The current batch of wrinklies have been a generation of spongers, first relying on their parents' funding the establishment of the modern welfare state and now relying on their children to pay for something they will never benefit from. Far from showing any gratitude, they take every opportunity to salt the ground for those who come after them.
Vey few of them alive now who would have fought in WW2, but they would all have grown up in the war or the long shadow it cast into the fifties. Rationing ended in 1954. They had a truly shit start to life, bing bombed, evacuated, or never seeing a banana until they were into puberty.
You have to be a viciously mean-spirited person to write about this generation of "wrinkles" as you do. No wonder they kicked you in the balls by voting for Brexit.
As a baby cowering under a table in Manchester as the v bombs were falling around us, one killing 6 of our neighbours, then the rationing and hard times of the fifties, starting work at 16 on £3.00 a week and marvelling when my Father was promoted and his income rose to £1,000. My Mother and later my wife sewing, mending and making do, never buying anything if we could not afford it.
Working honestly 60 - 70 hours a week to buy a home and raise a family still living within our means.
Eventually after 49 years of work paying all taxes I retire on a state pension and a private pension I had sacrificed to contribute to I am now told the state will come and take everything away from me is beyond belief
You can put the violin away mate....that's life. My kids are 3 and 5 and your generation (note, not necessarily you personally) voted to ruin their future. By the time they are of voting age that will be painfully obvious and to say the least you will not be popular.
I voted remain if that is your problem but your hate does you no favours and by the way, when your children are of voting age this Country will be every bit as good as it ever has been, in or out of Europe and more than likely I will not be a problem for the young anymore
Your inability to debate this without taking things intensely personally also does you no favours. Just because the old moan about the young, as they have since the dawn of time, does not mean they hate them, and vice versa.
Its a flaw I have as well, I so sympathise with @Big_G_NorthWales. I’ve taken things personally in the past. Even though I rarely agree with him, he’s always been one of the best Conservatives on here, IMO.
The current batch of wrinklies have been a generation of spongers, first relying on their parents' funding the establishment of the modern welfare state and now relying on their children to pay for something they will never benefit from.
As a baby cowering under a table in Manchester as the v bombs were falling around us, one killing 6 of our neighbours, then the rationing and hard times of the fifties, starting work at 16 on £3.00 a week and marvelling when my Father was promoted and his income rose to £1,000. My Mother and later my wife sewing, mending and making do, never buying anything if we could not afford it.
Working honestly 60 - 70 hours a week to buy a home and raise a family still living within our means.
Eventually after 49 years of work paying all taxes I retire on a state pension and a private pension I had sacrificed to contribute to I am now told the state will come and take everything away from me is beyond belief
You can put the violin away mate....that's life. My kids are 3 and 5 and your generation (note, not necessarily you personally) voted to ruin their future. By the time they are of voting age that will be painfully obvious and to say the least you will not be popular.
I voted remain if that is your problem but your hate does you no favours and by the way, when your children are of voting age this Country will be every bit as good as it ever has been, in or out of Europe and more than likely I will not be a problem for the young anymore
Your inability to debate this without taking things intensely personally also does you no favours. Just because the old moan about the young, as they have since the dawn of time, does not mean they hate them, and vice versa.
I have never ever moaned about the young. I have three grown up children probably older than you and they have provided us with four wonderful grandchildren. I served as chairman of our PTA, chairman of the group scout council, raising money for childrens homes and delivered birthday and christmas presents to orphaned children.
My whole life has celebrated and encouraged the young and I am one of many many elderly people who reject your characterisation of our generation.
On the issue of winter fuel allowances et al, it certainly wasn’t down to the political choices of young people to introduce all those benefits. It just so happened to be the case the party that young people felt was advocating most for their interests supported all those things.
With the consequence that they've cemented those things in for the foreseeable future. Good result, hey?
Yes, good result. Young people now have had issues that affect them - e.g. housing, tuition fees, the gig economy - given more attention.
I agree attention needs to turn to young people. It is long overdue but I do resent our generation being portayed as anti the young
Out of UKIP, maybe? Who wants to end up landed with £200k+++ of legal fees?
Lawyers, who receive them, are probably not that unhappy.
Touching naivete about the way the legal system is funded. A £200,000 award of costs implies, as a rule of thumb, that the plaintiffs have paid their lawyers £350,000+ and have been graciously permitted to get some of it back off the opposition. Lawyers get paid irregardless.
Out of UKIP, maybe? Who wants to end up landed with £200k+++ of legal fees?
Lawyers, who receive them, are probably not that unhappy.
Touching naivete about the way the legal system is funded. A £200,000 award of costs implies, as a rule of thumb, that the plaintiffs have paid their lawyers £350,000+ and have been graciously permitted to get some of it back off the opposition. Lawyers get paid irregardless.
You think? I would be surprised if there was not a fair degree of speculative fee for an action like this.
The current batch of wrinklies have been a generation of spongers, first relying on their parents' funding the establishment of the modern welfare state and now relying on their children to pay for something they will never benefit from. Far from showing any gratitude, they take every opportunity to salt the ground for those who come after them.
Vey few of them alive now who would have fought in WW2, but they would all have grown up in the war or the long shadow it cast into the fifties. Rationing ended in 1954. They had a truly shit start to life, bing bombed, evacuated, or never seeing a banana until they were into puberty.
You have to be a viciously mean-spirited person to write about this generation of "wrinkles" as you do. No wonder they kicked you in the balls by voting for Brexit.
I hate to interrupt your violin playing, but not a single baby boomer was bombed or evacuated, as all baby boomers were by definition born post war. And because the definition of baby boomer stretches into births in the early 60s, very many baby boomers were not subject to rationing. Alistair made clear his complaint did not refer to those older than boomers (which incidentally includes war baby Big G).
So most of the oldies seem to want the young to do something they themselves did not do!
Time for compulsory dementia testIng to get onto the electoral register...
I find this poll extraordinary. I totally reject any idea the young should do national service and I find it difficult that this is not a common view amongst us oldies
On the issue of winter fuel allowances et al, it certainly wasn’t down to the political choices of young people to introduce all those benefits. It just so happened to be the case the party that young people felt was advocating most for their interests supported all those things.
With the consequence that they've cemented those things in for the foreseeable future. Good result, hey?
Yes, good result. Young people now have had issues that affect them - e.g. housing, tuition fees, the gig economy - given more attention.
I agree attention needs to turn to young people. It is long overdue but I do resent our generation being portayed as anti the young
And thank you for your kind earlier comments
But your generation isn't the baby boom generation...if you were born in the war you are too old for that. You are part of the generation Alistair praised for building the welfare state.
The solution is simple. Introduce compulsory military service for pensioners.
Grandad's Army?
It's the latest piece of evidence that old people really are bastards to the young. Every time you think they can sink no lower, they find a new way to try to screw them.
Today's under 40s will get their revenge in about 10 years time, by which time they will outnumber and outvote the baby boomers. I expect there to be a government elected some time in the 2020s which will be dedicated to stripping the boomer generation of their pensions and property assets.
My thoughts exactly, in regard to all of the above.
Not at all. Young people are extremely generous to the older generation. That's why at the last election they turned out in such numbers to try to vote a 67-year old into No 10, on a platform of keeping the Triple Lock, keeping untaxed Winter Fuel Payments and free bus passes for wealthy old people, and ensuring that wealthy old people don't have to pay for their own care.
Corbyn also promised them free university tuition, cheap housing and low utility bills. He promised just about everything except free owls and unicorns to everybody.
The only group of people he didn't try to nakedly bribe were (ironically) welfare recipients.
Yes, that was one of the most striking features of the Labour manifesto. It's not even clear why; since they were planning to fork out an extra £40bn a year in current spending, £176bn* in nationalisation, countless further billions on 'investment', and in an absent-minded moment £11bn in cancelling existing student loans, it seems very odd that they didn't bung in a few tens of billion for the poorest.
* According to the calculation by Centre for Policy Studies
The Centre for Policy Studies founded by Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph -- not natural Corbynites, perhaps?
On the issue of winter fuel allowances et al, it certainly wasn’t down to the political choices of young people to introduce all those benefits. It just so happened to be the case the party that young people felt was advocating most for their interests supported all those things.
With the consequence that they've cemented those things in for the foreseeable future. Good result, hey?
Yes, good result. Young people now have had issues that affect them - e.g. housing, tuition fees, the gig economy - given more attention.
I agree attention needs to turn to young people. It is long overdue but I do resent our generation being portayed as anti the young
And thank you for your kind earlier comments
But your generation isn't the baby boom generation...if you were born in the war you are too old for that. You are part of the generation Alistair praised for building the welfare state.
Indeed and very much support the young. Have done all my life in words and deeds
Out of UKIP, maybe? Who wants to end up landed with £200k+++ of legal fees?
Lawyers, who receive them, are probably not that unhappy.
Touching naivete about the way the legal system is funded. A £200,000 award of costs implies, as a rule of thumb, that the plaintiffs have paid their lawyers £350,000+ and have been graciously permitted to get some of it back off the opposition. Lawyers get paid irregardless.
You think? I would be surprised if there was not a fair degree of speculative fee for an action like this.
Good point (possibly). I have to say I stopped litigating late 1990s, before speculative fees were a thing.
On the issue of winter fuel allowances et al, it certainly wasn’t down to the political choices of young people to introduce all those benefits. It just so happened to be the case the party that young people felt was advocating most for their interests supported all those things.
With the consequence that they've cemented those things in for the foreseeable future. Good result, hey?
Yes, good result. Young people now have had issues that affect them - e.g. housing, tuition fees, the gig economy - given more attention.
I agree attention needs to turn to young people. It is long overdue but I do resent our generation being portayed as anti the young
And thank you for your kind earlier comments
Tbf, I don’t think you are a boomer so the comments made earlier on wouldn’t apply to you. IIRC you’re of the generation which actually had to do national service, so for those in their seventies/eighties it wouldn’t be hypothetical for them to support it being brought back now (though I wouldn’t want that).
On the issue of winter fuel allowances et al, it certainly wasn’t down to the political choices of young people to introduce all those benefits. It just so happened to be the case the party that young people felt was advocating most for their interests supported all those things.
With the consequence that they've cemented those things in for the foreseeable future. Good result, hey?
Yes, good result. Young people now have had issues that affect them - e.g. housing, tuition fees, the gig economy - given more attention.
I agree attention needs to turn to young people. It is long overdue but I do resent our generation being portayed as anti the young
And thank you for your kind earlier comments
But your generation isn't the baby boom generation...if you were born in the war you are too old for that. You are part of the generation Alistair praised for building the welfare state.
Indeed and very much support the young. Have done all my life in words and deeds
You are I'm guessing mid 70s. Do you not notice a difference amongst people 10 or 15 years younger?
On the issue of winter fuel allowances et al, it certainly wasn’t down to the political choices of young people to introduce all those benefits. It just so happened to be the case the party that young people felt was advocating most for their interests supported all those things.
With the consequence that they've cemented those things in for the foreseeable future. Good result, hey?
Yes, good result. Young people now have had issues that affect them - e.g. housing, tuition fees, the gig economy - given more attention.
I agree attention needs to turn to young people. It is long overdue but I do resent our generation being portayed as anti the young
And thank you for your kind earlier comments
Tbf, I don’t think you are a boomer so the comments made earlier on wouldn’t apply to you. IIRC you’re of the generation which actually had to do national service, so for those in their seventies/eighties it wouldn’t be hypothetical for them to support it being brought back now (though I wouldn’t want that).
There would have to be an option to do civilian national service for those who don't fancy the military, like in Norway where it works pretty well. And in these enlightened times it would need to apply to girls as well.
I am starting to wonder if Trump might just do it and actually narrowly cling on in 2020.
A few months ago, I’d have said this was very unlikely. And yet the received wisdom in 2003 was that Bush was a goner but come the election year things were much tighter and he obviously pulled off reelection.
Of course, the fundamentals for Bush were a bit stronger - ‘wartime’ president, poor but not cataclysmic approval ratings (unlike Trump), a stronger White House team - but in some ways the similarities are there - loathed by the progressive left, dismissed as a buffoon, divisive..
If Trump can capitalise on his tax and infrastructure policies, and dismiss the democrats as being not serious about the hard economics and more focussed on social issues, I could see a scenario where he pulls it off. Particularly if the democrats go for someone on the liberal wing like Warren or Harris (I suggest they might as they gave the more moderate Hillary a shot in 2016 and will be looking for something different).
He’s not going to ever get a Reaganesque sweep, but you wonder if the path to a narrow 270+ might just, just be there if the cards fall right...
It may have been said very time, but it's still worth saying, since it's taken a lot of us a long time for it to sink in. People don't want a centrist party, or else they assume the party they support is already centrist.
On the issue of winter fuel allowances et al, it certainly wasn’t down to the political choices of young people to introduce all those benefits. It just so happened to be the case the party that young people felt was advocating most for their interests supported all those things.
With the consequence that they've cemented those things in for the foreseeable future. Good result, hey?
Yes, good result. Young people now have had issues that affect them - e.g. housing, tuition fees, the gig economy - given more attention.
Indeed. Trouble is they will end up having to pay loads more tax to pay for state housing and benefits for all the poor pensioners stripped of their property and savings. Unless of course the intention is to let them starve.
I thought it was a good idea to make those with assets and savings use them to pay for their care in old age. It might have marked the start of a shift from cosseting those with assets to expecting them to make more provision for themselves thus releasing more funds for help for the young. I was in a minority. The effect of all those young voters plumping for a left wing leader unable to add up was to make such a sensible policy politically unsellable for the foreseeable future. By voting in this way they have made it harder not easier to resolve the issues they care about.
If a radical left wing government intent on expropriating my assets becomes a real possibility I have no intention of staying here. I need to make provision for my own young not become a burden on them or reliant on the state in my old age.
The solution is simple. Introduce compulsory military service for pensioners.
Grandad's Army?
It's the latest piece of evidence that old people really are bastards to the young. Every time you think they can sink no lower, they find a new way to try to screw them.
Today's under 40s will get their revenge in about 10 years time, by which time they will outnumber and outvote the baby boomers. I expect there to be a government elected some time in the 2020s which will be dedicated to stripping the boomer generation of their pensions and property assets.
My thoughts exactly, in regard to all of the above.
Not at all. Young people are extremely generous to the older generation. That's why at the last election they turned out in such numbers to try to vote a 67-year old into No 10, on a platform of keeping the Triple Lock, keeping untaxed Winter Fuel Payments and free bus passes for wealthy old people, and ensuring that wealthy old people don't have to pay for their own care.
Amusing, though of course that was just good old fashioned political opportunism, and if it didn't help it probably didn't hurt, particularly with the Tories taking away some freebies for once.
On the issue of winter fuel allowances et al, it certainly wasn’t down to the political choices of young people to introduce all those benefits. It just so happened to be the case the party that young people felt was advocating most for their interests supported all those things.
With the consequence that they've cemented those things in for the foreseeable future. Good result, hey?
Yes, good result. Young people now have had issues that affect them - e.g. housing, tuition fees, the gig economy - given more attention.
I agree attention needs to turn to young people. It is long overdue but I do resent our generation being portayed as anti the young
And thank you for your kind earlier comments
Tbf, I don’t think you are a boomer so the comments made earlier on wouldn’t apply to you. IIRC you’re of the generation which actually had to do national service, so for those in their seventies/eighties it wouldn’t be hypothetical for them to support it being brought back now (though I wouldn’t want that).
There would have to be an option to do civilian national service for those who don't fancy the military, like in Norway where it works pretty well. And in these enlightened times it would need to apply to girls as well.
If done that way, I think it could actually be pretty productive. I may even well support it! Military national service though....a no from me....
I am starting to wonder if Trump might just do it and actually narrowly cling on in 2020.
A few months ago, I’d have said this was very unlikely. And yet the received wisdom in 2003 was that Bush was a goner but come the election year things were much tighter and he obviously pulled off reelection.
Of course, the fundamentals for Bush were a bit stronger - ‘wartime’ president, poor but not cataclysmic approval ratings (unlike Trump), a stronger White House team - but in some ways the similarities are there - loathed by the progressive left, dismissed as a buffoon, divisive..
If Trump can capitalise on his tax and infrastructure policies, and dismiss the democrats as being not serious about the hard economics and more focussed on social issues, I could see a scenario where he pulls it off. Particularly if the democrats go for someone on the liberal wing like Warren or Harris (I suggest they might as they have the more moderate Hillary a shot in 2016 and will be looking for something different).
He’s not going to ever get a Reaganesque sweep, but you wonder if the path to a narrow 270+ might just, just be there if the cards fall right...
Bush was doing a lot better than Trump in the polls in 2003 and led some of them. Not that you're necessarily wrong but I think Trump's ratings are even worse than Bush's were post 2006.
IS it just me or isn’t here something very very messed up at the moment.
Man puts hand on knee of female friend 20+ years ago, she says piss off and nothing more happens, this becomes a major news story for days and man has to resign.
Man meets with enemy agents at the height of cold war, passed information to them, since then regularly meets with terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who are also enemies britain, dismissed as total non-stories and hardly any coverage.
Trying it on with a member of the opposite sex, disqualification from high office, trying it on with enemies of the state, boys will be boys...
I am starting to wonder if Trump might just do it and actually narrowly cling on in 2020.
A few months ago, I’d have said this was very unlikely. And yet the received wisdom in 2003 was that Bush was a goner but come the election year things were much tighter and he obviously pulled off reelection.
Of course, the fundamentals for Bush were a bit stronger - ‘wartime’ president, poor but not cataclysmic approval ratings (unlike Trump), a stronger White House team - but in some ways the similarities are there - loathed by the progressive left, dismissed as a buffoon, divisive..
If Trump can capitalise on his tax and infrastructure policies, and dismiss the democrats as being not serious about the hard economics and more focussed on social issues, I could see a scenario where he pulls it off. Particularly if the democrats go for someone on the liberal wing like Warren or Harris (I suggest they might as they have the more moderate Hillary a shot in 2016 and will be looking for something different).
He’s not going to ever get a Reaganesque sweep, but you wonder if the path to a narrow 270+ might just, just be there if the cards fall right...
Bush was doing a lot better than Trump in the polls in 2003 and led some of them. Not that you're necessarily wrong but I think Trump's ratings are even worse than Bush's were post 2006.
I agree that Bush was doing better on the numbers side of things, which is why I still think the Dems are favourites for 2020. The fact is that I can now envisage a path for Trump, whereas a few months ago I couldn’t see anyway that this was anything other than a one term or less presidency...
On the issue of winter fuel allowances et al, it certainly wasn’t down to the political choices of young people to introduce all those benefits. It just so happened to be the case the party that young people felt was advocating most for their interests supported all those things.
With the consequence that they've cemented those things in for the foreseeable future. Good result, hey?
Yes, good result. Young people now have had issues that affect them - e.g. housing, tuition fees, the gig economy - given more attention.
I agree attention needs to turn to young people. It is long overdue but I do resent our generation being portayed as anti the young
And thank you for your kind earlier comments
But your generation isn't the baby boom generation...if you were born in the war you are too old for that. You are part of the generation Alistair praised for building the welfare state.
Indeed and very much support the young. Have done all my life in words and deeds
You are I'm guessing mid 70s. Do you not notice a difference amongst people 10 or 15 years younger?
Not really. I am 74 and my wife is 78.
My next door neighbours have both just retired at 60 having raised two children and lived in their home for the last 25 years.
To be fair i do think this is much more of a London and South issue. In our area couples can buy starter homes for £100,000 - £150,000 so a professional couple of say a teacher and a nurse can get on the ladder but the same couple down south would not have a prayer.
I do think that intensive building is needed with all planning consents insisting on upto 50% affordable purchase and rent properties included in the development. I would also heavily tax or withdraw consent to builders who land bank.
I want to see some accommodation on tuition fees, equalising the national living wage for under 25, and expenses towards vocational training.
This would be a start and remember I am a conservative member who accepts move has to be done for the younger electorate
I am starting to wonder if Trump might just do it and actually narrowly cling on in 2020.
A few months ago, I’d have said this was very unlikely. And yet the received wisdom in 2003 was that Bush was a goner but come the election year things were much tighter and he obviously pulled off reelection.
Of course, the fundamentals for Bush were a bit stronger - ‘wartime’ president, poor but not cataclysmic approval ratings (unlike Trump), a stronger White House team - but in some ways the similarities are there - loathed by the progressive left, dismissed as a buffoon, divisive..
If Trump can capitalise on his tax and infrastructure policies, and dismiss the democrats as being not serious about the hard economics and more focussed on social issues, I could see a scenario where he pulls it off. Particularly if the democrats go for someone on the liberal wing like Warren or Harris (I suggest they might as they gave the more moderate Hillary a shot in 2016 and will be looking for something different).
He’s not going to ever get a Reaganesque sweep, but you wonder if the path to a narrow 270+ might just, just be there if the cards fall right...
That does of course presuppose that Trump is the Republican nominee next time. However, since the last eligible incumbent Republican president to be ditched by the party rather than withdraw was Chester Arthur in 1884, it seems likely he will be if he wants it.
On the issue of winter fuel allowances et al, it certainly wasn’t down to the political choices of young people to introduce all those benefits. It just so happened to be the case the party that young people felt was advocating most for their interests supported all those things.
With the consequence that they've cemented those things in for the foreseeable future. Good result, hey?
Yes, good result. Young people now have had issues that affect them - e.g. housing, tuition fees, the gig economy - given more attention.
Indeed. Trouble is they will end up having to pay loads more tax to pay for state housing and benefits for all the poor pensioners stripped of their property and savings. Unless of course the intention is to let them starve.
I thought it was a good idea to make those with assets and savings use them to pay for their care in old age. It might have marked the start of a shift from cosseting those with assets to expecting them to make more provision for themselves thus releasing more funds for help for the young. I was in a minority. The effect of all those young voters plumping for a left wing leader unable to add up was to make such a sensible policy politically unsellable for the foreseeable future. By voting in this way they have made it harder not easier to resolve the issues they care about.
If a radical left wing government intent on expropriating my assets becomes a real possibility I have no intention of staying here. I need to make provision for my own young not become a burden on them or reliant on the state in my old age.
I hope we don’t get a radical left wing government, but I think the less access people have to capital, the more likely they’ll become resentful and open to radical left wing polices. It’s one of the reasons why despite the research suggesting that many of my generation are socially and economically liberal, they voted for Jeremy Corbyn of all people.
All of the young people who are relying on their parents to get on the property ladder wouldn’t have been great fans of the dementia tax. I can see why.
I am starting to wonder if Trump might just do it and actually narrowly cling on in 2020.
A few months ago, I’d have said this was very unlikely. And yet the received wisdom in 2003 was that Bush was a goner but come the election year things were much tighter and he obviously pulled off reelection.
Of course, the fundamentals for Bush were a bit stronger - ‘wartime’ president, poor but not cataclysmic approval ratings (unlike Trump), a stronger White House team - but in some ways the similarities are there - loathed by the progressive left, dismissed as a buffoon, divisive..
If Trump can capitalise on his tax and infrastructure policies, and dismiss the democrats as being not serious about the hard economics and more focussed on social issues, I could see a scenario where he pulls it off. Particularly if the democrats go for someone on the liberal wing like Warren or Harris (I suggest they might as they gave the more moderate Hillary a shot in 2016 and will be looking for something different).
He’s not going to ever get a Reaganesque sweep, but you wonder if the path to a narrow 270+ might just, just be there if the cards fall right...
That does of course presuppose that Trump is the Republican nominee next time. However, since the last eligible incumbent Republican president to be ditched by the party rather than withdraw was Chester Arthur in 1884, it seems likely he will be if he wants it.
I think he’d get it. He still has hardcore, vocal support from his base and I think he could probably (at this moment) rely on that to neutralise any challenge from the ‘establishment’. But we live in interesting times...
The current batch of wrinklies have been a generation of spongers, first relying on their parents' funding the establishment of the modern welfare state and now relying on their children to pay for something they will never benefit from. Far from showing any gratitude, they take every opportunity to salt the ground for those who come after them.
Vey few of them alive now who would have fought in WW2, but they would all have grown up in the war or the long shadow it cast into the fifties. Rationing ended in 1954. They had a truly shit start to life, bing bombed, evacuated, or never seeing a banana until they were into puberty.
You have to be a viciously mean-spirited person to write about this generation of "wrinkles" as you do. No wonder they kicked you in the balls by voting for Brexit.
I hate to interrupt your violin playing, but not a single baby boomer was bombed or evacuated, as all baby boomers were by definition born post war. And because the definition of baby boomer stretches into births in the early 60s, very many baby boomers were not subject to rationing. Alistair made clear his complaint did not refer to those older than boomers (which incidentally includes war baby Big G).
If you were born in the early 1960’s or late 1950’s you wouldn’t be a pensioner either.
Those who are already pensioners and have been for the last 3 or 4 elections, when all this lolly was being doshed out to the old, would be considerably older than those in their mid-late 50’s.
A 60 year old in 2010 was born in 1950. Perhaps we need a new term for those pensioners who have benefited from this largesse. Because a lot of baby boomers have yet to see any largesse and are unlikely to.
I took part in that poll I think. It said the service would be for a month's duration.
The Bernard Woolley clip posted earlier starts to look very relevant.
National service of that length could hardly be in the armed forces anyway - that's not enough time to even complete the most basic training!
The vast majority of the survey was about the TV show Friends, which I guess is relevant to somebody to pay for opinions on right now for some reason, but I'm pretty sure that was what it said. I answered don't know since I was very unclear on what exactly the idea was about.
Having perused Culture Club videos from around the same time, I hear they surmised that Boy George might be gay.
I hadn’t actually got round to reading much of that Corbyn story until I saw Lewis’ tweet. If that’s the gist of the story I can’t believe The Sun have done a front page telling us what we already knew about Corbyn.
Having perused Culture Club videos from around the same time, I hear they surmised that Boy George might be gay.
I hadn’t actually got round to reading much of that Corbyn story until I saw Lewis’ tweet but if that’s the gist of the story I can’t believe The Sun have done a front page telling us what we already knew about Corbyn.
I think that tweet is deliberately trying to underplay what was reported to have happened.
The current batch of wrinklies have been a generation of spongers, first relying on their parents' funding the establishment of the modern welfare state and now relying on their children to pay for something they will never benefit from. Far from showing any gratitude, they take every opportunity to salt the ground for those who come after them.
Vey few of them alive now who would have fought in WW2, but they would all have grown up in the war or the long shadow it cast into the fifties. Rationing ended in 1954. They had a truly shit start to life, bing bombed, evacuated, or never seeing a banana until they were into puberty.
You have to be a viciously mean-spirited person to write about this generation of "wrinkles" as you do. No wonder they kicked you in the balls by voting for Brexit.
It's nothing more or less than a statement of fact. The current generation of pensioners have been both remarkably cosseted compared with both those who went before them and after them and collectively are colossally selfish. Their sense of entitlement is extraordinary.
Pensioners are neither more or less selfish than anybody else.
They are of course, very lucky to have been born into an era which saw the end of absolute poverty, but so are you and I.
IS it just me or isn’t here something very very messed up at the moment.
Man puts hand on knee of female friend 20+ years ago, she says piss off and nothing more happens, this becomes a major news story for days and man has to resign.
Man meets with enemy agents at the height of cold war, passed information to them, since then regularly meets with terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who are also enemies britain, dismissed as total non-stories and hardly any coverage.
Trying it on with a member of the opposite sex, disqualification from high office, trying it on with enemies of the state, boys will be boys...
A lot of people are upset about that, which is why the Tories retain a 40% poll rating despite a shambolic performance in government.
The cold war is regarded as ancient history by many,.
The current batch of wrinklies have been a generation of spongers, first relying on their parents' funding the establishment of the modern welfare state and now relying on their children to pay for something they will never benefit from. Far from showing any gratitude, they take every opportunity to salt the ground for those who come after them.
Vey few of them alive now who would have fought in WW2, but they would all have grown up in the war or the long shadow it cast into the fifties. Rationing ended in 1954. They had a truly shit start to life, bing bombed, evacuated, or never seeing a banana until they were into puberty.
You have to be a viciously mean-spirited person to write about this generation of "wrinkles" as you do. No wonder they kicked you in the balls by voting for Brexit.
I hate to interrupt your violin playing, but not a single baby boomer was bombed or evacuated, as all baby boomers were by definition born post war. And because the definition of baby boomer stretches into births in the early 60s, very many baby boomers were not subject to rationing. Alistair made clear his complaint did not refer to those older than boomers (which incidentally includes war baby Big G).
If you were born in the early 1960’s or late 1950’s you wouldn’t be a pensioner either.
Those who are already pensioners and have been for the last 3 or 4 elections, when all this lolly was being doshed out to the old, would be considerably older than those in their mid-late 50’s.
A 60 year old in 2010 was born in 1950. Perhaps we need a new term for those pensioners who have benefited from this largesse. Because a lot of baby boomers have yet to see any largesse and are unlikely to.
Those born in the late 50s or early 60s are likely to have made a lot of money on their house, have a final salary pension, and a completely free higher education (for the lucky few who went to university). That's largesse compared with younger generations.
Arguably the main reason it was abolished was that the military resented having to babysit the entire population of male 18 year olds, most of whom didn't want to be there, it was a big distraction for them and not very useful outside wartime.
That was certainly the view of my cousin, who was Deputy Chief of General Staff, responsible for personnel issues. He told me a while ago (no reason to think he's changed his views) that he thought that military service ran out just as he conscripts started to become useful, and if the purpose was some sort of social engineering, he didn't see why the Army should be asked to take that role instead of concentrating on defending the country.
This would be very unpopular with the brass. Outside of a very large scale conflict conscripts are militarily useless and divert much needed NCOs back into the necessarily enormous training and disciplinary functions. The Russian army is crippled by the need to organise and indoctrinate many thousands of conscripts that it only gets for 12 months.
Comments
And thank you for your kind earlier comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32929829
So most of the oldies seem to want the young to do something they themselves did not do!
Time for compulsory dementia testIng to get onto the electoral register...
A few months ago, I’d have said this was very unlikely. And yet the received wisdom in 2003 was that Bush was a goner but come the election year things were much tighter and he obviously pulled off reelection.
Of course, the fundamentals for Bush were a bit stronger - ‘wartime’ president, poor but not cataclysmic approval ratings (unlike Trump), a stronger White House team - but in some ways the similarities are there - loathed by the progressive left, dismissed as a buffoon, divisive..
If Trump can capitalise on his tax and infrastructure policies, and dismiss the democrats as being not serious about the hard economics and more focussed on social issues, I could see a scenario where he pulls it off. Particularly if the democrats go for someone on the liberal wing like Warren or Harris (I suggest they might as they gave the more moderate Hillary a shot in 2016 and will be looking for something different).
He’s not going to ever get a Reaganesque sweep, but you wonder if the path to a narrow 270+ might just, just be there if the cards fall right...
I thought it was a good idea to make those with assets and savings use them to pay for their care in old age. It might have marked the start of a shift from cosseting those with assets to expecting them to make more provision for themselves thus releasing more funds for help for the young. I was in a minority. The effect of all those young voters plumping for a left wing leader unable to add up was to make such a sensible policy politically unsellable for the foreseeable future. By voting in this way they have made it harder not easier to resolve the issues they care about.
If a radical left wing government intent on expropriating my assets becomes a real possibility I have no intention of staying here. I need to make provision for my own young not become a burden on them or reliant on the state in my old age.
Man puts hand on knee of female friend 20+ years ago, she says piss off and nothing more happens, this becomes a major news story for days and man has to resign.
Man meets with enemy agents at the height of cold war, passed information to them, since then regularly meets with terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who are also enemies britain, dismissed as total non-stories and hardly any coverage.
Trying it on with a member of the opposite sex, disqualification from high office, trying it on with enemies of the state, boys will be boys...
My next door neighbours have both just retired at 60 having raised two children and lived in their home for the last 25 years.
To be fair i do think this is much more of a London and South issue. In our area couples can buy starter homes for £100,000 - £150,000 so a professional couple of say a teacher and a nurse can get on the ladder but the same couple down south would not have a prayer.
I do think that intensive building is needed with all planning consents insisting on upto 50% affordable purchase and rent properties included in the development. I would also heavily tax or withdraw consent to builders who land bank.
I want to see some accommodation on tuition fees, equalising the national living wage for under 25, and expenses towards vocational training.
This would be a start and remember I am a conservative member who accepts move has to be done for the younger electorate
All of the young people who are relying on their parents to get on the property ladder wouldn’t have been great fans of the dementia tax. I can see why.
National service of that length could hardly be in the armed forces anyway - that's not enough time to even complete the most basic training!
Those who are already pensioners and have been for the last 3 or 4 elections, when all this lolly was being doshed out to the old, would be considerably older than those in their mid-late 50’s.
A 60 year old in 2010 was born in 1950. Perhaps we need a new term for those pensioners who have benefited from this largesse. Because a lot of baby boomers have yet to see any largesse and are unlikely to.
They are of course, very lucky to have been born into an era which saw the end of absolute poverty, but so are you and I.
The cold war is regarded as ancient history by many,.
NEW THREAD