this summer’s GE she’ll call after her coronation as leader taking place around the same time as the King’s.
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
Yes. I am not suggesting that Labour are my perfect choice; what I am suggesting is that the Tories are very far from One Nation small c conservatism. As a party membership and group of MPs they are a useless dysfunctional shower lacking any coherent or consistent philosophical or moral basis. Others as well as me have been too naive about them for too long.
Labour are closer, if not very close, to a morally based centrist social democrat position. A Lab led government is the only available alternative. I hope for a Lab led coalition with the LDs.
This is a good little threadlet on “Miserable Britain”.
We don't talk about what I describe as 'Miserable Britain' enough. The masochistic policies where our highest officials are forced to fly long-haul economy and visiting heads of state get invoiced for the cup of tea and three biscuits they get in the Number 10 waiting room.
On balance, I prefer this to the opposite, but it’s definitely a thing, this curtain-twitching puritanism.
I think the theory is the good shit is for the royals. Why is the PM getting an Audi A8 for his next car? Because the XJ was cancelled, the police insist on a saloon, and he can't be seen in a Phantom or a Mulsanne - too fancy.
(By the way, does anyone know why the police specify a saloon? Other countries use SUVs, and a Range Rover would not be seen as too posh)
Isn't the problem fitting the armour, not the style of car?
Since the royals go around in Range Rovers, I'd have thought that problem was resolved.
It appears that supply chain problems from Brexit are the reason:
The next XJ was planned to be all electric, which may of course not have been thought suitable anyway.
Classic modern media reporting where one outlet simply copy / pastes a story from another article, whose had a headline added is spiced up (and not accurate)....I would suspect so that it gets clicks when they tweet it.
The Birmingham Mail ought to be able to do better though, JLR being in Solihull.
Aren't they just part of Reach plc these days (i.e. the Mirror Group), who bought up a massive load of local newspapers and basically gutted them....its all about the owning a network of websites that they can use to drive traffic / clicks, it ain't about high quality local journalism.
Exactly. Local journalism is just about traffic farming. I ‘like’ the chronicle on Facebook. A paper in the north east. More and more of the stories are just clickbait. I’ve never even heard of the superstar Charlotte Crosby before.
Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.
As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21
By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.
The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
They are now.
The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.
For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.
As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!
Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,
Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.
This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.
Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.
Your call.
Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.
As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, but look at the actual graphs;
Before 2015, there was a "get more Conservative as you get older" thing going on, but it was fairly gentle. In 1997, Conservatives got a bit less than 30 percent from Da Yoot, and a bit less than 40 percent from the retired. Yes, Labour beat them in every age range. But 30 percent isn't bad; it's better than the Conservatives are doing with the population as a whole right now.
Something happened between 2015 and 2017. That Referendum is the obvious factor, though it could well be that there was a common thing causing both results. Now, Conservatives are massively more popular with the old (more popular than they were in their 1992 or 2015 victories) and Labour are massively more popular with the young (Labour did better with under 35s in 2017 and 2019 than they did in their 1997 and 2001 landslides).
That something, its cause and how it plays out, obviously matters. If it's an age thing- people start more left-wing than before but rapidly become more conservative, then the blue team are sitting pretty. If it's a cohort thing- millenials and later have turned against the conservatives and aren't coming back, then you have a problem. And as far as we can tell, the data point to the latter.
Drown that out with exclamation marks if you like, but the future of the centre-right in the UK depends on understanding this right.
The biggest mistake the Conservatives made in alienating those cohorts was forcing Truss out. When she returns we’ll see their fortunes recover and it the Tories will ride a wave of all generations to a handsome victory at this summer’s GE she’ll call after her coronation as leader taking place around the same time as the King’s.
Or more likely Starmer wins a landslide with Farage becoming Leader of the Opposition and the Tories end up with even fewer MPs than the LDs
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
This is a good little threadlet on “Miserable Britain”.
We don't talk about what I describe as 'Miserable Britain' enough. The masochistic policies where our highest officials are forced to fly long-haul economy and visiting heads of state get invoiced for the cup of tea and three biscuits they get in the Number 10 waiting room.
On balance, I prefer this to the opposite, but it’s definitely a thing, this curtain-twitching puritanism.
I think the theory is the good shit is for the royals. Why is the PM getting an Audi A8 for his next car? Because the XJ was cancelled, the police insist on a saloon, and he can't be seen in a Phantom or a Mulsanne - too fancy.
(By the way, does anyone know why the police specify a saloon? Other countries use SUVs, and a Range Rover would not be seen as too posh)
Isn't the problem fitting the armour, not the style of car?
Since the royals go around in Range Rovers, I'd have thought that problem was resolved.
It appears that supply chain problems from Brexit are the reason:
The next XJ was planned to be all electric, which may of course not have been thought suitable anyway.
Classic modern media reporting where one outlet simply copy / pastes a story from another article, whose had a headline added is spiced up (and not accurate)....I would suspect so that it gets clicks when they tweet it.
The Birmingham Mail ought to be able to do better though, JLR being in Solihull.
Aren't they just part of Reach plc these days (i.e. the Mirror Group), who bought up a massive load of local newspapers and basically gutted them....its all about the owning a network of websites that they can use to drive traffic / clicks, it ain't about high quality local journalism.
Exactly. Local journalism is just about traffic farming. I ‘like’ the chronicle on Facebook. A paper in the north east. More and more of the stories are just clickbait. I’ve never even heard of the superstar Charlotte Crosby before.
This appears to be Reach core business model these days, jam up the likes of Facebook with links to articles that are given by clickbait / deceptive headline + photo, both their national and regional titles. No idea how well it is working.
Its well known the Mail famously makes a lot of money out of traffic farming by producing huge numbers of articles for their website every single day particularly the sidebar of shame, but I haven't seen Mail use the Reach Group tactics of flooding social media challenges with ads for the articles.
Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.
As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21
By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.
The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
They are now.
The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.
For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.
As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!
Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,
Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.
This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.
Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.
Your call.
Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.
As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, but look at the actual graphs;
Before 2015, there was a "get more Conservative as you get older" thing going on, but it was fairly gentle. In 1997, Conservatives got a bit less than 30 percent from Da Yoot, and a bit less than 40 percent from the retired. Yes, Labour beat them in every age range. But 30 percent isn't bad; it's better than the Conservatives are doing with the population as a whole right now.
Something happened between 2015 and 2017. That Referendum is the obvious factor, though it could well be that there was a common thing causing both results. Now, Conservatives are massively more popular with the old (more popular than they were in their 1992 or 2015 victories) and Labour are massively more popular with the young (Labour did better with under 35s in 2017 and 2019 than they did in their 1997 and 2001 landslides).
That something, its cause and how it plays out, obviously matters. If it's an age thing- people start more left-wing than before but rapidly become more conservative, then the blue team are sitting pretty. If it's a cohort thing- millenials and later have turned against the conservatives and aren't coming back, then you have a problem. And as far as we can tell, the data point to the latter.
Drown that out with exclamation marks if you like, but the future of the centre-right in the UK depends on understanding this right.
I think the start of the big change happened in the coalition years, between 2010 and 2015, as suggested by this other analysis of the figures.
This suggests that it was the austerity choices of the coalition that were a major factor in creating the divide. Massive tuition fees for the young, triple-locked pensions for the old. Support at all costs for the current high level of house prices and sod those forced to rent.
Arguably, Labour under Brown were headed in the same direction, which is why the bias was relatively low in 2010. Incumbent governments will be attracted to the idea of buying the votes of the old, and the old are willing to be bought.
This might not be a particularly party political thing. It's possible the age-related voting patterns will change quite drastically if Labour form the next government and don't dramatically break with the current political consensus.
The really big shift between 2017-19 came with voters aged 35-54. The Conservatives were up 3% and Labour down 11%. The tipping point (where more voters voted Conservative than Labour), fell from 47 to 37. It looks to me like there was quite a sharp rightward shift at that point. That’s probably where the swing voters are.
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
I think you're being very naive about Labour.
Maybe you're being naive about the Tories?
You are the last person on this site I'd ever listen to on the subject, particularly given your personal and nasty comments about me and my family the other day.
Please don't respond to my posts again.
I'll respond to whatever posts I want to.
Go fuck yourself.
Language, Timothy
Baiting someone who is clearly a little tetchy is not a good look.
Oh behave. If Casino throws a wobbler he needs to be called out.
Well said. He's the first to jump on anyone, immediately in with his condescending replies.
Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.
As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21
By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.
The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
They are now.
The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.
For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.
As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!
Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,
Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.
This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.
Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.
Your call.
Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.
As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
10 exclamation marks. I think we're finally getting through to him. Who wants to try the IQ conversation again?
What would HYUFD do if the Tories really did experience electoral oblivion ?
If the Tories did go extinct or at least were replaced as the main party of the right, then the experience of the Canadian Tories, Forza Italia and Les Republicains is they would be replaced by an even harder right party.
Indeed in France and Italy the far right have proved more successful at attracting younger voters than the centre right now. So be careful what you wish for!!
I was simply curious about how you’d react, hypothetically. It would provide a small piece of data on what conservatives would do, if the Tory party were no longer electorally viable,
I love the idea that an announcement from a poster that he will vote Labour is enough to “shock” someone on here.
I thought we were supposed to be au courant with the polling. The only people still voting Tory are professional Norah Batty impersonators and the criminally insane.
Tories won 39 year olds and over in 2019 for example and age at which most first own property is now 39.
As for culture war, Meloni is far more anti Woke than Sunak and her hard right Brothers of Italy party and Lega coalition partners won 45% of Italians aged 18 to 21
By definition 39+ year olds are Gen X, not Millenials, but apart from that...
The oldest millennials are 42 now but your statement was true in 2019 though when the oldest Millennials were 39. Surprising that HYUFD has got something wrong. He’s usually bang on about most topics.
Yes so I was correct, the oldest Millennials voted Tory in 2019 so the FT article was wrong. In 2019 the age more voted Tory than not was 39.
The Tories won 39 and overs in 2019, in 1997 they did not even win over 65s!!!
In 2019 no 39+ were Millennials.
They are now.
The point is the FT argument that home ownership made no difference to likelihood to vote Tory and culture wars turned off the young was utter crap.
For starters the age of first home ownership is 39 now so obviously under 39s are almost always going to vote Labour now and over 39s sometimes Tory.
As I also pointed out and you completely ignored because of your left liberal agenda, Meloni won 18 to 21s in Italy on a far more anti Woke agenda than Sunak has!!
Except they didn't say home ownership made no difference. To quote the author of the column,
Of course, the simple difference in levels between those two charts [owners vs. non owners] matters, and by my calcs if Millennials owned homes at the same rate as boomers did at that age, they would be a couple of points more conservative, but only a couple. There are clearly deeper-lying problems.
This stuff is basic reading, which even RI and Inadequate state schools mostly get their pupils to be able to do.
Conservatives can acknowledge that they have a new problem with "the young", which increasingly means anyone not already retired. Or you can find excuses to ignore it, in which you will go extinct.
Your call.
Again utter crap as by his crap calculations 39 year olds would not have voted Tory in 2019 when they did as most of them owned property.
As for going extinct, in 1997 the Tories lost EVERY age group INCLUDING over 65s to New Labour. They did not go extinct even then!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, but look at the actual graphs;
Before 2015, there was a "get more Conservative as you get older" thing going on, but it was fairly gentle. In 1997, Conservatives got a bit less than 30 percent from Da Yoot, and a bit less than 40 percent from the retired. Yes, Labour beat them in every age range. But 30 percent isn't bad; it's better than the Conservatives are doing with the population as a whole right now.
Something happened between 2015 and 2017. That Referendum is the obvious factor, though it could well be that there was a common thing causing both results. Now, Conservatives are massively more popular with the old (more popular than they were in their 1992 or 2015 victories) and Labour are massively more popular with the young (Labour did better with under 35s in 2017 and 2019 than they did in their 1997 and 2001 landslides).
That something, its cause and how it plays out, obviously matters. If it's an age thing- people start more left-wing than before but rapidly become more conservative, then the blue team are sitting pretty. If it's a cohort thing- millenials and later have turned against the conservatives and aren't coming back, then you have a problem. And as far as we can tell, the data point to the latter.
Drown that out with exclamation marks if you like, but the future of the centre-right in the UK depends on understanding this right.
I think the start of the big change happened in the coalition years, between 2010 and 2015, as suggested by this other analysis of the figures.
This suggests that it was the austerity choices of the coalition that were a major factor in creating the divide. Massive tuition fees for the young, triple-locked pensions for the old. Support at all costs for the current high level of house prices and sod those forced to rent.
Arguably, Labour under Brown were headed in the same direction, which is why the bias was relatively low in 2010. Incumbent governments will be attracted to the idea of buying the votes of the old, and the old are willing to be bought.
This might not be a particularly party political thing. It's possible the age-related voting patterns will change quite drastically if Labour form the next government and don't dramatically break with the current political consensus.
The really big shift between 2017-19 came with voters aged 35-54. The Conservatives were up 3% and Labour down 11%. The tipping point (where more voters voted Conservative than Labour), fell from 47 to 37. It looks to me like there was quite a sharp rightward shift at that point. That’s probably where the swing voters are.
This suggests that by 2017, the Conservatives had won as much support as they could from pensioners. Not much changed in 2019.
The oldest Millenials and voters of my generation were fairly keen on Corbin in 2017, but totally repelled by 2019. They remembered why the far left frightened them.
But voters aged under 34 were unworried by the far left. So they remained with Labour, but their turnout fell.
Turnout ranged from 47% among 18-24 year olds to 73% among 65+.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
I love cheese, but unfortunately have become lactose intolerant this year. Ain't life cruel?
On your own? (PB does not count as company, even if it fulfills that role for some).
Alone. It’s like I’m hibernating. I have become a polar bear. I’m justifying it by the fact Xmas was insanely social
Empathise. Today is the first day I haven't visited or had visitors. I woke at 10:15 after 11 hours straight kip. Pottered, lunch, back to bed for another hour and a half sleep. Feel vaguely human now.
Napping is the new rock’n’roll. Or knapping in some cases.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
I love cheese, but unfortunately have become lactose intolerant this year. Ain't life cruel?
That is cruel indeed. I didn't realise it was something you could grow into. I thought you either were or you were not. Cheese is a great thing for filling around the edges, especially with a good chutney.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
You seem to have Double Comté‘d
What you really need is white Stilton. And make sure the Gorganzola has reached Biohazard Level 5 status.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
I love cheese, but unfortunately have become lactose intolerant this year. Ain't life cruel?
Fckn hell, I’ve read about some tragedies this year, but this..
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
I love cheese, but unfortunately have become lactose intolerant this year. Ain't life cruel?
That is cruel indeed. I didn't realise it was something you could grow into. I thought you either were or you were not. Cheese is a great thing for filling around the edges, especially with a good chutney.
Unfortunately so. It is possible to eat cheese etc if I take lactase enzymes in advance. Just a bit of a pain.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
I love cheese, but unfortunately have become lactose intolerant this year. Ain't life cruel?
Ouch, that’s bad! Any idea why? Change in gut flora? After chemo I became lactose intolerant for a while, but happily am back to normal now. I found the lacto free cheese acceptable.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
You seem to have Double Comté‘d
Lol, so I do. It's been a heavy day - village drinks at ours today, the Rhône has been in full flow.
I'm a small c conservative and now a pensioner (but still working). I believe in: organic development rather than revolution, modesty, the family, opportunity, uncorrupted power, authority as service not privilege, welfare, competence, sound defence, constitutional monarchy, sound economics, balancing the books, free speech, toleration, religion, NATO, the spread of democracy, the rule of law, justice punishment and rehabilitation, the UK as exemplary within the world.
I have usually voted conservative in GEs. There is nothing about the Tory agenda currently that is more attractive than Labour's approach from a small c conservative viewpoint. And as it is 'time for a change' I shall vote for the party that can beat the Tories.
Well, I was with you 100% on the first paragraph.
Until I read the second, which shocked me to my core.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
This is a good little threadlet on “Miserable Britain”.
We don't talk about what I describe as 'Miserable Britain' enough. The masochistic policies where our highest officials are forced to fly long-haul economy and visiting heads of state get invoiced for the cup of tea and three biscuits they get in the Number 10 waiting room.
On balance, I prefer this to the opposite, but it’s definitely a thing, this curtain-twitching puritanism.
I think the theory is the good shit is for the royals. Why is the PM getting an Audi A8 for his next car? Because the XJ was cancelled, the police insist on a saloon, and he can't be seen in a Phantom or a Mulsanne - too fancy.
(By the way, does anyone know why the police specify a saloon? Other countries use SUVs, and a Range Rover would not be seen as too posh)
Isn't the problem fitting the armour, not the style of car?
Since the royals go around in Range Rovers, I'd have thought that problem was resolved.
It appears that supply chain problems from Brexit are the reason:
The next XJ was planned to be all electric, which may of course not have been thought suitable anyway.
Classic modern media reporting where one outlet simply copy / pastes a story from another article, whose had a headline added is spiced up (and not accurate)....I would suspect so that it gets clicks when they tweet it.
The Birmingham Mail ought to be able to do better though, JLR being in Solihull.
Aren't they just part of Reach plc these days (i.e. the Mirror Group), who bought up a massive load of local newspapers and basically gutted them....its all about the owning a network of websites that they can use to drive traffic / clicks, it ain't about high quality local journalism.
Exactly. Local journalism is just about traffic farming. I ‘like’ the chronicle on Facebook. A paper in the north east. More and more of the stories are just clickbait. I’ve never even heard of the superstar Charlotte Crosby before.
This appears to be Reach core business model these days, jam up the likes of Facebook with links to articles that are given by clickbait / deceptive headline + photo, both their national and regional titles. No idea how well it is working.
Its well known the Mail famously makes a lot of money out of traffic farming by producing huge numbers of articles for their website every single day particularly the sidebar of shame, but I haven't seen Mail use the Reach Group tactics of flooding social media challenges with ads for the articles.
There’s a special place in hell for the Reach web designer. The content is shockingly shit, but the website itself… just awful.
I suspect it might be deliberate in a misguided attempt to drive users to their app.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
I love cheese, but unfortunately have become lactose intolerant this year. Ain't life cruel?
That is cruel indeed. I didn't realise it was something you could grow into. I thought you either were or you were not. Cheese is a great thing for filling around the edges, especially with a good chutney.
I always thought that most hard cheeses have very little lactose in them and are therefore not an issue for lactose intolerance but clearly that's not so.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
I love cheese, but unfortunately have become lactose intolerant this year. Ain't life cruel?
That is cruel indeed. I didn't realise it was something you could grow into. I thought you either were or you were not. Cheese is a great thing for filling around the edges, especially with a good chutney.
I always thought that most hard cheeses have very little lactose in them and are therefore not an issue for lactose intolerance but clearly that's not so.
I only found out by accident, on holiday with a highly allergic relative, so we had no dairy for a fortnight. In retrospect I have had it for a couple of years.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
I love cheese, but unfortunately have become lactose intolerant this year. Ain't life cruel?
That is cruel indeed. I didn't realise it was something you could grow into. I thought you either were or you were not. Cheese is a great thing for filling around the edges, especially with a good chutney.
Unfortunately so. It is possible to eat cheese etc if I take lactase enzymes in advance. Just a bit of a pain.
Gut flora changes?
I have become a firm advocate of the Tim Spector's recommendation of regular fermented foods (kimchi, saurkraut). I thought I was becoming gluten intolerant, which is a bugger cos I love bread, but no issues since including feremented foods in my diet.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
I love cheese, but unfortunately have become lactose intolerant this year. Ain't life cruel?
That is cruel indeed. I didn't realise it was something you could grow into. I thought you either were or you were not. Cheese is a great thing for filling around the edges, especially with a good chutney.
I always thought that most hard cheeses have very little lactose in them and are therefore not an issue for lactose intolerance but clearly that's not so.
I only found out by accident, on holiday with a highly allergic relative, so we had no dairy for a fortnight. In retrospect I have had it for a couple of years.
Sorry to hear that. Ignore my other 'helpful suggestion' post.
I don’t think @Casino_Royale needs to worry too much. My guess is that Labour won’t do very much at all. The VAT on school fees thing will affect too many Labour people. It won’t see the light of day.
Au contraire, going after private education is exactly the kind of tokenism that one would expect from the Labour Party, should it transpire that it's mainly after ministerial cars rather than trying to drive significant change. It's a symbolic and headline-grabbing means of spanking rich people and raising pin money for schools (an amount that will sound huge to average Joe Public, but make virtually no difference to the quality of state education,) whilst doing bugger all to redistribute from rich to poor and nothing at all to upset the vast over-55 middle-class homeowner demographic.
You're not going to get anywhere changing this country, except through taxing incomes less and assets a whole lot more. Any manifesto that fails to do this is simply reshuffling them ol' deckchairs. Using irrelevant fringe policies - whether it's announcing you're going to appoint a Clandestine Channel Threat Commander, or making parents with kids at Eton pay VAT on their fees - is just a tried and tested means to disguise the fact that you are a useless do-nothing. And therefore very useful to useless do-nothings.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
I love cheese, but unfortunately have become lactose intolerant this year. Ain't life cruel?
That is cruel indeed. I didn't realise it was something you could grow into. I thought you either were or you were not. Cheese is a great thing for filling around the edges, especially with a good chutney.
I always thought that most hard cheeses have very little lactose in them and are therefore not an issue for lactose intolerance but clearly that's not so.
I only found out by accident, on holiday with a highly allergic relative, so we had no dairy for a fortnight. In retrospect I have had it for a couple of years.
Sorry to hear that. Ignore my other 'helpful suggestion' post.
No problem, I am just getting used to it myself. It seems some hard cheeses are OK as very low lactose.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
I love cheese, but unfortunately have become lactose intolerant this year. Ain't life cruel?
That is cruel indeed. I didn't realise it was something you could grow into. I thought you either were or you were not. Cheese is a great thing for filling around the edges, especially with a good chutney.
Unfortunately so. It is possible to eat cheese etc if I take lactase enzymes in advance. Just a bit of a pain.
It’s scant consolation, but there are also lactose free cheeses.
I do worry about the evisceration of local journalism, tho.
It’s a total market failure. If I were in government, I’d reengineer the BBC and make its main remit local news.
Every town should have its own full time BBC reporter.
It's not really a market failure, in the sense that nobody wants to pay for local news, and they aren't getting it either. Perhaps people need it, like kids need to take medicine, but that's called paternalism rather than market failure.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
I love cheese, but unfortunately have become lactose intolerant this year. Ain't life cruel?
That is cruel indeed. I didn't realise it was something you could grow into. I thought you either were or you were not. Cheese is a great thing for filling around the edges, especially with a good chutney.
I always thought that most hard cheeses have very little lactose in them and are therefore not an issue for lactose intolerance but clearly that's not so.
I only found out by accident, on holiday with a highly allergic relative, so we had no dairy for a fortnight. In retrospect I have had it for a couple of years.
Sorry to hear that. Ignore my other 'helpful suggestion' post.
No problem, I am just getting used to it myself. It seems some hard cheeses are OK as very low lactose.
This is appalling.
Isn’t there some morally dubious gain of function research we can farm out to China to help with this? Feed bats Gorganzola until they mutate or something?
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
I would have assumed that the Big Cheeses do the resource distribution not because of the difficulty or otherwise of the task, but because control of resource distribution is significant power and so either it is kept by the Cheeses or else the people with control of it rapidly become Cheeses...
Fromage theory - the really Grande Fromages gravitate towards the biggest area….
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Which reminds me - I downloaded a copy of 'Cheese: A Love Story' the other day which I should really now watch.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
My cheese board for New Year is now 3 separate boards, and growing.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Sounds great, what do you have?
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
I love cheese, but unfortunately have become lactose intolerant this year. Ain't life cruel?
That is cruel indeed. I didn't realise it was something you could grow into. I thought you either were or you were not. Cheese is a great thing for filling around the edges, especially with a good chutney.
I always thought that most hard cheeses have very little lactose in them and are therefore not an issue for lactose intolerance but clearly that's not so.
I only found out by accident, on holiday with a highly allergic relative, so we had no dairy for a fortnight. In retrospect I have had it for a couple of years.
Sorry to hear that. Ignore my other 'helpful suggestion' post.
No problem, I am just getting used to it myself. It seems some hard cheeses are OK as very low lactose.
This is appalling.
Isn’t there some morally dubious gain of function research we can farm out to China to help with this? Feed bats Gorganzola until they mutate or something?
I do worry about the evisceration of local journalism, tho.
It’s a total market failure. If I were in government, I’d reengineer the BBC and make its main remit local news.
Every town should have its own full time BBC reporter.
It's not really a market failure, in the sense that nobody wants to pay for local news, and they aren't getting it either. Perhaps people need it, like kids need to take medicine, but that's called paternalism rather than market failure.
However, some of the benefit of local news accrues to all of us, whether we consume it ourselves or not.
Politicians who know they are scrutinised tend to behave better than ones who aren't. Old school local papers were limited and flawed in how they did this but they were a lot better than what we have now. Would better local journalism reduce the frequency of fiascos like Thurrock? You'd have to think so.
Besides the other thing that has screwed local papers is the loss of classified ads. (Often the ads provided the money and the news was the excuse to make people buy the papers. Crazy, but it seemed to work.)
Not sure how we fund things now the various elements have blown apart. I buy the Romford Recorder, because I'm a girly swot. But at £1.10, I'm not quite sure it's worth it.
Without seeing schedule A that's hard to say for sure. Would certainly have been easier for him to have been paid and then made a donation give that the presidential salary is part of the constitution.
He wasn't under audit either. Which was his excuse for not releasing them.
I think it is pretty clear that while he may not have been under a legal obligation to release, if he wasn't embarrassed by what was in there he would have done so a long time ago voluntarily. He can rage about it all he likes, but the very fact of his rage is telling.
I'll have to leave it to the experts to come to a conclusion, but there is surely also a line between minimising your tax (in a legal way) by being savvy, and minimising your tax because you keep losing money.
Comments
(By the way, does anyone know why the police specify a saloon? Other countries use SUVs, and a Range Rover would not be seen as too posh)
But I think Keir Starmer's Labour is entirely insincere - it will pursue a left-wing agenda and its own pecadillos once safely esconsed in office in ways small c-conservatives will hate, and I'm astounded some people are taken in by this.
It's possible that hatred for the Tories is now so strong that people simply don't care, though. In which case Labour is probably a fantastic value bet.
The justification for a Wall Street salary is that you take a share of the revenue you generate for your employer, and on average, those employers make a lot of money in a way that wouldn't happen if it were just mutual betting on a coin flip. If anyone could internally finance a long-term / international investment without paying Goldman Sachs and friends, they would.
It's now very boring and repetitive.
In communist systems, the people distributing resources are the Big Cheeses - if it is so simple, why is that?
Markets are interesting - vast amounts of stupid decisions adding up to, in the long run, a more rational take than the economists (see Communism) can manage.
One thing that is a constant in command economies - piles of X in one place, massive demand for X in another. An no, even bigger computers don't solve that.
It’s pretty rude to assume naïveté,
https://timothylikeszebras.wordpress.com/2019/11/26/the-old-people-are-coming/
This suggests that it was the austerity choices of the coalition that were a major factor in creating the divide. Massive tuition fees for the young, triple-locked pensions for the old. Support at all costs for the current high level of house prices and sod those forced to rent.
Arguably, Labour under Brown were headed in the same direction, which is why the bias was relatively low in 2010. Incumbent governments will be attracted to the idea of buying the votes of the old, and the old are willing to be bought.
This might not be a particularly party political thing. It's possible the age-related voting patterns will change quite drastically if Labour form the next government and don't dramatically break with the current political consensus.
I bear you or you family no ill. I simply doubted that on £130k a year you would struggle to fund the VAT on your daughter's school fees.
If you genuinely cannot afford that, welcome to the rest of the world.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/brexit-causes-government-ditch-jaguar-25831678#amp-readmore-target
Which is a great deal 😂😂
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-ministerial-government-cars-made-in-germany-audi-b2250544.html
The automotive press on the XJ cancellation:
https://www.evo.co.uk/jaguar/xj/202358/all-electric-jaguar-xj-axed-as-new-strategy-is-announced?amp
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/jaguar/xj/107334/electric-jaguar-xj-plans-axed-last-minute?amp
The next XJ was planned to be all electric, which may of course not have been thought suitable anyway.
There is something in that.
There is also the fact that, like democracy, markets are the worst system. Except for all the rest.
Cheese.
Mmmm.
Indeed in France and Italy the far right have proved more successful at attracting younger voters than the centre right now. So be careful what you wish for!!
Labour are closer, if not very close, to a morally based centrist social democrat position. A Lab led government is the only available alternative. I hope for a Lab led coalition with the LDs.
Which reminds me - must get the ice buckets sorted out…
Its well known the Mail famously makes a lot of money out of traffic farming by producing huge numbers of articles for their website every single day particularly the sidebar of shame, but I haven't seen Mail use the Reach Group tactics of flooding social media challenges with ads for the articles.
Pshaw!
It would provide a small piece of data on what conservatives would do, if the Tory party were no longer electorally viable,
It’s not a prediction.
I thought we were supposed to be au courant with the polling. The only people still voting Tory are professional Norah Batty impersonators and the criminally insane.
The oldest Millenials and voters of my generation were fairly keen on Corbin in 2017, but totally repelled by 2019. They remembered why the far left frightened them.
But voters aged under 34 were unworried by the far left. So they remained with Labour, but their turnout fell.
Turnout ranged from 47% among 18-24 year olds to 73% among 65+.
All figures taken from Ipsos.
We have Quicke's cheddar, Gorgonzola, Camembert, Neufchâtel, Chaource, Comté, Chavroux, Ossau-lraty, and Comté. For some reason we seem to have majored on French this year.
Or knapping in some cases.
What you really need is white Stilton. And make sure the Gorganzola has reached Biohazard Level 5 status.
I suspect it might be deliberate in a misguided attempt to drive users to their app.
It’s a total market failure. If I were in government, I’d reengineer the BBC and make its main remit local news.
Every town should have its own full time BBC reporter.
I have become a firm advocate of the Tim Spector's recommendation of regular fermented foods (kimchi, saurkraut). I thought I was becoming gluten intolerant, which is a bugger cos I love bread, but no issues since including feremented foods in my diet.
You're not going to get anywhere changing this country, except through taxing incomes less and assets a whole lot more. Any manifesto that fails to do this is simply reshuffling them ol' deckchairs. Using irrelevant fringe policies - whether it's announcing you're going to appoint a Clandestine Channel Threat Commander, or making parents with kids at Eton pay VAT on their fees - is just a tried and tested means to disguise the fact that you are a useless do-nothing. And therefore very useful to useless do-nothings.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/most-read-2022-is-an-unknown-extraordinarily-ancient-civilisation-buried-under-eastern-turkeymost-read-2022/
We’re finishing the year by republishing our ten most popular articles from 2022. Here’s number two: Sean Thomas’s piece from May on Karahan Tape.
Isn’t there some morally dubious gain of function research we can farm out to China to help with this? Feed bats Gorganzola until they mutate or something?
That and the copy and pasta
Slouches towards Brexit to be born?”
Trump donates his 3rd-quarter salary to fight the opioid epidemic
Politics Nov 26, 2019 6:17 AM EST
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-donates-his-3rd-quarter-salary-to-fight-the-opioid-epidemic
Politicians who know they are scrutinised tend to behave better than ones who aren't. Old school local papers were limited and flawed in how they did this but they were a lot better than what we have now. Would better local journalism reduce the frequency of fiascos like Thurrock? You'd have to think so.
Besides the other thing that has screwed local papers is the loss of classified ads. (Often the ads provided the money and the news was the excuse to make people buy the papers. Crazy, but it seemed to work.)
Not sure how we fund things now the various elements have blown apart. I buy the Romford Recorder, because I'm a girly swot. But at £1.10, I'm not quite sure it's worth it.
Which was his excuse for not releasing them.
I'll have to leave it to the experts to come to a conclusion, but there is surely also a line between minimising your tax (in a legal way) by being savvy, and minimising your tax because you keep losing money.
The write-off of the Stormy Daniels payment as a business expense is in there.
No doubt the accountants will have something of substance to say over the next couple of days.
Teachers can only write off $300 on their taxes for classroom expenses
But Trump can write off the $130,000 in hush money he paid Stormy Daniels as a “business expense”?!
Gimme a f’ing break
https://twitter.com/lindyli/status/1607330096464936960