Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
Yes - if Sunak had been a competent managerial PM, for example, the Conservatives would be doing much better.
If such a competent managerial type had been chosen instead of Truss, there would have been a chance to win. Possibly.
But he is a slow motion Truss.
One of Johnson's terrible legacies to the party and nation was leaving Sunak and Truss on the front row in the race to replace him.
For some reason, there wasn't a competent managerial type available. Gove, perhaps, but even typing that highlights the absurdity of the idea.
The electorate, in their great wisdom, decided they weren’t.
And have now decided they were wrong
I’m not sure either positions have been based on fact-based analysis
Prior to the vote everything was blamed on the EU. Now everything is blamed on Brexit.
There have been a number of external shocks since 2016/2020. Brexit’s impact has been marginal in the scheme of things.
Leave voters were promised unicorns and rainbows.
Since neither have appeared, they are entitle to believe they were lied to, and change their minds
Of course they are entitled to change their minds. But the litany of media wailing has coloured perceptions. Reality and perceptions are not always aligned.
Well, that's how we got Brexit in the first place, so nothing new.
Which was my point.
If we were sold a false prospectus, then there is no shame in reversing it.
When you are in a hole, stop digging.
Perhaps try reading the conversation?
All I said was that prior to Brexit everything was blamed on the EU and post Brexit everything has been blamed on Brexit. And that neither situation was or is true.
I never brought up the idea of reversing Brexit. If parliament wants to hold another referendum they can do so. I wouldn’t advise them to.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
The surprise is the unprecedented age gradient in wealth.
Yesterday Nicky Campbells phone in on 5Live was about the Triple lock. There was the outstanding figure quoted that a quarter of pensioners had over a million pounds in assets. Not sure if this included pension pots or the source of the figure. I suspect that a very large proportion is mortgage free residential property.
A left-wing government will be coming for that one day.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
I am sorry but this thread header is talking nonsense. Boris made mistakes but was a lot more popular (and still is) than Sunak . Sunak is terrible ,not because he is controversial but because he cannot make hard decisions
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
This wealth is not the outcome of work 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is what happens when you buy a house for the price of a packet of cheese and onion crisps in 1983. Block the construction of homes for 40 years and then sell it for 13 times the average annual salary.
Up pops a green cheesed arsehole. Get out and work and buy your own house you blood sucking lazy good for nothing cockroach. Those people spent 50 years working their butts off to better themselves , they did not whine like losers and expect it all on a plate.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
This wealth is not the outcome of work 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is what happens when you buy a house for the price of a packet of cheese and onion crisps in 1983. Block the construction of homes for 40 years and then sell it for 13 times the average annual salary.
Up pops a green cheesed arsehole. Get out and work and buy your own house you blood sucking lazy good for nothing cockroach. Those people spent 50 years working their butts off to better themselves , they did not whine like losers and expect it all on a plate.
If Boris wasn't incapable of telling the truth, then his basic instincts (whether on vaccines, Ukraine, or a realization that you had to get Brexit over the line) would have stood him in good stead.
Getting Brexit over the line is the greatest policy disaster in living memory.
The only reason BoZo pursued it was to get the crown, which he then befouled.
I think that's going a little far. But I think the point is 'getting Brexit over the line' was far better than the purgatory of having voted out but not having done a deal. Even if the deal was very poor.
As you may know, I felt and still do that parliament should have voted through Theresa May’s deal. Economically it was better for Britain.
Unfortunately it didn’t suit the political hardliners, illustrating the point that Brexit was never about the economic benefits for Britain.
Agree.
I think Cameron's renegotiation was better than May's deal. And May's deal was better than Boris's. But at least we now have a deal where we can start to try to reverse some of the harm that the whole episode has caused.
It was a sign of the chasm between the UK and the EU that we thought it was very small beer and they thought it massive concessions.
In hindsight Cameron would have been better off investing 2-3 years renegotiating the Lisbon Treaty for the whole of the EU along the lines of the Bloomberg speech. But that would have been a lot of work and he wanted to get it out the way quickly, and gambled that he could - just as Wilson did.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
They did what they were told. My uncle and aunt bought their house, then paid off the mortgage as fast as they could. They then put 25% of their income in savings. Because the jobs got better… Both from working class backgrounds - memories of the rent man, their parents losing jobs.
This was what the experts on personal finance said to do.
The problem is that this kind of saving is no longer possible for most. Eaten by housing, mostly.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
This wealth is not the outcome of work 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is what happens when you buy a house for the price of a packet of cheese and onion crisps in 1983. Block the construction of homes for 40 years and then sell it for 13 times the average annual salary.
Up pops a green cheesed arsehole. Get out and work and buy your own house you blood sucking lazy good for nothing cockroach. Those people spent 50 years working their butts off to better themselves , they did not whine like losers and expect it all on a plate.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
The surprise is the unprecedented age gradient in wealth.
Yesterday Nicky Campbells phone in on 5Live was about the Triple lock. There was the outstanding figure quoted that a quarter of pensioners had over a million pounds in assets. Not sure if this included pension pots or the source of the figure. I suspect that a very large proportion is mortgage free residential property.
Well youre one of those comfortably off oldies yourself no doubt with a big pension pot and mortgage free. What are you proposing doing with it ?
"Children from low-income families who grew up near a Sure Start centre did better than their peers at GCSEs, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)."
What a great example of levelling up. The Tories must be so proud that they opened these centres.
What was that? Labour opened them? And the Tories shut them down?
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
This wealth is not the outcome of work 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is what happens when you buy a house for the price of a packet of cheese and onion crisps in 1983. Block the construction of homes for 40 years and then sell it for 13 times the average annual salary.
Up pops a green cheesed arsehole. Get out and work and buy your own house you blood sucking lazy good for nothing cockroach. Those people spent 50 years working their butts off to better themselves , they did not whine like losers and expect it all on a plate.
You can kiss my arse... how about that.
Get a job loser
You assume I don't have a job and that I am a millenial.
I am sorry but this thread header is talking nonsense. Boris made mistakes but was a lot more popular (and still is) than Sunak . Sunak is terrible ,not because he is controversial but because he cannot make hard decisions
There’s an element of that (he suffers from analysis paralysis). But also I’m not sure the electorate would have listened to Demosthenes had he been elected instead of Sunak. They were done.
"Children from low-income families who grew up near a Sure Start centre did better than their peers at GCSEs, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)."
What a great example of levelling up. The Tories must be so proud that they opened these centres.
What was that? Labour opened them? And the Tories shut them down?
Among its better features was that it was locally directed, and open to all, not just the means tested poor, so there was a significant degree of social mixing.
One of Johnson's terrible legacies to the party and nation was leaving Sunak and Truss on the front row in the race to replace him.
For some reason, there wasn't a competent managerial type available. Gove, perhaps, but even typing that highlights the absurdity of the idea.
Wonder why that was?
I assume that question is rhetorical...
Mostly. Though there are two strands rather than one.
First is that competent managerial types didn't want to touch the Johnson Project, because it was so likely to go wrong in a predictable way. The triumph contained the seeds of the disaster.
The other is that vain insecure leaders tend to surround themselves with weaklings and nitwits because they think it makes their position more secure.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
The surprise is the unprecedented age gradient in wealth.
Yesterday Nicky Campbells phone in on 5Live was about the Triple lock. There was the outstanding figure quoted that a quarter of pensioners had over a million pounds in assets. Not sure if this included pension pots or the source of the figure. I suspect that a very large proportion is mortgage free residential property.
A left-wing government will be coming for that one day.
A surprising (to some) amount is actually in savings. More than one elderly relative from a poor background saved at 20%+ a year, while they were working. On top of their pension.
The reason that Sunak is doomed is that he has done nothing material to change the narrative or give us any idea what kind of country he wants. We have been in a quagmire since the Truss fiasco where, as a BBC reporter put it recently, ideas go to Downing Street to die.
Sunak has, sadly, proved to be another Gordon Brown: desperate for the top job but with no idea whatsoever of what to do with it when he got it. We can only hope that Starmer does not turn out to be the same.
I think Sunak is OK. It's just he's relatively inexperienced and doesn't have a strong political ear.
That's enough to finish him given the toxic legacy of Boris and Truss but I don't think he's a bad bloke, and he certainly works hard.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
They did what they were told. My uncle and aunt bought their house, then paid off the mortgage as fast as they could. They then put 25% of their income in savings. Because the jobs got better… Both from working class backgrounds - memories of the rent man, their parents losing jobs.
This was what the experts on personal finance said to do.
The problem is that this kind of saving is no longer possible for most. Eaten by housing, mostly.
Anyone up for the Meji Restoration (UK edition) ?
Yes it's bloody hard to do. Ive had to help my kids get on the property ladder, thats where my money is ending up. The whole thing is plain daft. Oldies see their wealth rise but then have to subsidise their kids, while many kids dont have the benefit of a mum and dad able to give out subsidies. The whole thing stinks.
But until such time the young realise they need to spend their time on sorting out people who will build them a house instead of backing policies which are against their own interest such as net zero they are stuffed.
That is true. But the point is we are now in a known end position. For three years after the vote, we were in an unknown state: leaving-but-not-left, and unable to do much in terms of deals with other people. A deal had to be done with the EU just to get ourselves into a 'known' state. And yes, that state was very far from ideal. But it was better than being in an unknown state.
But we are not in a known end state.
We keep not implementing anything.
We built infrastructure for a "known" state we don't have and never will.
We are still in purgatory.
This is the Bad Place...
You do seem to be in your own 'purgatory' about Brexit but it has happened, there is no prospect of us rejoining not least as Starmer has ruled out the single market and freedom of movement and the EU itself stated last week that the review of the treaty due shortly will not reopen the treaty and they have no interest in us rejoining
Starmer and the EU have moved on but sadly you seem to be unable to move out of your own purgatory
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
The surprise is the unprecedented age gradient in wealth.
Yesterday Nicky Campbells phone in on 5Live was about the Triple lock. There was the outstanding figure quoted that a quarter of pensioners had over a million pounds in assets. Not sure if this included pension pots or the source of the figure. I suspect that a very large proportion is mortgage free residential property.
A left-wing government will be coming for that one day.
A surprising (to some) amount is actually in savings. More than one elderly relative from a poor background saved at 20%+ a year, while they were working. On top of their pension.
They took their share of
And invested it.
It's amazing how much wealthier we've become post War, even though we lost an empire and our global status at the same time.
It can't have been fun being working class even as late as the 1930s.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
This wealth is not the outcome of work 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is what happens when you buy a house for the price of a packet of cheese and onion crisps in 1983. Block the construction of homes for 40 years and then sell it for 13 times the average annual salary.
Up pops a green cheesed arsehole. Get out and work and buy your own house you blood sucking lazy good for nothing cockroach. Those people spent 50 years working their butts off to better themselves , they did not whine like losers and expect it all on a plate.
You can kiss my arse... how about that.
He might not want to if it's covered in green cheese.
I am sorry but this thread header is talking nonsense. Boris made mistakes but was a lot more popular (and still is) than Sunak . Sunak is terrible ,not because he is controversial but because he cannot make hard decisions
There’s an element of that (he suffers from analysis paralysis). But also I’m not sure the electorate would have listened to Demosthenes had he been elected instead of Sunak. They were done.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
They will - by kicking out the government of the last decade. Will Starmer deliver ? Who knows.
But it's an absolute certainty that the current lot won't.
It's interesting how you and Malcolm seem instinctually to resort to ad hominem in this argument.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
This wealth is not the outcome of work 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is what happens when you buy a house for the price of a packet of cheese and onion crisps in 1983. Block the construction of homes for 40 years and then sell it for 13 times the average annual salary.
Up pops a green cheesed arsehole. Get out and work and buy your own house you blood sucking lazy good for nothing cockroach. Those people spent 50 years working their butts off to better themselves , they did not whine like losers and expect it all on a plate.
You can kiss my arse... how about that.
Get a job loser
You assume I don't have a job and that I am a millenial.
Assumptions are the basis of all f-ups. 🤣🤣🤣
certainly a whinger, whining about others having something is pathetic. If you want it go out and work for it yourself , envy just eats you up.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
They will - by kicking out the government of the last decade. Will Starmer deliver ? Who knows.
But it's an absolute certainty that the current lot won't.
It's interesting how you and Malcolm seem instinctually to resort to ad hominem in this argument.
Well old style arse kickers like me and malc dont worry to much about the niceties. Celts get down to the basics and save time.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
They did what they were told. My uncle and aunt bought their house, then paid off the mortgage as fast as they could. They then put 25% of their income in savings. Because the jobs got better… Both from working class backgrounds - memories of the rent man, their parents losing jobs.
This was what the experts on personal finance said to do.
The problem is that this kind of saving is no longer possible for most. Eaten by housing, mostly.
Anyone up for the Meji Restoration (UK edition) ?
We bought our first home in Wales in 1965 for £3,000 and had to wait 2 years until we could afford the extra £200 for central heating
That house has just sold by the owners for £275,000
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
This wealth is not the outcome of work 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is what happens when you buy a house for the price of a packet of cheese and onion crisps in 1983. Block the construction of homes for 40 years and then sell it for 13 times the average annual salary.
Up pops a green cheesed arsehole. Get out and work and buy your own house you blood sucking lazy good for nothing cockroach. Those people spent 50 years working their butts off to better themselves , they did not whine like losers and expect it all on a plate.
You can kiss my arse... how about that.
Get a job loser
You assume I don't have a job and that I am a millenial.
Assumptions are the basis of all f-ups. 🤣🤣🤣
PS: I did not assume anything other that you were a whinger, envious of people who had worked hard to get where they were.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
They will - by kicking out the government of the last decade. Will Starmer deliver ? Who knows.
But it's an absolute certainty that the current lot won't.
It's interesting how you and Malcolm seem instinctually to resort to ad hominem in this argument.
Well old style arse kickers like me and malc dont worry to much about the niceties. Celts get down to the basics and save time.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
This wealth is not the outcome of work 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is what happens when you buy a house for the price of a packet of cheese and onion crisps in 1983. Block the construction of homes for 40 years and then sell it for 13 times the average annual salary.
Up pops a green cheesed arsehole. Get out and work and buy your own house you blood sucking lazy good for nothing cockroach. Those people spent 50 years working their butts off to better themselves , they did not whine like losers and expect it all on a plate.
You can kiss my arse... how about that.
Get a job loser
You assume I don't have a job and that I am a millenial.
Assumptions are the basis of all f-ups. 🤣🤣🤣
certainly a whinger, whining about others having something is pathetic. If you want it go out and work for it yourself , envy just eats you up.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
They will - by kicking out the government of the last decade. Will Starmer deliver ? Who knows.
But it's an absolute certainty that the current lot won't.
It's interesting how you and Malcolm seem instinctually to resort to ad hominem in this argument.
Well old style arse kickers like me and malc dont worry to much about the niceties. Celts get down to the basics and save time.
Yes, thinking takes effort.
At our age you have done most of your thinking and know what you want.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
They will - by kicking out the government of the last decade. Will Starmer deliver ? Who knows.
But it's an absolute certainty that the current lot won't.
It's interesting how you and Malcolm seem instinctually to resort to ad hominem in this argument.
Well old style arse kickers like me and malc dont worry to much about the niceties. Celts get down to the basics and save time.
Correct Alan, whinging was not an option , you were sent out of the office with a flea in your ear and told to get on with it. The molly coddled of today think it was all milk and honey with money growing in trees in our day, they would not have lasted.
The reason that Sunak is doomed is that he has done nothing material to change the narrative or give us any idea what kind of country he wants. We have been in a quagmire since the Truss fiasco where, as a BBC reporter put it recently, ideas go to Downing Street to die.
Sunak has, sadly, proved to be another Gordon Brown: desperate for the top job but with no idea whatsoever of what to do with it when he got it. We can only hope that Starmer does not turn out to be the same.
I think Sunak is OK. It's just he's relatively inexperienced and doesn't have a strong political ear.
That's enough to finish him given the toxic legacy of Boris and Truss but I don't think he's a bad bloke, and he certainly works hard.
Not a bad bloke, works hard and currently unsuitable for the role might not be a vote winning slogan. In the context of being PM he is not OK, if it was to be head of some fairly stable department that needed managing he would be fine.
The reason that Sunak is doomed is that he has done nothing material to change the narrative or give us any idea what kind of country he wants. We have been in a quagmire since the Truss fiasco where, as a BBC reporter put it recently, ideas go to Downing Street to die.
Sunak has, sadly, proved to be another Gordon Brown: desperate for the top job but with no idea whatsoever of what to do with it when he got it. We can only hope that Starmer does not turn out to be the same.
I think Sunak is OK. It's just he's relatively inexperienced and doesn't have a strong political ear.
That's enough to finish him given the toxic legacy of Boris and Truss but I don't think he's a bad bloke, and he certainly works hard.
Big Rish should lean into his wannabe tech bro/spreadsheet wanker persona a bit. At least that would be authentic. When he tries to do the stupid populist shit (sat in Thatcher's Rover) or pretends to be a normal person (rigid with fear while holding a Labrador puppy) it just doesn't work.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
They will - by kicking out the government of the last decade. Will Starmer deliver ? Who knows.
But it's an absolute certainty that the current lot won't.
It's interesting how you and Malcolm seem instinctually to resort to ad hominem in this argument.
Well old style arse kickers like me and malc dont worry to much about the niceties. Celts get down to the basics and save time.
Correct Alan, whinging was not an option , you were sent out of the office with a flea in your ear and told to get on with it. The molly coddled of today think it was all milk and honey with money growing in trees in our day, they would not have lasted.
Clearly the parents fault with all that molly coddling.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
They will - by kicking out the government of the last decade. Will Starmer deliver ? Who knows.
But it's an absolute certainty that the current lot won't.
It's interesting how you and Malcolm seem instinctually to resort to ad hominem in this argument.
Well old style arse kickers like me and malc dont worry to much about the niceties. Celts get down to the basics and save time.
Yes, thinking takes effort.
At our age you have done most of your thinking and know what you want.
As my wife and I are octogenarian we have all we want including a wonderful family, but the most important thing in life is health and that is another matter as it is for our fellow octogenarian on this board @OldKingCole
The political system has two responsibilities: personnel and strategy. The current political and media culture puts 95% of it's energy into personnel: who should be in power? Are they being competent right now? You can argue that this is bad for thought-through policy, but the really damning aspect is how bad the results have been in the part they are paying attention to.
It depends what you mean. The 'political system' in a broad sense manages about half of our entire system, with a budget of about £1.1 trillion. As with the workings of BP or Tesco, the actuality of doing it all competently is dull beyond belief, its inner workings and logistics from collecting a bin to organising out nuclear deterrence are painstaking and boring. Nearly all the person power goes unnoticed into all of this.
As with Tesco we notice only the outcomes and (for a few) the person at the top. The constant media coverage and public face of all this is basically the PR essential to a free press and a society where all the UK shareholders choose the board of directors every few years. None of know how it is all done, any more than how Tesco runs.
We do notice that all big supermarkets make very similar offers, and that no-one has recently done well by being radically different.
Interestingly, if we were choosing who to run Tesco neither Boris nor Truss would make the cut. Sunak might. Starmer....?
I can see why you would want to argue the way you have, nobody wants to admit they were wrong.
Aren’t statistics fun. But that report was as of the end of 2021.
I guess you chose not to highlight the last 2 years because of reasons?
No, please supply more up to date statistics if you can find them. From 7th March "Brexit hitting UK economy and damage set to worsen with new trade barriers, Budget watchdog warns"
The issue is that is very partial reporting by the journalist which gives a misleading impression.
If you had quoted this, for example, people might have formed a different view:
UK services trade has continued to grow strongly, including with the EU, despite the increase in trade barriers post-Brexit, the OBR added.
Energy prices, Russia/Ukraine, COVID and global recession are all more important. But on the margin trade barriers with one market did have an impact. But given the negative balance of trade with the EU and the fact that exports there are now growing faster than imports I’m not sure it’s a bad thing.
In business this would be analogous to improving profitability and cash flow by exiting less attractive activities even if it comes at the cost of a top line hit
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
They will - by kicking out the government of the last decade. Will Starmer deliver ? Who knows.
But it's an absolute certainty that the current lot won't.
It's interesting how you and Malcolm seem instinctually to resort to ad hominem in this argument.
Well old style arse kickers like me and malc dont worry to much about the niceties. Celts get down to the basics and save time.
Correct Alan, whinging was not an option , you were sent out of the office with a flea in your ear and told to get on with it. The molly coddled of today think it was all milk and honey with money growing in trees in our day, they would not have lasted.
Clearly the parents fault with all that molly coddling.
I am talking macro economics and you old farts make it personal. Classy guys. Real classy. Look through my posts in this thread and you will see my arguments back up by numbers. What have you got other than worn Monty pythonesque anecdotes about growing up in a cardboard box?
The reason that Sunak is doomed is that he has done nothing material to change the narrative or give us any idea what kind of country he wants. We have been in a quagmire since the Truss fiasco where, as a BBC reporter put it recently, ideas go to Downing Street to die.
Sunak has, sadly, proved to be another Gordon Brown: desperate for the top job but with no idea whatsoever of what to do with it when he got it. We can only hope that Starmer does not turn out to be the same.
I think Sunak is OK. It's just he's relatively inexperienced and doesn't have a strong political ear.
That's enough to finish him given the toxic legacy of Boris and Truss but I don't think he's a bad bloke, and he certainly works hard.
Big Rish should lean into his wannabe tech bro/spreadsheet wanker persona a bit. At least that would be authentic. When he tries to do the stupid populist shit (sat in Thatcher's Rover) or pretends to be a normal person (rigid with fear while holding a Labrador puppy) it just doesn't work.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
They will - by kicking out the government of the last decade. Will Starmer deliver ? Who knows.
But it's an absolute certainty that the current lot won't.
It's interesting how you and Malcolm seem instinctually to resort to ad hominem in this argument.
Well old style arse kickers like me and malc dont worry to much about the niceties. Celts get down to the basics and save time.
Correct Alan, whinging was not an option , you were sent out of the office with a flea in your ear and told to get on with it. The molly coddled of today think it was all milk and honey with money growing in trees in our day, they would not have lasted.
Clearly the parents fault with all that molly coddling.
Poor government , education and parenting , everybody told they are equal , all get medals , no winners, no losers. No education on real life and fact that there are always winners and losers and it is up to yourself for most people. Despite the wild promises of money trees and unicorns, there are no free lunches.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
They will - by kicking out the government of the last decade. Will Starmer deliver ? Who knows.
But it's an absolute certainty that the current lot won't.
It's interesting how you and Malcolm seem instinctually to resort to ad hominem in this argument.
Well old style arse kickers like me and malc dont worry to much about the niceties. Celts get down to the basics and save time.
Yes, thinking takes effort.
At our age you have done most of your thinking and know what you want.
As my wife and I are octogenarian we have all we want including a wonderful family, but the most important thing in life is health and that is another matter as it is for our fellow octogenarian on this board @OldKingCole
Indeed. Ive told my children to treat career and money as nice to haves, the essentials are family and health
The reason that Sunak is doomed is that he has done nothing material to change the narrative or give us any idea what kind of country he wants. We have been in a quagmire since the Truss fiasco where, as a BBC reporter put it recently, ideas go to Downing Street to die.
Sunak has, sadly, proved to be another Gordon Brown: desperate for the top job but with no idea whatsoever of what to do with it when he got it. We can only hope that Starmer does not turn out to be the same.
I think Sunak is OK. It's just he's relatively inexperienced and doesn't have a strong political ear.
That's enough to finish him given the toxic legacy of Boris and Truss but I don't think he's a bad bloke, and he certainly works hard.
Big Rish should lean into his wannabe tech bro/spreadsheet wanker persona a bit. At least that would be authentic. When he tries to do the stupid populist shit (sat in Thatcher's Rover) or pretends to be a normal person (rigid with fear while holding a Labrador puppy) it just doesn't work.
I am sorry but this thread header is talking nonsense. Boris made mistakes but was a lot more popular (and still is) than Sunak . Sunak is terrible ,not because he is controversial but because he cannot make hard decisions
There’s an element of that (he suffers from analysis paralysis). But also I’m not sure the electorate would have listened to Demosthenes had he been elected instead of Sunak. They were done.
Demosthenes was an idiot.
If it was good enough for Demosthenes, then it is good enough for Eliza Doolittle!
The political system has two responsibilities: personnel and strategy. The current political and media culture puts 95% of it's energy into personnel: who should be in power? Are they being competent right now? You can argue that this is bad for thought-through policy, but the really damning aspect is how bad the results have been in the part they are paying attention to.
It depends what you mean. The 'political system' in a broad sense manages about half of our entire system, with a budget of about £1.1 trillion. As with the workings of BP or Tesco, the actuality of doing it all competently is dull beyond belief, its inner workings and logistics from collecting a bin to organising out nuclear deterrence are painstaking and boring. Nearly all the person power goes unnoticed into all of this.
As with Tesco we notice only the outcomes and (for a few) the person at the top. The constant media coverage and public face of all this is basically the PR essential to a free press and a society where all the UK shareholders choose the board of directors every few years. None of know how it is all done, any more than how Tesco runs.
We do notice that all big supermarkets make very similar offers, and that no-one has recently done well by being radically different.
Interestingly, if we were choosing who to run Tesco neither Boris nor Truss would make the cut. Sunak might. Starmer....?
That’s because the supermarket model is relatively stable.
But remember that supermarkets are a new thing - how many decades?
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
The surprise is the unprecedented age gradient in wealth.
Yesterday Nicky Campbells phone in on 5Live was about the Triple lock. There was the outstanding figure quoted that a quarter of pensioners had over a million pounds in assets. Not sure if this included pension pots or the source of the figure. I suspect that a very large proportion is mortgage free residential property.
Quite obviously will be mainly pensioners with properties in London and south who may well have little to no actual money.
When it comes to personal wealth unless you know in detail the definitions being used it means little. For example, the 'million pound pensioners' - obviously a large group in London/SE where just to have a semi in a suburb can put you there - for a pensioner couple does that mean two million? Is the capital value of a pension pot or annuity part of your assets?
I can see why you would want to argue the way you have, nobody wants to admit they were wrong.
Aren’t statistics fun. But that report was as of the end of 2021.
I guess you chose not to highlight the last 2 years because of reasons?
No, please supply more up to date statistics if you can find them. From 7th March "Brexit hitting UK economy and damage set to worsen with new trade barriers, Budget watchdog warns"
The issue is that is very partial reporting by the journalist which gives a misleading impression.
If you had quoted this, for example, people might have formed a different view:
UK services trade has continued to grow strongly, including with the EU, despite the increase in trade barriers post-Brexit, the OBR added.
Energy prices, Russia/Ukraine, COVID and global recession are all more important. But on the margin trade barriers with one market did have an impact. But given the negative balance of trade with the EU and the fact that exports there are now growing faster than imports I’m not sure it’s a bad thing.
In business this would be analogous to improving profitability and cash flow by exiting less attractive activities even if it comes at the cost of a top line hit
As Reagan observed, if you're explaining you're losing.
The settled view of most people who have an opinion it is that Brexit is a shit idea that was shittily executed. Absent some emergent and unambiguous Brexit benefits that a fat fuck huffing on a vape in the queue at Gregg's can understand and appreciate, that's not going to change.
I (early millennial) have it much better than my parents. I can afford a better house and other comforts that were lacking when I was growing up. That's thanks to me being given opportunities - university - that were not open (or not perceived by them to be open) to them.
So, no whining from me. The state pension is still too low and the triple lock is a reasonable way to inflate it towards where it should be (I'd prefer a target in x years with set steps to get there, but that just replaces the 2.5% lock with the step).
But, house prices are insane and an unhealthy chunk of income. Some pensioners are sittong pretty if they have downsized houses and have great pensions not available now (even today's public sector pensions are less generous than many private ones for my parents' generation). Other pensioners, with no property and reliant on the state pension are poor. The started reform of NI versus income tax as has happened is a step in the right direction. There's more that can be done, but hitting pensioners as a whole is not the answer. Getting greater contributions from those who have benefitted from property prices (I have too) might be.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Can anyone remember what was in the renegotiation? Remain stopped talking about it straight away. Craig Oliver's book makes clear that they were never going to recommend leaving - and Merkel knew this - so it was a complete waste of time.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
They will - by kicking out the government of the last decade. Will Starmer deliver ? Who knows.
But it's an absolute certainty that the current lot won't.
It's interesting how you and Malcolm seem instinctually to resort to ad hominem in this argument.
Well old style arse kickers like me and malc dont worry to much about the niceties. Celts get down to the basics and save time.
Correct Alan, whinging was not an option , you were sent out of the office with a flea in your ear and told to get on with it. The molly coddled of today think it was all milk and honey with money growing in trees in our day, they would not have lasted.
Clearly the parents fault with all that molly coddling.
I am talking macro economics and you old farts make it personal. Classy guys. Real classy. Look through my posts in this thread and you will see my arguments back up by numbers. What have you got other than worn Monty pythonesque anecdotes about growing up in a cardboard box?
Parents also failed to teach them properly about frivalous sarcasm too I see.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Can anyone remember what was in the renegotiation? Remain stopped talking about it straight away. Craig Oliver's book makes clear that they were never going to recommend leaving - and Merkel knew this - so it was a complete waste of time.
Worse than a waste of time it was further proof that Cameron's EU negotiating was always 'posture, surrender, lie'.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Can anyone remember what was in the renegotiation? Remain stopped talking about it straight away. Craig Oliver's book makes clear that they were never going to recommend leaving - and Merkel knew this - so it was a complete waste of time.
Worse than a waste of time it was further proof that Cameron's EU negotiating was always 'posture, surrender, lie'.
Really? I mean, you say that when comparing it to the leave campaign and Johnson?
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
They will - by kicking out the government of the last decade. Will Starmer deliver ? Who knows.
But it's an absolute certainty that the current lot won't.
It's interesting how you and Malcolm seem instinctually to resort to ad hominem in this argument.
Well old style arse kickers like me and malc dont worry to much about the niceties. Celts get down to the basics and save time.
Correct Alan, whinging was not an option , you were sent out of the office with a flea in your ear and told to get on with it. The molly coddled of today think it was all milk and honey with money growing in trees in our day, they would not have lasted.
Clearly the parents fault with all that molly coddling.
Poor government , education and parenting , everybody told they are equal , all get medals , no winners, no losers. No education on real life and fact that there are always winners and losers and it is up to yourself for most people. Despite the wild promises of money trees and unicorns, there are no free lunches.
Let me give you an example of the uneven playing field in the uk. If you are born into poverty in the uk, on average, it takes your family 5 generations - FIVE - to make it up to median income. In Denmark, that number is two generations due to redistribution and proper social support. You talk about incentivisation - why would you work hard in a system that provides no regard in your lifetime.... even vicariously for your children?
Your account of personal moral failure as the cause of poverty makes no sense and it provides no explanation for these numbers. Some would even say that it is because people are left to their own devices and citizens in the uk show no care or compassion for their compatriots that it is like this.
In all honesty, I am kind of embarrassed for you guys on your thrones of moral fortitude, with so little concern for your fellow country men and women.
I can see why you would want to argue the way you have, nobody wants to admit they were wrong.
Aren’t statistics fun. But that report was as of the end of 2021.
I guess you chose not to highlight the last 2 years because of reasons?
No, please supply more up to date statistics if you can find them. From 7th March "Brexit hitting UK economy and damage set to worsen with new trade barriers, Budget watchdog warns"
The issue is that is very partial reporting by the journalist which gives a misleading impression.
If you had quoted this, for example, people might have formed a different view:
UK services trade has continued to grow strongly, including with the EU, despite the increase in trade barriers post-Brexit, the OBR added.
Energy prices, Russia/Ukraine, COVID and global recession are all more important. But on the margin trade barriers with one market did have an impact. But given the negative balance of trade with the EU and the fact that exports there are now growing faster than imports I’m not sure it’s a bad thing.
In business this would be analogous to improving profitability and cash flow by exiting less attractive activities even if it comes at the cost of a top line hit
As Reagan observed, if you're explaining you're losing.
The settled view of most people who have an opinion it is that Brexit is a shit idea that was shittily executed. Absent some emergent and unambiguous Brexit benefits that a fat fuck huffing on a vape in the queue at Gregg's can understand and appreciate, that's not going to change.
I the Reagan quote is overused. There is explaining on the back foot, and explaining with a view to convincing. Not enough of our politicians do the latter.
Blair was a dedicated explainer. He did it very well until the Iraq war. But even then his explanatory style got him further through the lies than others would have managed.
Cameron was an explainer, so too Gove. Clegg’s explaining skills worked initially and by all accounts seem to be serving him well at Meta. They didn’t work when he was trying to explain on the back foot.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
An interesting question, and a problem for those who had a view going beyond 'Yes' and 'No'. At the time (Covid, Trump and Ukraine have changed the picture since) for me leaving was necessary but not sufficient. The direction of travel towards federal union was (and is) unstoppable once the Euro was in place, so we had to be out. Being in the SM was essential for reasons now obvious. So we had to be in EFTA/EEA (the 'Norway for Now option).
EU v Boris's deal would have closed off the sane option. I would have vote to remain, but reluctantly.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Can anyone remember what was in the renegotiation? Remain stopped talking about it straight away. Craig Oliver's book makes clear that they were never going to recommend leaving - and Merkel knew this - so it was a complete waste of time.
From memory, I missed the release of the renegotiation as I had a medical emergency. When I was fit enough to read it, I came to the following conclusions:
*) It was okay. Not brilliant, not terrible. *) It was a middle road that would not particularly please remainers, but would make leavers livid. *) That many vocal leavers had decided it was a dud before they even read it.
But compared to what's come after it, it was genius. The Europhobes' insanity has really damaged this country, and continues to do so.
They own this mess, however much they try to deflect blame.
I can see why you would want to argue the way you have, nobody wants to admit they were wrong.
Aren’t statistics fun. But that report was as of the end of 2021.
I guess you chose not to highlight the last 2 years because of reasons?
No, please supply more up to date statistics if you can find them. From 7th March "Brexit hitting UK economy and damage set to worsen with new trade barriers, Budget watchdog warns"
The issue is that is very partial reporting by the journalist which gives a misleading impression.
If you had quoted this, for example, people might have formed a different view:
UK services trade has continued to grow strongly, including with the EU, despite the increase in trade barriers post-Brexit, the OBR added.
Energy prices, Russia/Ukraine, COVID and global recession are all more important. But on the margin trade barriers with one market did have an impact. But given the negative balance of trade with the EU and the fact that exports there are now growing faster than imports I’m not sure it’s a bad thing.
In business this would be analogous to improving profitability and cash flow by exiting less attractive activities even if it comes at the cost of a top line hit
As Reagan observed, if you're explaining you're losing.
The settled view of most people who have an opinion it is that Brexit is a shit idea that was shittily executed. Absent some emergent and unambiguous Brexit benefits that a fat fuck huffing on a vape in the queue at Gregg's can understand and appreciate, that's not going to change.
I the Reagan quote is overused. There is explaining on the back foot, and explaining with a view to convincing. Not enough of our politicians do the latter.
Blair was a dedicated explainer. He did it very well until the Iraq war. But even then his explanatory style got him further through the lies than others would have managed.
Cameron was an explainer, so too Gove. Clegg’s explaining skills worked initially and by all accounts seem to be serving him well at Meta. They didn’t work when he was trying to explain on the back foot.
To explain, you need a receptive audience. If you're on the back foot, there is a good chance that the intended audience is not receptive to explanation. In which case you need something else. But what?
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Can anyone remember what was in the renegotiation? Remain stopped talking about it straight away. Craig Oliver's book makes clear that they were never going to recommend leaving - and Merkel knew this - so it was a complete waste of time.
Worse than a waste of time it was further proof that Cameron's EU negotiating was always 'posture, surrender, lie'.
Though most sucessful negotiations (certainly in the sense of getting more than you're strictly entitled to) depend on a bit of bluff and blag.
Both Cameron's renegotiation and the Brexit dealmaking foundered because the UK and the EU didn't agree on the value of the cards the UK had, or the value of the things we were asking for. So the conversation went something like
Dave: "We need these concessions from the EU, or we may have to leave." EU: "Bof. The door is over there."
Annoying as it is, I'm not sure that they were wrong to say that to us. Or, as someone put it,
EU lays down a royal flush. UK looks at own cards: Mr Bun the Baker, Pikachu, a Shadowmage, a fireball spell, and the Fool.
Lord Cameron meets Trump in Florida for talks on Ukraine and the Middle East before meeting US Secretary of State Blinken in DC to discuss foreign policy too "David Cameron meets Donald Trump in Florida ahead of Blinken talks - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68767194
One of Sunak’s very few unquestionionably good decisions, was persuading Dave to come back as the top UK diplomat. He seems happy to meet with anyone, and more importantly anyone will take the meeting with the former PM.
Obviously correct. Boris and Truss screwed the Tories. At least Boris stumbled on a good strategy (economically moderate, socially populist) first.
If Boris wasn't incapable of telling the truth, then his basic instincts (whether on vaccines, Ukraine, or a realization that you had to get Brexit over the line) would have stood him in good stead.
Competence would have been a useful extra for Johnson, but broadly agree.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
An interesting question, and a problem for those who had a view going beyond 'Yes' and 'No'. At the time (Covid, Trump and Ukraine have changed the picture since) for me leaving was necessary but not sufficient. The direction of travel towards federal union was (and is) unstoppable once the Euro was in place, so we had to be out. Being in the SM was essential for reasons now obvious. So we had to be in EFTA/EEA (the 'Norway for Now option).
EU v Boris's deal would have closed off the sane option. I would have vote to remain, but reluctantly.
I did vote remain but leave won and we have left
The way forward is not to fight yesterday's battles, but improve relationships with the EU as proposed by Macron's outer group of countries
The UK has been told it must pay an extra £1.7bn (2.1bn euros) towards the European Union's budget because the economy has performed better than expected in recent years.
The payment follows new calculations by the EU that determine how much each member state should contribute.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Can anyone remember what was in the renegotiation? Remain stopped talking about it straight away. Craig Oliver's book makes clear that they were never going to recommend leaving - and Merkel knew this - so it was a complete waste of time.
Worse than a waste of time it was further proof that Cameron's EU negotiating was always 'posture, surrender, lie'.
Though most sucessful negotiations (certainly in the sense of getting more than you're strictly entitled to) depend on a bit of bluff and blag.
Both Cameron's renegotiation and the Brexit dealmaking foundered because the UK and the EU didn't agree on the value of the cards the UK had, or the value of the things we were asking for. So the conversation went something like
Dave: "We need these concessions from the EU, or we may have to leave." EU: "Bof. The door is over there."
Annoying as it is, I'm not sure that they were wrong to say that to us. Or, as someone put it,
EU lays down a royal flush. UK looks at own cards: Mr Bun the Baker, Pikachu, a Shadowmage, a fireball spell, and the Fool.
Why should anyone chose to remain in a club that takes that attitude to one of its leading members?
Lord Cameron meets Trump in Florida for talks on Ukraine and the Middle East before meeting US Secretary of State Blinken in DC to discuss foreign policy too "David Cameron meets Donald Trump in Florida ahead of Blinken talks - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68767194
One of Sunak’s very few unquestionionably good decisions, was persuading Dave to come back as the top UK diplomat. He seems happy to meet with anyone, and more importantly anyone will take the meeting with the former PM.
I’ll never forgive Cameron for calling the referendum and for his part in the woeful Remain campaign . But I do accept that’s so far he’s been a decent Foreign Secretary.
I see Labour are claiming they can fund their pledges by clamping down on tax dodgers. Oh, were it that the world were so simple. Must be their equivalent of saying we can fund big increases in spending by sacking all EDI staff and lots of NHS managers.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Can anyone remember what was in the renegotiation? Remain stopped talking about it straight away. Craig Oliver's book makes clear that they were never going to recommend leaving - and Merkel knew this - so it was a complete waste of time.
Worse than a waste of time it was further proof that Cameron's EU negotiating was always 'posture, surrender, lie'.
Really? I mean, you say that when comparing it to the leave campaign and Johnson?
See Cameron's posture about not paying the £1.7bn extra EU bill of 2014, agreeing to pay it all and then claiming he had 'halved the bill'.
Lying about specific facts while in government is a whole level more dishonest than exaggerated half-truth promises in a political campaign.
Not to mention that the 'project fear' campaign that Cameron and Osborne waged was far more dishonest than anything Boris did:
Britain’s economy would be tipped into a year-long recession, with at least 500,000 jobs lost and GDP around 3.6% lower, following a vote to leave the EU, new Treasury analysis launched today by the Prime Minister and Chancellor shows.
David Cameron has warned that pledges to raise state pensions every year and ringfence spending for the NHS may have to be ditched in a brutal new phase of austerity if the country votes for Brexit.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Can anyone remember what was in the renegotiation? Remain stopped talking about it straight away. Craig Oliver's book makes clear that they were never going to recommend leaving - and Merkel knew this - so it was a complete waste of time.
It was actually quite an interesting list of items, though poorly negotiated, so that few if any were binding. In an alternate history, it might nonetheless have formed a kernel of ideas for the European sceptics of further integration to build on.
IMO, Britain's biggest problem in the EU was (Thatcher partly excepted, interestingly) a failure to fully recognise or utilise our undoubted influence, and to build alliances to achieve policy ends.
On the generational angst, so much of it just boils down to housing. I really feel like a govt which prioritised building houses themselves, not relying on developers, and keeping social housing public could make inroads in this.
Another issue is people (of all ages and political persuasions) expect to be able to live where they grew up. And our system doesn't work like that.
Peckham 30 years ago is not the same as Peckham now. Very few people will be able to make the wealth jump required in the short time available.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
They did what they were told. My uncle and aunt bought their house, then paid off the mortgage as fast as they could. They then put 25% of their income in savings. Because the jobs got better… Both from working class backgrounds - memories of the rent man, their parents losing jobs.
This was what the experts on personal finance said to do.
The problem is that this kind of saving is no longer possible for most. Eaten by housing, mostly.
Anyone up for the Meji Restoration (UK edition) ?
Interesting comparison with Japanese history because Brexit if it is anything is sakoku (closed country) UK edition, the policy the Meiji Restoration reacted against. What would Meiji Restoration (UK edition) look like?
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
An interesting question, and a problem for those who had a view going beyond 'Yes' and 'No'. At the time (Covid, Trump and Ukraine have changed the picture since) for me leaving was necessary but not sufficient. The direction of travel towards federal union was (and is) unstoppable once the Euro was in place, so we had to be out. Being in the SM was essential for reasons now obvious. So we had to be in EFTA/EEA (the 'Norway for Now option).
EU v Boris's deal would have closed off the sane option. I would have vote to remain, but reluctantly.
Those of us who argued before the vote that the 'sane option' would be extremely unlikely to be a real option proved correct. It was decisively rejected by Parliament.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Can anyone remember what was in the renegotiation? Remain stopped talking about it straight away. Craig Oliver's book makes clear that they were never going to recommend leaving - and Merkel knew this - so it was a complete waste of time.
It was actually quite an interesting list of items, though poorly negotiated, so that few if any were binding. In an alternate history, it might nonetheless have formed a kernel of ideas for the European sceptics of further integration to build on.
IMO, Britain's biggest problem in the EU was (Thatcher partly excepted, interestingly) a failure to fully recognise or utilise our undoubted influence, and to build alliances to achieve policy ends.
Unsurprising really in a state whose own polity depends on confrontation and considers cooperation and coalition as signs of weakness.
I see Labour are claiming they can fund their pledges by clamping down on tax dodgers. Oh, were it that the world were so simple. Must be their equivalent of saying we can fund big increases in spending by sacking all EDI staff and lots of NHS managers.
They will increase taxes. You can count on it.
Tax Dodgers you say? Well we know where the first 1500 quid is coming from!
I see Labour are claiming they can fund their pledges by clamping down on tax dodgers. Oh, were it that the world were so simple. Must be their equivalent of saying we can fund big increases in spending by sacking all EDI staff and lots of NHS managers.
They will increase taxes. You can count on it.
All governments increase some taxes.
Its who they increase the taxes on and how they spend the extra income which varies.
But what really matters is not the few billion extra here or there but how effectively the government spends the trillion quid plus which it already spends every year.
If public spending could become 10% more effective then many of the country's problems would disappear.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Can anyone remember what was in the renegotiation? Remain stopped talking about it straight away. Craig Oliver's book makes clear that they were never going to recommend leaving - and Merkel knew this - so it was a complete waste of time.
Worse than a waste of time it was further proof that Cameron's EU negotiating was always 'posture, surrender, lie'.
Though most sucessful negotiations (certainly in the sense of getting more than you're strictly entitled to) depend on a bit of bluff and blag.
Both Cameron's renegotiation and the Brexit dealmaking foundered because the UK and the EU didn't agree on the value of the cards the UK had, or the value of the things we were asking for. So the conversation went something like
Dave: "We need these concessions from the EU, or we may have to leave." EU: "Bof. The door is over there."
Annoying as it is, I'm not sure that they were wrong to say that to us. Or, as someone put it,
EU lays down a royal flush. UK looks at own cards: Mr Bun the Baker, Pikachu, a Shadowmage, a fireball spell, and the Fool.
Why should anyone chose to remain in a club that takes that attitude to one of its leading members?
Question of degree. Cameron's renegotiation led to some concessions, but not enough to satisfy enough British Eurosceptics. In the same way that Britain had the right to walk away (which we did), so did the EU.
Not every negotiation leads to an agreement; sometimes there just isn't an overlap between "the most X can offer" and "the least Y can accept". British Eurosceptics never really made it explicit what their bottom line for staying in was, as was their right. But I get the impression that it would have meant cutting off things that were fairly fundamental to the EU's idea of itself.
I see Labour are claiming they can fund their pledges by clamping down on tax dodgers. Oh, were it that the world were so simple. Must be their equivalent of saying we can fund big increases in spending by sacking all EDI staff and lots of NHS managers.
They will increase taxes. You can count on it.
The discussion (as on R4 Today between Nick Robinson and the shadow chancellor this morning) is entirely confected and a PR election exercise, so ignore it except for electioneering purposes. The government, the opposition and (in the this case) the BBC are wanting to keep the discussion in this meaningless area of a few quid here or there.
While they discuss two or three billion (which tbf Robinson acknowleged was footnotes in the accounts) the continuing borrowing of £100 billion +, on top of a £2trillion debt went undiscussed.
Expect plenty more of this where neither Tory nor Labour find it helpful to raise the issue. There is in fact a massive pre-election truce going on over the big issues. But with voters and a media like ours, you cannot blame the opposition.
Lord Cameron meets Trump in Florida for talks on Ukraine and the Middle East before meeting US Secretary of State Blinken in DC to discuss foreign policy too "David Cameron meets Donald Trump in Florida ahead of Blinken talks - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68767194
One of Sunak’s very few unquestionionably good decisions, was persuading Dave to come back as the top UK diplomat. He seems happy to meet with anyone, and more importantly anyone will take the meeting with the former PM.
I’ll never forgive Cameron for calling the referendum and for his part in the woeful Remain campaign . But I do accept that’s so far he’s been a decent Foreign Secretary.
I disagreed with him as PM for different reasons, but he’s definitely doing well as foreign sec. That he can meet on consecutive days with Trump and Blinken, is very good for the UK in getting our aims and views heard across the Pond - especially on Ukraine, where the US political conversation is very different to what it is in Europe.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
Yes, oldies were young once and they "just go on and made changes". They never wasted time on protests. The '60s and '70s were famous for how few protests there were, how little disruption there was.
I see Labour are claiming they can fund their pledges by clamping down on tax dodgers. Oh, were it that the world were so simple. Must be their equivalent of saying we can fund big increases in spending by sacking all EDI staff and lots of NHS managers.
They will increase taxes. You can count on it.
They're claiming they they can fund a particular pledge by so doing. As the Reeves interview made very clear. (And it's quite possibly true.)
But it's a side issue as far as the larger problems of government are concerned.
But neither is it the equivalent that you suggest.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Can anyone remember what was in the renegotiation? Remain stopped talking about it straight away. Craig Oliver's book makes clear that they were never going to recommend leaving - and Merkel knew this - so it was a complete waste of time.
It was actually quite an interesting list of items, though poorly negotiated, so that few if any were binding. In an alternate history, it might nonetheless have formed a kernel of ideas for the European sceptics of further integration to build on.
IMO, Britain's biggest problem in the EU was (Thatcher partly excepted, interestingly) a failure to fully recognise or utilise our undoubted influence, and to build alliances to achieve policy ends.
Unsurprising really in a state whose own polity depends on confrontation and considers cooperation and coalition as signs of weakness.
Isn’t the EU the only Parliament that doesn’t have an Opposition?
I am sorry but this thread header is talking nonsense. Boris made mistakes but was a lot more popular (and still is) than Sunak . Sunak is terrible ,not because he is controversial but because he cannot make hard decisions
Johnson was more popular than Sunak because he only had to deal with the disappointment in himself. Sunak is less popular because he inherited the disappointment in Johnson, and in Truss, and then adds the disappointment in himself on top.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
Yes, oldies were young once and they "just go on and made changes". They never wasted time on protests. The '60s and '70s were famous for how few protests there were, how little disruption there was.
The bulk of people as today didnt go on protests. And even today those who protest, are protesting about things which arent going to help them. Gaza isnt going to build you an affordable house.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
An interesting question, and a problem for those who had a view going beyond 'Yes' and 'No'. At the time (Covid, Trump and Ukraine have changed the picture since) for me leaving was necessary but not sufficient. The direction of travel towards federal union was (and is) unstoppable once the Euro was in place, so we had to be out. Being in the SM was essential for reasons now obvious. So we had to be in EFTA/EEA (the 'Norway for Now option).
EU v Boris's deal would have closed off the sane option. I would have vote to remain, but reluctantly.
Those of us who argued before the vote that the 'sane option' would be extremely unlikely to be a real option proved correct. It was decisively rejected by Parliament.
Yes. It was however rational, if hopeful, to expect the majority of centrist remainers to agree, across party lines, to prefer achieving an EFTA/EEA deal to failing to achieve Remain while also agreeing to a worse deal than the EFTA one.
The reason that Sunak is doomed is that he has done nothing material to change the narrative or give us any idea what kind of country he wants. We have been in a quagmire since the Truss fiasco where, as a BBC reporter put it recently, ideas go to Downing Street to die.
Sunak has, sadly, proved to be another Gordon Brown: desperate for the top job but with no idea whatsoever of what to do with it when he got it. We can only hope that Starmer does not turn out to be the same.
To me the difference between Brown and Sunak is that when Brown was Chancellor, I thought he had it in him to be a good PM. It came as a shock and disappointment to me when right from the outset he demonstrated that he was not really up to the job. In contrast, with Sunak I had not seen any evidence of PM qualities when he was at No. 11. Giving people free money and half price dinners is all I remember him for; a lightweight who wanted to be Mr Popular. I therefore had no expectations of him when he took over as PM - but if anything he has still managed to surprise on the downside.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Can anyone remember what was in the renegotiation? Remain stopped talking about it straight away. Craig Oliver's book makes clear that they were never going to recommend leaving - and Merkel knew this - so it was a complete waste of time.
Worse than a waste of time it was further proof that Cameron's EU negotiating was always 'posture, surrender, lie'.
Really? I mean, you say that when comparing it to the leave campaign and Johnson?
See Cameron's posture about not paying the £1.7bn extra EU bill of 2014, agreeing to pay it all and then claiming he had 'halved the bill'.
Lying about specific facts while in government is a whole level more dishonest than exaggerated half-truth promises in a political campaign.
Not to mention that the 'project fear' campaign that Cameron and Osborne waged was far more dishonest than anything Boris did:
Britain’s economy would be tipped into a year-long recession, with at least 500,000 jobs lost and GDP around 3.6% lower, following a vote to leave the EU, new Treasury analysis launched today by the Prime Minister and Chancellor shows.
David Cameron has warned that pledges to raise state pensions every year and ringfence spending for the NHS may have to be ditched in a brutal new phase of austerity if the country votes for Brexit.
Oh behave. Project Fear to an extent has become Project Reality. You can see from the current questions over NHS funding and debate over the triple lock Cameron and Osborne were correct. If you haven't watched the FT films on the reality of Brexit you should. It's a balanced picture, although the conclusions are more has been lost than was gained.
Johnson was no more a Leaver than I was, but opting for his Leave letter ultimately made him Prime Minister, so all is good.
I see Labour are claiming they can fund their pledges by clamping down on tax dodgers. Oh, were it that the world were so simple. Must be their equivalent of saying we can fund big increases in spending by sacking all EDI staff and lots of NHS managers.
They will increase taxes. You can count on it.
If the polling discussed yesterday is anything to go by, the public knows that Labour will increase taxes.
The trouble for the Conservatives is that the public also expects them to increase taxes. Given the record since 2019, and the plans already in place for the next Parliament, that seems pretty inevitable.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
Yes, oldies were young once and they "just go on and made changes". They never wasted time on protests. The '60s and '70s were famous for how few protests there were, how little disruption there was.
Quite, the oldies like Alanbrooke don't know they are born these days.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
Your posts would work so much better if you didn’t use ‘boomer’ in every sentence. It’s not so much the repetition but the air of throwaway disdain that seems to come with it?
True, I’ve occasionally used the word ‘gammon’ with equal opprobrium, but I do so sparingly and only when riled.
There are plenty from either demographic who have worked hard and given good service. The systemic problems of this country cannot be laid at the feet of one or other group and we risk falling into the trap of what I mentioned here yesterday, namely scapegoating.
You can call me Gen X if you want... no hard feelings. It is just an age cohort descriptor. 😃
I’m often described as a cross between Millennial and Gen Z in my attitudes which tells me that the categorisations are pretty meaningless. Like a lot of social constructs they are designed to control others and sow divisions. When ideas challenge our own we seek to box people in.
I hope after the election that this country will move on from these social divisions and, albeit gradually, we begin to work together with greater mutual respect, understanding, and cohesion. Certainly we need to see an end to this 'anti-woke' and 'anti-gammon’ hatred.
We have to be able to talk about age as it is the key indicator of wealth distribution. And I guarantee you the numbers are insane. Why should we paper over social fact or silence it.
"over-50s now hold an eye-watering 78 per cent of all the UK's privately held housing wealth, with over-65s, the wealthiest age group, owning property worth a whopping £2.587 trillion net."
When youve worked for 30+ years you tend to have accumulated wealth, Wheres the surprise ?
It is these kinds of comments that enrage younger age cohorts.
Then perhaps you should get a life. Oldies were young once, had lots of things they didnt agree with at their age and just got on and made changes. Maybe youre getting enraged about the wrong things, Instead of Just stopping oil try just build some houses, it's in your interest.
Yes, oldies were young once and they "just go on and made changes". They never wasted time on protests. The '60s and '70s were famous for how few protests there were, how little disruption there was.
The bulk of people as today didnt go on protests. And even today those who protest, are protesting about things which arent going to help them. Gaza isnt going to build you an affordable house.
I see Labour are claiming they can fund their pledges by clamping down on tax dodgers. Oh, were it that the world were so simple. Must be their equivalent of saying we can fund big increases in spending by sacking all EDI staff and lots of NHS managers.
They will increase taxes. You can count on it.
Don't risk voting Labour - they might put up taxes.
Take the safe option and vote Conservative - the party with a track record of putting up taxes.
Lord Cameron meets Trump in Florida for talks on Ukraine and the Middle East before meeting US Secretary of State Blinken in DC to discuss foreign policy too "David Cameron meets Donald Trump in Florida ahead of Blinken talks - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68767194
One of Sunak’s very few unquestionionably good decisions, was persuading Dave to come back as the top UK diplomat. He seems happy to meet with anyone, and more importantly anyone will take the meeting with the former PM.
Anything for free holidays and good scoff and drink, he will be even more debauched by the time he gets the boot at election. He is getting his airmiles piled up at public expense while he can.
British foreign secretary David Cameron recently visited Republican candidate Donald Trump in Trump's house at Mar-a-Lago, Florida, to "hold talks". The Foreign Office said it's "standard practice" for ministers to meet with opposition candidates as part of their international trips. Cameron didn't find time to meet Joe Biden, though.
When was the last time a British foreign secretary went to meet an oppositional US presidential candidate in his house, omitting to call on the serving president?
Comments
For some reason, there wasn't a competent managerial type available. Gove, perhaps, but even typing that highlights the absurdity of the idea.
Wonder why that was?
All I said was that prior to Brexit everything was blamed on the EU and post Brexit everything has been blamed on Brexit. And that neither situation was or is true.
I never brought up the idea of reversing Brexit. If parliament wants to hold another referendum they can do so. I wouldn’t advise them to.
In hindsight Cameron would have been better off investing 2-3 years renegotiating the Lisbon Treaty for the whole of the EU along the lines of the Bloomberg speech. But that would have been a lot of work and he wanted to get it out the way quickly, and gambled that he could - just as Wilson did.
This was what the experts on personal finance said to do.
The problem is that this kind of saving is no longer possible for most. Eaten by housing, mostly.
Anyone up for the Meji Restoration (UK edition) ?
"Children from low-income families who grew up near a Sure Start centre did better than their peers at GCSEs, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)."
What a great example of levelling up. The Tories must be so proud that they opened these centres.
What was that? Labour opened them? And the Tories shut them down?
Assumptions are the basis of all f-ups. 🤣🤣🤣
From 7th March "Brexit hitting UK economy and damage set to worsen with new trade barriers, Budget watchdog warns"
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-budget-britain-economy-trade-eu-borders-b1143844.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sure_Start
Among its better features was that it was locally directed, and open to all, not just the means tested poor, so there was a significant degree of social mixing.
First is that competent managerial types didn't want to touch the Johnson Project, because it was so likely to go wrong in a predictable way. The triumph contained the seeds of the disaster.
The other is that vain insecure leaders tend to surround themselves with weaklings and nitwits because they think it makes their position more secure.
They took their share of
And invested it.
That's enough to finish him given the toxic legacy of Boris and Truss but I don't think he's a bad bloke, and he certainly works hard.
But until such time the young realise they need to spend their time on sorting out people who will build them a house instead of backing policies which are against their own interest such as net zero they are stuffed.
Starmer and the EU have moved on but sadly you seem to be unable to move out of your own purgatory
It can't have been fun being working class even as late as the 1930s.
Will Starmer deliver ? Who knows.
But it's an absolute certainty that the current lot won't.
It's interesting how you and Malcolm seem instinctually to resort to ad hominem in this argument.
That house has just sold by the owners for £275,000
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
As with Tesco we notice only the outcomes and (for a few) the person at the top. The constant media coverage and public face of all this is basically the PR essential to a free press and a society where all the UK shareholders choose the board of directors every few years. None of know how it is all done, any more than how Tesco runs.
We do notice that all big supermarkets make very similar offers, and that no-one has recently done well by being radically different.
Interestingly, if we were choosing who to run Tesco neither Boris nor Truss would make the cut. Sunak might. Starmer....?
If you had quoted this, for example, people might have formed a different view:
UK services trade has continued to grow strongly, including with the EU, despite the increase in trade barriers post-Brexit, the OBR added.
Energy prices, Russia/Ukraine, COVID and global recession are all more important. But on the margin trade barriers with one market did have an impact. But given the negative balance of trade with the EU and the fact that exports there are now growing faster than imports I’m not sure it’s a bad thing.
In business this would be analogous to improving profitability and cash flow by exiting less attractive activities even if it comes at the cost of a top line hit
Despite the wild promises of money trees and unicorns, there are no free lunches.
You can only be your authentic self.
But remember that supermarkets are a new thing - how many decades?
What comes next?
The settled view of most people who have an opinion it is that Brexit is a shit idea that was shittily executed. Absent some emergent and unambiguous Brexit benefits that a fat fuck huffing on a vape in the queue at Gregg's can understand and appreciate, that's not going to change.
I (early millennial) have it much better than my parents. I can afford a better house and other comforts that were lacking when I was growing up. That's thanks to me being given opportunities - university - that were not open (or not perceived by them to be open) to them.
So, no whining from me. The state pension is still too low and the triple lock is a reasonable way to inflate it towards where it should be (I'd prefer a target in x years with set steps to get there, but that just replaces the 2.5% lock with the step).
But, house prices are insane and an unhealthy chunk of income. Some pensioners are sittong pretty if they have downsized houses and have great pensions not available now (even today's public sector pensions are less generous than many private ones for my parents' generation). Other pensioners, with no property and reliant on the state pension are poor. The started reform of NI versus income tax as has happened is a step in the right direction. There's more that can be done, but hitting pensioners as a whole is not the answer. Getting greater contributions from those who have benefitted from property prices (I have too) might be.
The Bloomberg speech was a sensible way forward. Cameron was unwilling to put in the effort to make it happen
Your account of personal moral failure as the cause of poverty makes no sense and it provides no explanation for these numbers. Some would even say that it is because people are left to their own devices and citizens in the uk show no care or compassion for their compatriots that it is like this.
In all honesty, I am kind of embarrassed for you guys on your thrones of moral fortitude, with so little concern for your fellow country men and women.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44489556
Blair was a dedicated explainer. He did it very well until the Iraq war. But even then his explanatory style got him further through the lies than others would have managed.
Cameron was an explainer, so too Gove. Clegg’s explaining skills worked initially and by all accounts seem to be serving him well at Meta. They didn’t work when he was trying to explain on the back foot.
EU v Boris's deal would have closed off the sane option. I would have vote to remain, but reluctantly.
*) It was okay. Not brilliant, not terrible.
*) It was a middle road that would not particularly please remainers, but would make leavers livid.
*) That many vocal leavers had decided it was a dud before they even read it.
But compared to what's come after it, it was genius. The Europhobes' insanity has really damaged this country, and continues to do so.
They own this mess, however much they try to deflect blame.
Both Cameron's renegotiation and the Brexit dealmaking foundered because the UK and the EU didn't agree on the value of the cards the UK had, or the value of the things we were asking for. So the conversation went something like
Dave: "We need these concessions from the EU, or we may have to leave."
EU: "Bof. The door is over there."
Annoying as it is, I'm not sure that they were wrong to say that to us. Or, as someone put it,
EU lays down a royal flush. UK looks at own cards: Mr Bun the Baker, Pikachu, a Shadowmage, a fireball spell, and the Fool.
The way forward is not to fight yesterday's battles, but improve relationships with the EU as proposed by Macron's outer group of countries
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29751124
The UK has been told it must pay an extra £1.7bn (2.1bn euros) towards the European Union's budget because the economy has performed better than expected in recent years.
The payment follows new calculations by the EU that determine how much each member state should contribute.
They will increase taxes. You can count on it.
Lying about specific facts while in government is a whole level more dishonest than exaggerated half-truth promises in a political campaign.
Not to mention that the 'project fear' campaign that Cameron and Osborne waged was far more dishonest than anything Boris did:
Britain’s economy would be tipped into a year-long recession, with at least 500,000 jobs lost and GDP around 3.6% lower, following a vote to leave the EU, new Treasury analysis launched today by the Prime Minister and Chancellor shows.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-to-enter-recession-with-500000-uk-jobs-lost-if-it-left-eu-new-treasury-analysis-shows
David Cameron has warned that pledges to raise state pensions every year and ringfence spending for the NHS may have to be ditched in a brutal new phase of austerity if the country votes for Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/11/brexit-axe-state-pensions-david-cameron-nhs-cold-reality
In an alternate history, it might nonetheless have formed a kernel of ideas for the European sceptics of further integration to build on.
IMO, Britain's biggest problem in the EU was (Thatcher partly excepted, interestingly) a failure to fully recognise or utilise our undoubted influence, and to build alliances to achieve policy ends.
I think it was the comedian Tim MInchin[sp] who said: All we ask of travellers, is that they travel.
Another issue is people (of all ages and political persuasions) expect to be able to live where they grew up. And our system doesn't work like that.
Peckham 30 years ago is not the same as Peckham now. Very few people will be able to make the wealth jump required in the short time available.
It was decisively rejected by Parliament.
Its who they increase the taxes on and how they spend the extra income which varies.
But what really matters is not the few billion extra here or there but how effectively the government spends the trillion quid plus which it already spends every year.
If public spending could become 10% more effective then many of the country's problems would disappear.
Not every negotiation leads to an agreement; sometimes there just isn't an overlap between "the most X can offer" and "the least Y can accept". British Eurosceptics never really made it explicit what their bottom line for staying in was, as was their right. But I get the impression that it would have meant cutting off things that were fairly fundamental to the EU's idea of itself.
While they discuss two or three billion (which tbf Robinson acknowleged was footnotes in the accounts) the continuing borrowing of £100 billion +, on top of a £2trillion debt went undiscussed.
Expect plenty more of this where neither Tory nor Labour find it helpful to raise the issue. There is in fact a massive pre-election truce going on over the big issues. But with voters and a media like ours, you cannot blame the opposition.
But it's a side issue as far as the larger problems of government are concerned.
But neither is it the equivalent that you suggest.
Johnson was no more a Leaver than I was, but opting for his Leave letter ultimately made him Prime Minister, so all is good.
The trouble for the Conservatives is that the public also expects them to increase taxes. Given the record since 2019, and the plans already in place for the next Parliament, that seems pretty inevitable.
Take the safe option and vote Conservative - the party with a track record of putting up taxes.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13285005/Jobsworth-traffic-warden-sparks-outrage-handing-RNLI-volunteers-100-parking-fines-busy-saving-lives-sea-despite-displaying-2-000-year-permits.html
When was the last time a British foreign secretary went to meet an oppositional US presidential candidate in his house, omitting to call on the serving president?