LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I was shocked that his spokesperson said that he acted with honesty and integritykingstongraham said:I'm sure we are all shocked by the Arcuri story.
Is it just that the odd £100,000 isn't deemed proper corruption these days?0 -
surrey_commuter said:
I was shocked that his spokesperson said that he acted with honesty and integritykingstongraham said:I'm sure we are all shocked by the Arcuri story.
Is it just that the odd £100,000 isn't deemed proper corruption these days?
0 -
Apparently winning is when you've found the money tree that Labour were looking for.surrey_commuter said:
Depends what winning looks like, to me it is not Miliband with a blue rosetteStevo_666 said:
If you subscribe to that theory then it could all be part of the Boris masterplan to keep Labour isolated on the left and out of power. Shove 'em left by putting Jezza and the trots in for a bit, then keep 'em hemmed in there. I've done my bit, now it's over to Borissurrey_commuter said:
Labour can't get to the Blairite centre left because that would involve leapfrogging BorisStevo_666 said:
It would last for quite a while - probably long enough for me to retire. Labour won't easily get back to the Blairite centre left ground, there are too many entrenched hard left elements. Starmer has his work cut out.morstar said:
I agree it would definitely skew things massively in favour of the tories in the short to mid term.Stevo_666 said:
It wouldn’t be permanent though. Either Labour would have to return to a more centrist position or they would be surpassed as the main opposition.
The electorate won’t just accept one party rule as (more) corruption would be inevitable. It would definitely marginalise old school socialism though.
Remember that Tony Blair led a centrist labour government while the tories were busy being incompetent.
And yep if in the process it kills off old school socialism in the UK, all well and good.
If it works, could be a bit of political genius?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
So you're not actually a supporter of Conservative policies just a desire for them to run the country? How far left are you happy for their policies to go providing Labour are further left?Stevo_666 said:
If you subscribe to that theory then it could all be part of the Boris masterplan to keep Labour isolated on the left and out of power. Shove 'em left by putting Jezza and the trots in for a bit, then keep 'em hemmed in there. I've done my bit, now it's over to Borissurrey_commuter said:
Labour can't get to the Blairite centre left because that would involve leapfrogging BorisStevo_666 said:
It would last for quite a while - probably long enough for me to retire. Labour won't easily get back to the Blairite centre left ground, there are too many entrenched hard left elements. Starmer has his work cut out.morstar said:
I agree it would definitely skew things massively in favour of the tories in the short to mid term.Stevo_666 said:
It wouldn’t be permanent though. Either Labour would have to return to a more centrist position or they would be surpassed as the main opposition.
The electorate won’t just accept one party rule as (more) corruption would be inevitable. It would definitely marginalise old school socialism though.
Remember that Tony Blair led a centrist labour government while the tories were busy being incompetent.
And yep if in the process it kills off old school socialism in the UK, all well and good. If it works, could be a bit of political genius?0 -
so an interesting development in the State vs Markets debate with the disastrous float of Deliveroo. There are many reasons but it should be noted that the Govt relaxed the rules on new listings to help the City become a global champion. Well it turns out that the City did not want the rules relaxed and kept their wallets in their pockets.
Having such a massive failure is of course very bad news for the LSE and a prime example of doing something can be worse than doing nothing.0 -
Why is it bad? Some IPOs go up, some go down, the book was filled wasn't it?surrey_commuter said:so an interesting development in the State vs Markets debate with the disastrous float of Deliveroo. There are many reasons but it should be noted that the Govt relaxed the rules on new listings to help the City become a global champion. Well it turns out that the City did not want the rules relaxed and kept their wallets in their pockets.
Having such a massive failure is of course very bad news for the LSE and a prime example of doing something can be worse than doing nothing.
Interesting stat from many years ago. If you invested in every IPO you would make a profit of 16%. If you invested in every IPO that you could, you would make no profit.0 -
-
The worst IPOs are the ones that don't happen and collapse prior to launch. If they filled the book, I'm struggle to understand what the issue is.rick_chasey said:Worst IPO in London ever haha.
0 -
As I've said, I look at the choices available and vote for the party I think best represents my interests. Looking at the choices, it's a bit of a no-brainer for me.Pross said:
So you're not actually a supporter of Conservative policies just a desire for them to run the country? How far left are you happy for their policies to go providing Labour are further left?Stevo_666 said:
If you subscribe to that theory then it could all be part of the Boris masterplan to keep Labour isolated on the left and out of power. Shove 'em left by putting Jezza and the trots in for a bit, then keep 'em hemmed in there. I've done my bit, now it's over to Borissurrey_commuter said:
Labour can't get to the Blairite centre left because that would involve leapfrogging BorisStevo_666 said:
It would last for quite a while - probably long enough for me to retire. Labour won't easily get back to the Blairite centre left ground, there are too many entrenched hard left elements. Starmer has his work cut out.morstar said:
I agree it would definitely skew things massively in favour of the tories in the short to mid term.Stevo_666 said:
It wouldn’t be permanent though. Either Labour would have to return to a more centrist position or they would be surpassed as the main opposition.
The electorate won’t just accept one party rule as (more) corruption would be inevitable. It would definitely marginalise old school socialism though.
Remember that Tony Blair led a centrist labour government while the tories were busy being incompetent.
And yep if in the process it kills off old school socialism in the UK, all well and good. If it works, could be a bit of political genius?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Can’t remember where I posted my view that age is the main political fault line nowadays but here is a journalist who argues the same
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/uk-millennials-age-generation-divide-jobs-youth-employment
A few eye opening stats in there. This one caught my eye:Then, of course, there’s that other spectre. All these disparities, severe before the pandemic, have grown worse. People under 35 are more likely to have lost their jobs; the latest official data showed that no less than 88 per cent of the net loss of employee jobs over the past year was accounted for by that younger age range. For the over-50s, there had actually been an increase in jobs.0 -
It’s actually pretty good and gets close to articulating exactly what I’ve been trying to say for a while.
Touches on the generational challenges, political challenges, economic challenges and how that fosters a different left/right divide which is much less about traditional left-right tax & role of govt0 -
An interesting article but it fails to follow through on a number of things.
All those hated 'boomers' are retiring, so therefore opening up employment opportunities for the millenials.
All those 'boomers' are going to die and their wealth will be passed down to their children and grandchildren. We are already seeing that happen.
I also question some of the authors stats - eg 1 in 5 boomers are millionaires doesn't ring true at all, and likewise the 1 in 6 owning a second home.
It has also always been the case that the wealth belongs to the older generations. Oddly enough, they have worked far more years than the youngers ones and therefore had far more time to build up their wealth.
Undoubtedly there are challenges and it has become harder to start out on the property ladder, but many post boomers bought their first homes with friends, not as individuals. The cost of borrowing was 20 x what it is now too.
When I bought in 1988, the small 2 bed first floor flat in SE London was 9 x my graduate salary, and mortgage interest rates went from 9% to 16% in the first year.1 -
Also, despite it looking like the older generation had it good when we were young, I don't recall many people whingeing about it. I think there was an understanding that we would be there one day.Dorset_Boy said:An interesting article but it fails to follow through on a number of things.
All those hated 'boomers' are retiring, so therefore opening up employment opportunities for the millenials.
All those 'boomers' are going to die and their wealth will be passed down to their children and grandchildren. We are already seeing that happen.
I also question some of the authors stats - eg 1 in 5 boomers are millionaires doesn't ring true at all, and likewise the 1 in 6 owning a second home.
It has also always been the case that the wealth belongs to the older generations. Oddly enough, they have worked far more years than the youngers ones and therefore had far more time to build up their wealth.
Undoubtedly there are challenges and it has become harder to start out on the property ladder, but many post boomers bought their first homes with friends, not as individuals. The cost of borrowing was 20 x what it is now too.
When I bought in 1988, the small 2 bed first floor flat in SE London was 9 x my graduate salary, and mortgage interest rates went from 9% to 16% in the first year."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
This is a link to the "1 in 5 over 65s is a millionaire"
https://www.ft.com/content/c69b49de-1368-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e
What I think it means is household millionaire.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/totalwealthingreatbritain/april2016tomarch2018#total-household-wealth-by-age-of-household-reference-person-hrp
That says 22% of households with over 65s have household wealth over £1m, and 25% between £500,000 and £1m0 -
Add up average property value which you'd expect to be paid off, and the pension pot required to retire and this is hardly surprising. I have one word for the young, "will".The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Isn't that the issue now though? Younger people today are looking at working until they're 70 and early retirement is unlikely to be an option with there being so few final salary schemes around these days. Inherited wealth is unlikely to be as common as more people will have to eat into their savings through retirement and most of the rest will going to funding care. Arguably the care costs are because the younger generations no longer take on the burden of care of relatives so they can't have it both ways though.Stevo_666 said:
Also, despite it looking like the older generation had it good when we were young, I don't recall many people whingeing about it. I think there was an understanding that we would be there one day.Dorset_Boy said:An interesting article but it fails to follow through on a number of things.
All those hated 'boomers' are retiring, so therefore opening up employment opportunities for the millenials.
All those 'boomers' are going to die and their wealth will be passed down to their children and grandchildren. We are already seeing that happen.
I also question some of the authors stats - eg 1 in 5 boomers are millionaires doesn't ring true at all, and likewise the 1 in 6 owning a second home.
It has also always been the case that the wealth belongs to the older generations. Oddly enough, they have worked far more years than the youngers ones and therefore had far more time to build up their wealth.
Undoubtedly there are challenges and it has become harder to start out on the property ladder, but many post boomers bought their first homes with friends, not as individuals. The cost of borrowing was 20 x what it is now too.
When I bought in 1988, the small 2 bed first floor flat in SE London was 9 x my graduate salary, and mortgage interest rates went from 9% to 16% in the first year.
That said, I don't have as much sympathy for the cost of buying a house unless someone is in a job where they have to live in an expensive area. There are still plenty of areas where you can get a place at affordable rates. My daughter's mortgage on a 3 bed semi is about the same as many people her age are splashing out on PCP payments to own a new car Granted she was fortunate to inherit money that allowed her to put a decent deposit down and get a lower interest rate but it's still 65% of the cost of our first mortgage nearly 30 years ago on a 2 bedroom semi that was only a third of the cost. If people opt to work in London or other areas that are expensive when they could work elsewhere or choose to move out of the family home and spend money renting or spend on a top level mobile plan and PCP payments for a flash new car I have little sympathy.0 -
imo the difference today is that there seems to be a widespread sense of entitlementStevo_666 said:
Also, despite it looking like the older generation had it good when we were young, I don't recall many people whingeing about it. I think there was an understanding that we would be there one day.Dorset_Boy said:An interesting article but it fails to follow through on a number of things.
All those hated 'boomers' are retiring, so therefore opening up employment opportunities for the millenials.
All those 'boomers' are going to die and their wealth will be passed down to their children and grandchildren. We are already seeing that happen.
I also question some of the authors stats - eg 1 in 5 boomers are millionaires doesn't ring true at all, and likewise the 1 in 6 owning a second home.
It has also always been the case that the wealth belongs to the older generations. Oddly enough, they have worked far more years than the youngers ones and therefore had far more time to build up their wealth.
Undoubtedly there are challenges and it has become harder to start out on the property ladder, but many post boomers bought their first homes with friends, not as individuals. The cost of borrowing was 20 x what it is now too.
When I bought in 1988, the small 2 bed first floor flat in SE London was 9 x my graduate salary, and mortgage interest rates went from 9% to 16% in the first year.
i'd say that's combined with a lack of courage, even the quality of demonstration is more rabble than revolutionary
but i don't think it's the young in particular
social media 'giving people a voice' may contribute to that perception as the young are more frequent users, but people of all ages seem to think shouting into the void substantiates their views or somehow will make things better, it won't
there are few people who's views i give a damn about, certainly not a bunch of whiners complaining that they aren't listened to, 'valued', or can't afford xyz etc.
the older generation are products of the post-war economic boom, now a long time ago, since, say, the mid 70s, there's been a trend of wealth becoming concentrated into a smaller percentage of society/business, in this century globalisation and online commerce accelerated and entrenched that
low-cost countries, automation, ai, all nibble away at opportunities for even the median capable, not everyone can be a rocket scientist, the government's 'levelling up' nonsense looks more like relocating unemployment at tax payers' expense
can't see the trend changing
i once comforted someone who was struggling with these words of wisdom, "get happy or fuck off" (he got the point and is now doing ok)
same advice to the whiners
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
I think there is definitely a ring of truth about entitlement among some people.
I think a lot of it though is driven very much by TV and social media showing people with perfect lives and perfect homes and everything being about materialist possession. However, that is the society we have created for them.
"Why should I have to scrimp and save to buy a house? Why should I have to make do with second or third hand things, sit on garden furniture until I can afford a sofa...".
Having said that, they still can't afford to buy a house.
0 -
I think the entitlement point is definitely a factor.
Things have definitely changed since when I was in the position but the basic principle of taking a long term view is still the same. Although it is probably difficult to look 20-30 years down the line at what things might be like once mortgage is paid, kids no longer no longer a financial drain, bit of pension in the pot etc."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think most of the entitlement stems from an inherent belief that they should be better off than their parents.0
-
Not sure it has been mentioned but Greensill could be the smoking gun making it impossible to ignore corruption0
-
Pross - when the State Pension was set up shortly after the end of WW2, male life expectancy was 64, and the State Pension age was 65.
Life xpectancy for a 65 yo now is to 83/84 on average and there's a 1 in 4 chance of living to 100. That's almost a 3 month increase in life expectancy for each year that has passed!
So the younger generation may have to work 5 years longer than their grandparents., but they'll still have a longer retirement.
If the start a savings culture as soon as they start working, they'll still be able to retire before SPA. However that might mean not getting the latest iphone every 2 years paying £75 pm for it, and not buying 2 or 3 coffees every day.2 -
-
As someone who employs a number of people in their 20s and 30s, most of them seem to have battered phones a few years old. None have cars. I couldn't vouch for their coffee purchases but it does seem that this twenty-something spending all their free cash on fripperies is as much an exaggerated stereotype as the boomer taking their eighth cruise holiday of the year.Dorset_Boy said:Pross - when the State Pension was set up shortly after the end of WW2, male life expectancy was 64, and the State Pension age was 65.
Life xpectancy for a 65 yo now is to 83/84 on average and there's a 1 in 4 chance of living to 100. That's almost a 3 month increase in life expectancy for each year that has passed!
So the younger generation may have to work 5 years longer than their grandparents., but they'll still have a longer retirement.
If the start a savings culture as soon as they start working, they'll still be able to retire before SPA. However that might mean not getting the latest iphone every 2 years paying £75 pm for it, and not buying 2 or 3 coffees every day.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Here's a couple of simplistic takes, but ones I think are close to the mark.rick_chasey said:You lot are here -> .
This was the point of the article -> .
The young can see their endeavours but are yet to see the rewards.
The young see the old with the rewards but did not see their endeavours.
Companies retaining experienced staff and letting the lesser experienced go is nothing new. It used to be called last in, first out.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.2 -
Final salary pensions are worth an unbelievable amount of money. I have one from my first 4ish years of work, which is worth a bit more than £70k. My total pre-tax earnings in that employment was £105k. Taking inflation into account, that was worth an extra 40% of my wages in that employment.pblakeney said:Add up average property value which you'd expect to be paid off, and the pension pot required to retire and this is hardly surprising. I have one word for the young, "will".
0 -
Indeed.surrey_commuter said:Not sure it has been mentioned but Greensill could be the smoking gun making it impossible to ignore corruption
What I don't get is why someone, anyone didn't just think "can't we just pay people quicker?" rather than pay a bank fees to pay on their behalf.
The alleged comment from Heywood that they couldn't turn down "free money" just seems insane.
I'm under no illusions that this is just a Tory problem, but rather anywhere where politicians and business get involved with public money, there is potential for lining ones own pockets, either directly or through the promise of a cushy job in a few years time.0 -
I think it's worth actually reading this - I think the "young people are entitled" takes miss the point. And how young would you say would fall into that category?rick_chasey said:Can’t remember where I posted my view that age is the main political fault line nowadays but here is a journalist who argues the same
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/uk-millennials-age-generation-divide-jobs-youth-employment
A few eye opening stats in there. This one caught my eye:Then, of course, there’s that other spectre. All these disparities, severe before the pandemic, have grown worse. People under 35 are more likely to have lost their jobs; the latest official data showed that no less than 88 per cent of the net loss of employee jobs over the past year was accounted for by that younger age range. For the over-50s, there had actually been an increase in jobs.that apocryphal saying about possession of a brain meaning one must be a conservative by 40 doesn’t work when the chances of having any of the things that traditionally signify success (a steady job, a house, a spouse, children) at that age also declines.0 -
The fact that it is so simple to understand that the whole idea is bollox, mix in “honest Dave” who was so posh and rich he could be trusted and a nice dose of proper jobs being lost and you have the recipe of a scandal of epic proportions.elbowloh said:
Indeed.surrey_commuter said:Not sure it has been mentioned but Greensill could be the smoking gun making it impossible to ignore corruption
What I don't get is why someone, anyone didn't just think "can't we just pay people quicker?" rather than pay a bank fees to pay on their behalf.
The alleged comment from Heywood that they couldn't turn down "free money" just seems insane.
I'm under no illusions that this is just a Tory problem, but rather anywhere where politicians and business get involved with public money, there is potential for lining ones own pockets, either directly or through the promise of a cushy job in a few years time.
The last point is very valid as the media don’t seem to get the idea that the political favours are done upfront and then payment collected later0 -
Final salary pensions are more of a public sector thing IMO. I have never been public sector and by pure luck have one old DB scheme, like yours that is worth a lot for the time I was there, but will definitely not pay the bills in old age as I was only there for a short time in the early 90's. Everything else is/was DC schemes so my strategy has been to build up the value in my DC schemes so that I can live pretty well once I've stopped working.kingstongraham said:
Final salary pensions are worth an unbelievable amount of money. I have one from my first 4ish years of work, which is worth a bit more than £70k. My total pre-tax earnings in that employment was £105k. Taking inflation into account, that was worth an extra 40% of my wages in that employment.pblakeney said:Add up average property value which you'd expect to be paid off, and the pension pot required to retire and this is hardly surprising. I have one word for the young, "will".
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
