LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
it is mind boggling that somebody would enthusiastically vote for somebody who is famous for being a lazy, incompetent, corrupt, liar and then be disappointed in his performance as PMrick_chasey said:
Not into the army stuff.surrey_commuter said:
is this loathing a recent thing?rick_chasey said:I should add they are avid Daily Mail readers and out of principle will never vote anyone who isn't Tory ("we're not poor so why should we vote labour?") but they loathe BoJo so much ("he ought to be shot") they have decided to note vote at all in the next election.
I would have thought British heroes in the 70s being prosecuted whilst terrorists walk free would fire up the traditional tory heartlands
The loathing is entirely down to his handling of the pandemic. Voted with some enthusiasm for him last time.0 -
It's an age thing.surrey_commuter said:
it is mind boggling that somebody would enthusiastically vote for somebody who is famous for being a lazy, incompetent, corrupt, liar and then be disappointed in his performance as PMrick_chasey said:
Not into the army stuff.surrey_commuter said:
is this loathing a recent thing?rick_chasey said:I should add they are avid Daily Mail readers and out of principle will never vote anyone who isn't Tory ("we're not poor so why should we vote labour?") but they loathe BoJo so much ("he ought to be shot") they have decided to note vote at all in the next election.
I would have thought British heroes in the 70s being prosecuted whilst terrorists walk free would fire up the traditional tory heartlands
The loathing is entirely down to his handling of the pandemic. Voted with some enthusiasm for him last time.
He says all the things 60+ people want to hear so they like that. He's Tory and they are not poor so they vote Tory. He makes them feel they're voting for something positive. This is all great.
Then he screws up corona and means the UK is in lockdown for longer than necessary which for them means unnecessarily long periods where they can't see their grandchild. This makes them angry.0 -
Unnecessarilly long periods. Classic Rick. Classic. So the old were least affected by lock down and got the vaccines first. They should definitely be the ones moaning as to how their sixth cruise got cancelled.rick_chasey said:
It's an age thing.surrey_commuter said:
it is mind boggling that somebody would enthusiastically vote for somebody who is famous for being a lazy, incompetent, corrupt, liar and then be disappointed in his performance as PMrick_chasey said:
Not into the army stuff.surrey_commuter said:
is this loathing a recent thing?rick_chasey said:I should add they are avid Daily Mail readers and out of principle will never vote anyone who isn't Tory ("we're not poor so why should we vote labour?") but they loathe BoJo so much ("he ought to be shot") they have decided to note vote at all in the next election.
I would have thought British heroes in the 70s being prosecuted whilst terrorists walk free would fire up the traditional tory heartlands
The loathing is entirely down to his handling of the pandemic. Voted with some enthusiasm for him last time.
He says all the things 60+ people want to hear so they like that. He's Tory and they are not poor so they vote Tory. He makes them feel they're voting for something positive. This is all great.
Then he screws up corona and means the UK is in lockdown for longer than necessary which for them means unnecessarily long periods where they can't see their grandchild. This makes them angry.0 -
I think his point just went woosh!john80 said:
Unnecessarilly long periods. Classic Rick. Classic. So the old were least affected by lock down and got the vaccines first. They should definitely be the ones moaning as to how their sixth cruise got cancelled.rick_chasey said:
It's an age thing.surrey_commuter said:
it is mind boggling that somebody would enthusiastically vote for somebody who is famous for being a lazy, incompetent, corrupt, liar and then be disappointed in his performance as PMrick_chasey said:
Not into the army stuff.surrey_commuter said:
is this loathing a recent thing?rick_chasey said:I should add they are avid Daily Mail readers and out of principle will never vote anyone who isn't Tory ("we're not poor so why should we vote labour?") but they loathe BoJo so much ("he ought to be shot") they have decided to note vote at all in the next election.
I would have thought British heroes in the 70s being prosecuted whilst terrorists walk free would fire up the traditional tory heartlands
The loathing is entirely down to his handling of the pandemic. Voted with some enthusiasm for him last time.
He says all the things 60+ people want to hear so they like that. He's Tory and they are not poor so they vote Tory. He makes them feel they're voting for something positive. This is all great.
Then he screws up corona and means the UK is in lockdown for longer than necessary which for them means unnecessarily long periods where they can't see their grandchild. This makes them angry.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 -
Maybe read the whole conversation 😉john80 said:
Unnecessarilly long periods. Classic Rick. Classic. So the old were least affected by lock down and got the vaccines first. They should definitely be the ones moaning as to how their sixth cruise got cancelled.rick_chasey said:
It's an age thing.surrey_commuter said:
it is mind boggling that somebody would enthusiastically vote for somebody who is famous for being a lazy, incompetent, corrupt, liar and then be disappointed in his performance as PMrick_chasey said:
Not into the army stuff.surrey_commuter said:
is this loathing a recent thing?rick_chasey said:I should add they are avid Daily Mail readers and out of principle will never vote anyone who isn't Tory ("we're not poor so why should we vote labour?") but they loathe BoJo so much ("he ought to be shot") they have decided to note vote at all in the next election.
I would have thought British heroes in the 70s being prosecuted whilst terrorists walk free would fire up the traditional tory heartlands
The loathing is entirely down to his handling of the pandemic. Voted with some enthusiasm for him last time.
He says all the things 60+ people want to hear so they like that. He's Tory and they are not poor so they vote Tory. He makes them feel they're voting for something positive. This is all great.
Then he screws up corona and means the UK is in lockdown for longer than necessary which for them means unnecessarily long periods where they can't see their grandchild. This makes them angry.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Bbc and itv now confident enough that this happened to confirm it despite total denials by number 10.rick_chasey said:
I guess this usually means we’ll see a bounce in Tory polling numbers0 -
This is what got me about the whole Dyson thing. What value would you put on a text from the PM saying it would be sorted when absolutely nothing he says can be taken at face value?kingstongraham said:
Bbc and itv now confident enough that this happened to confirm it despite total denials by number 10.rick_chasey said:
I guess this usually means we’ll see a bounce in Tory polling numbers1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
Do you have a graph showing the popularity of crushed avocado on artisan sourdough toast between now and the 1990s? And for fun throw overlay soy skinny lattes.rick_chasey said:
My favourite hobby horse.
Inter-generational disparity.1 -
That graph compares millenials to their early thirties and babyboomers from their late thirties.0
-
You expect the gap to be made up?TheBigBean said:That graph compares millenials to their early thirties and babyboomers from their late thirties.
0 -
-
No idea. It's just woeful stats.rick_chasey said:
You expect the gap to be made up?TheBigBean said:That graph compares millenials to their early thirties and babyboomers from their late thirties.
0 -
I'd look at the chart rather than the commentary. The median ages are very close, but the commentary makes it sound like they are comparing 39 yo boomers with 30 yo millennials.
I'd also look at gen x in addition to the millennials, how are generations with such low wealth going to have a happy retirement?0 -
There is no reason to exclude the overlapping data. How can you compare two groups when you ignore the comparable data?Jezyboy said:I'd look at the chart rather than the commentary. The median ages are very close, but the commentary makes it sound like they are comparing 39 yo boomers with 30 yo millennials.
I'd also look at gen x in addition to the millennials, how are generations with such low wealth going to have a happy retirement?
It also ignores the average age of all people which is a signigicant factor.
There is probably an interesting point to be made, but it has been lost with the presentation.0 -
It doesn't, does it? The median age is along the bottom, and the millenials and gen X line is much lower than the boomers line.TheBigBean said:That graph compares millenials to their early thirties and babyboomers from their late thirties.
What may be a big problem with the graph is the differing number of people in each generation.0 -
Interesting Conservative strategy: 'Cummings, can't believe a word he said, look at the lies he told about that trip to Barnard Castle'
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I missed the gen X line as it is so light. That is indeed higher than the millenials and lower than the boomers. There is no overlap between the millenials and the boomers though.kingstongraham said:
It doesn't, does it? The median age is along the bottom, and the millenials and gen X line is much lower than the boomers line.TheBigBean said:That graph compares millenials to their early thirties and babyboomers from their late thirties.
What may be a big problem with the graph is the differing number of people in each generation.0 -
Can I also add that it is a U.S. study so of even less significance to us here.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 -
Wait, didn't they back this guy to the hilt at the time? 😅tailwindhome said:Interesting Conservative strategy: 'Cummings, can't believe a word he said, look at the lies he told about that trip to Barnard Castle'
On the 'bodies' quote, I still can't quite get my head around people making more of a fuss about some inopportune words than the actions that literally led to actual bodies piling up.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I assume that is the data that is available, and that it is not beyond people to make assumptions beyond the currently predicted line for millenials. Unless you think it's conceivable there will be a massive step change in millenials' favour for no reason in the next three years.TheBigBean said:
I missed the gen X line as it is so light. That is indeed higher than the millenials and lower than the boomers. There is no overlap between the millenials and the boomers though.kingstongraham said:
It doesn't, does it? The median age is along the bottom, and the millenials and gen X line is much lower than the boomers line.TheBigBean said:That graph compares millenials to their early thirties and babyboomers from their late thirties.
What may be a big problem with the graph is the differing number of people in each generation.0 -
It's part of a wider article (which in turn is part of a wider series).TheBigBean said:
There is no reason to exclude the overlapping data. How can you compare two groups when you ignore the comparable data?Jezyboy said:I'd look at the chart rather than the commentary. The median ages are very close, but the commentary makes it sound like they are comparing 39 yo boomers with 30 yo millennials.
I'd also look at gen x in addition to the millennials, how are generations with such low wealth going to have a happy retirement?
It also ignores the average age of all people which is a signigicant factor.
There is probably an interesting point to be made, but it has been lost with the presentation.
It's a point I will make over and over - this is the main driver behind the changes in politics where age is the biggest determining factor for who you will vote for.0 -
I think they may be concerned that the bumbling fool persona veil has slipped and the general public may have seen the real BJ. It's all about the money.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 -
-
FWIW, this is the guy who said "f*ck the families" of the 7/7 survivors, "f*ck business" on Brexit.
He is not suitable for the top job.0 -
His problem now is if he can be proven to have said it, not only has he said it but he lied about saying it.
But, people tend to be cool about Boris lying, so who knows.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Firstly, it is better to use stats than just to expect people to make assumptions. I can make plenty of those, but the trouble is they may not be true.kingstongraham said:
I assume that is the data that is available, and that it is not beyond people to make assumptions beyond the currently predicted line for millenials. Unless you think it's conceivable there will be a massive step change in millenials' favour for no reason in the next three years.TheBigBean said:
I missed the gen X line as it is so light. That is indeed higher than the millenials and lower than the boomers. There is no overlap between the millenials and the boomers though.kingstongraham said:
It doesn't, does it? The median age is along the bottom, and the millenials and gen X line is much lower than the boomers line.TheBigBean said:That graph compares millenials to their early thirties and babyboomers from their late thirties.
What may be a big problem with the graph is the differing number of people in each generation.
Secondly, if the differential is 33-36, I would agree that a massive change is unlikely, but if it is 30-40, then I would expect a significant change in wealth. I don't think it says what element is missing.
I would assume at 20, most people don't have much wealth, so even baby boomers will have grown from near zero on that chart to the level they are at at 40. I would also expect that curve to increase far more rapidly in their 30s.
There is certainly a difference between the ages as people have started to live longer and world becomes more interconnected.
0 -
If it turns out that the bodies piling up were less down to the new variant and more down to a PM who dgaf about them, I think it changes the equation.rjsterry said:
Wait, didn't they back this guy to the hilt at the time? 😅tailwindhome said:Interesting Conservative strategy: 'Cummings, can't believe a word he said, look at the lies he told about that trip to Barnard Castle'
On the 'bodies' quote, I still can't quite get my head around people making more of a fuss about some inopportune words than the actions that literally led to actual bodies piling up.
1 -
The generational inequality (and I don't just mean that oldies have more money - it's that at the same age they had more buying power too), is the biggest driving force in politics right now, on both sides of the spectrum.TheBigBean said:
Firstly, it is better to use stats than just to expect people to make assumptions. I can make plenty of those, but the trouble is they may not be true.kingstongraham said:
I assume that is the data that is available, and that it is not beyond people to make assumptions beyond the currently predicted line for millenials. Unless you think it's conceivable there will be a massive step change in millenials' favour for no reason in the next three years.TheBigBean said:
I missed the gen X line as it is so light. That is indeed higher than the millenials and lower than the boomers. There is no overlap between the millenials and the boomers though.kingstongraham said:
It doesn't, does it? The median age is along the bottom, and the millenials and gen X line is much lower than the boomers line.TheBigBean said:That graph compares millenials to their early thirties and babyboomers from their late thirties.
What may be a big problem with the graph is the differing number of people in each generation.
Secondly, if the differential is 33-36, I would agree that a massive change is unlikely, but if it is 30-40, then I would expect a significant change in wealth. I don't think it says what element is missing.
I would assume at 20, most people don't have much wealth, so even baby boomers will have grown from near zero on that chart to the level they are at at 40. I would also expect that curve to increase far more rapidly in their 30s.
There is certainly a difference between the ages as people have started to live longer and world becomes more interconnected.0
