PM Boris forms a government

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I am thinking deeply I assure you. What is not needed is a cartoon-like 2 dimensional analysis of the complex socio-economic challenges. The application of simplistic analogies to reduce these issues to sound bites is why we are here today. "Labour bad, Tories good", "Free Market good, Nationalisation bad", etc."

The 4 decades old free market economy has run its course. It has failed to deliver what the original proponents promised. We are in the end game. If the country survives the No Deal abyss, the centre ground of politics lies vacant to accomodate a new social democratic approach: one that discards the blinkered Old Labour, New Labour, Right Wing Tory mindset.

The future will have to redeploy the wealth held in the hands of the few to invest in *all* the country for the benefits of *all* the citizens. The climate emergency demands no less. The wealthy do not care about you or me and they do not care about the planet.

Johnson claims to be wanting to spend 3 billion for the neglected North to try and address some of the reasons so many felt "left behind" and disenfranchised. To put this in context, the City of London had a bonus pool, remember these people already have very high salaries, of 20 billion in 2018. Yes, 20 billion for 1 year. These are the people that you, me and, yes, the people in the neglected north bailed out to the tune of 100's of billions in 2008 and caused the decade of austerity.

The childish responses like "politics of envy", etc. just do not work anymore. Everyone can see the evidence before their eyes. You would be a fool to believe the free market is the future. The market must be controlled: intervention where strategic and national interests dictate and control where it does not.

The system is broken and when people who cling to the debunked "rising tide floats all boats" maxim try and sell the "greed is good" snake oil, it really is depressing. I find it interesting to see the people defending the current system: they seem to be invariably those who comes from the baby boomer period where they had the fortune to find a good job easily, to have a final salary pension that we can only dream of today, to be able to easily afford to buy a house that now has risen many, many times in value and to have enjoyed the best of social service quality during this period.

These are the people who will now say: "I got where I am today through bloody hard work" .. well, truth be told, they were just very lucky. The sinister part is that they feel entitled: "how dare you take away what I worked hard to get". The awareness that the wealth and opportunities they enjoyed will never be available for the current generation is just absent. This lack of empathy underwrites a lot of the current politics.

While I am rambling on, I would like to thank Hugh for his many posts expounding, as I see it, his One Nation Conservatism. His views on how those that have most have a moral duty to those who do not is to be applauded ... loudly. Views like his are seldom heard from the political right ..

Pull your finger out ,try putting "your" back into it and quit moaning that old people have every thing that you want

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Pull your finger out ,try putting "your" back into it and quit moaning that old people have every thing that you want

Why don't you try again? This time with something sensible. Go on, you can do it! We believe!!

BTW, I am old ...

---------- Post added at 23:28 ---------- Previous post was at 23:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Although you've decried "sound bites"the term "baby boomer" is just that and highly offensive - although I know you did not intend any offence. These people essentially repopulated the UK after WW2.

You are right - the system is broken, albeit that it is the same system in force since 1951. That system worked well up to around 1992 which is when the EMU crisis broke. Since then the economic dynamics across the world have changed and this has affected us (within the same system) not to mention the huge increase in UK population that has imposed serious strain on our public services at the time when the economic position is at its nadir.

Where I probably differ from you, is that the system is not specifically broken for the reasons you have given. It has been broken by the politicians refusing to deliver the Referendum result - public trust has been lost. That is a very serious position.

How to repair the system? For a start, at the next GE, there should be a single alternative vote.

Turning to your assessment of why the system is broken, I don't see how any system can deal with the psychology of power, the slice of power that each MP wants leading to the ultimate trip for some of them. DO we need a benevolent dictator? Possibly but that won't happen. We won't get honest politicians - they have become increasingly dishonest since 1997 - all of them.

I fear there is no answer.

Maybe you take offence easily? The Baby Boomer term is not a sound bite rather it describes a generation that had advantages long since removed from the current one. This needs to be recognised. It is an important backdrop to the current attitudes of these people today. BTW, I am a Baby Boomer myself ..

I appreciate your engagement in the points I raised. It is refreshing when compared to some who just snipe ..

We need to step back and above Brexit. Brexit is a symptom of the failed system we are inhabiting rather the cause. Your suggestions are good: PR would go a long way to normalising politics. The corruption point: so true. Far too many politicians although eager to do good at first are ground down by the system and end up as bottom feeders waiting for the time to get their pay off i.e. directorships, plum seats on quangos, peerages, etc.

We should introduce laws precluding post-Parliament "payoffs" for minimum of X years and pay the MP's a decent salary while they serve. Remove the tie in between lobby groups and politics and you increase the likelihood that MP's will work to serve the nation rather than work to serve themselves.

Originally Posted by Damien

The NHS is a continuing expense. It's not the same thing unless you're talking about building hospitals or something. Every year the NHS requires funding so to make it sustainable you need to meet that funding via income not debt. You can borrow to fund HS2 because ultimately the bulk of that funding will end and you can start paying it back over a longer timeframe.



No, economists don't like the comparison. Households don't issue government bonds or have central banks. You can't print money. Your spending doesn't really impact the economy as a whole. You don't have the ability to literally shape the economy you're in. You Also if you spend money in a shop that's money gone for you and gained for them but government spending, at least that within the country, is money moving around the same system. That changes quite a bit about how you make decisions.

For what we're talking about the comparison with households work but really it would break down if went any further. It gets to what I said earlier that some economists don't see an issue with governments running managed deficits.

good points.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

The NHS is a continuing expense. It's not the same thing unless you're talking about building hospitals or something. Every year the NHS requires funding so to make it sustainable you need to meet that funding via income not debt. You can borrow to fund HS2 because ultimately the bulk of that funding will end and you can start paying it back over a longer timeframe.

No, economists don't like the comparison. Households don't issue government bonds or have central banks. You can't print money. Your spending doesn't really impact the economy as a whole. You don't have the ability to literally shape the economy you're in. You Also if you spend money in a shop that's money gone for you and gained for them but government spending, at least that within the country, is money moving around the same system. That changes quite a bit about how you make decisions.

For what we're talking about the comparison with households work but really it would break down if went any further. It gets to what I said earlier that some economists don't see an issue with governments running managed deficits.

Old Boy doesn’t do economics sadly.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The 4 decades old free market economy has run its course.

The free market economy is somewhat older than that, much older, try a few hundred years.

It has failed to deliver what the original proponents promised.

No it hasn’t every generation ( and i’m talking over the several hundreds of years) has largely enjoyed a better standard of living and had more possessions than the one previous.

The future will have to redeploy the wealth held in the hands of the few to invest in *all*

. Here we go comrade, the revolution will be televised.

Such actions by a state always work well.

The system is broken and when people who cling to the debunked "rising tide floats all boats" maxim try and sell the "greed is good" snake oil, it really is depressing. I find it interesting to see the people defending the current system: they seem to be invariably those who comes from the baby boomer period where they had the fortune to find a good job easily, to have a final salary pension that we can only dream of today, to be able to easily afford to buy a house that now has risen many, many times

The system is far from perfect but more preferable than the alternatives.

These are the people who will now say: "I got where I am today through bloody hard work" .. well, truth be told, they were just very lucky. The sinister part is that they feel entitled: "how dare you take away what I worked hard to get". The awareness that the wealth and opportunities they enjoyed will never be available for the current generation is just absent. This lack of empathy underwrites a lot of the current politics.

What about those that have worked hard? there are people that came from quite humble beginnings and have worked hard and now enjoy a very good standard of living, and you just dismiss them as lucky. They can’t all be lucky and i’m Afraid in this statement you do come across as envious. Unfortunately in life there will always be people doing better than you, that’s just life, bleating about it doesn’t help you.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Why don't you try again? This time with something sensible. Go on, you can do it! We believe!!

BTW, I am old ...

---------- Post added at 23:28 ---------- Previous post was at 23:14 ----------



Maybe you take offence easily? The Baby Boomer term is not a sound bite rather it describes a generation that had advantages long since removed from the current one. This needs to be recognised. It is an important backdrop to the current attitudes of these people today. BTW, I am a Baby Boomer myself ..



I appreciate your engagement in the points I raised. It is refreshing when compared to some who just snipe ..

We need to step back and above Brexit. Brexit is a symptom of the failed system we are inhabiting rather the cause. Your suggestions are good: PR would go a long way to normalising politics. The corruption point: so true. Far too many politicians although eager to do good at first are ground down by the system and end up as bottom feeders waiting for the time to get their pay off i.e. directorships, plum seats on quangos, peerages, etc.

We should introduce laws precluding post-Parliament "payoffs" for minimum of X years and pay the MP's a decent salary while they serve. Remove the tie in between lobby groups and politics and you increase the likelihood that MP's will work to serve the nation rather than work to serve themselves.

Some of the boomer generation had to be the servants so don't beat yourself up
if you have nothing to pass on to the next generation it's not the end of the world .

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Some of the boomer generation had to be the servants so don't beat yourself up
if you have nothing to pass on to the next generation it's not the end of the world .

If you have nothing to contribute, best say nothing. You are embarrassing yourself ...

---------- Post added at 12:39 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

The free market economy is somewhat older than that, much older, try a few hundred years.

The free market I am referring to is the neocon deregulated variant started during the Thatcher/Reagan era. Peter Hitchens, a renowned conservative commentator, describes it as:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...d-Britain.html

I am so sorry now that I fell for the great Thatcher-Reagan promise. I can’t deny that I did. I believed all that stuff about privatisation and free trade and the unrestrained market. I think I may even have been taken in by the prophecies of a great share-owning democracy.

Originally Posted by Pierre

No it hasn’t every generation ( and i’m talking over the several hundreds of years) has largely enjoyed a better standard of living and had more possessions than the one previous..

You are just describing the basic trend. The issue is not that wealth creation has increased, the issue is how it is disproportionately distributed.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Such actions by a state always work well..

You lack imagination

Originally Posted by Pierre

The system is far from perfect but more preferable than the alternatives..

See above

Originally Posted by Pierre

What about those that have worked hard? there are people that came from quite humble beginnings and have worked hard and now enjoy a very good standard of living, and you just dismiss them as lucky. They can’t all be lucky and i’m Afraid in this statement you do come across as envious. Unfortunately in life there will always be people doing better than you, that’s just life, bleating about it doesn’t help you.

Yet again a simplistic, one size fits all response. Of course people can and have "worked hard". The people today who did not have the advantages I speak of also work hard. And?

You fall back on the lazy entitlement narrative where people who have had advantages, of various sorts, have "worked hard" and those that don't, and will never have them, just have to suck it up.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Why don't you try again? This time with something sensible. Go on, you can do it! We believe!!

BTW, I am old ...

---------- Post added at 23:28 ---------- Previous post was at 23:14 ----------



Maybe you take offence easily? The Baby Boomer term is not a sound bite rather it describes a generation that had advantages long since removed from the current one. This needs to be recognised. It is an important backdrop to the current attitudes of these people today. BTW, I am a Baby Boomer myself ..

I appreciate your engagement in the points I raised. It is refreshing when compared to some who just snipe ..

We need to step back and above Brexit. Brexit is a symptom of the failed system we are inhabiting rather the cause. Your suggestions are good: PR would go a long way to normalising politics. The corruption point: so true. Far too many politicians although eager to do good at first are ground down by the system and end up as bottom feeders waiting for the time to get their pay off i.e. directorships, plum seats on quangos, peerages, etc.

We should introduce laws precluding post-Parliament "payoffs" for minimum of X years and pay the MP's a decent salary while they serve. Remove the tie in between lobby groups and politics and you increase the likelihood that MP's will work to serve the nation rather than work to serve themselves.

Apart from your ‘baby boomer’ remark, I largely agree with you. On the matter of baby boomer, Sajid Javid used the term extensively much along your lines, wanting to take from them to level matters out for the equally insulting term ‘millenials’ and later. To categorise people in this insulting way -people- is to be deplored.

The so-called ‘baby boomers’ did not have advantages. They worked to and responded to normal market conditions.

Those market conditions changed round a bout the time of Maastricht - I do see a connection. Economics changed, dependencies changed, employer behaviour changed, population influx eventually stretched the housing market and screwed the NHS much of that at a time when there was a global financial crisis and austerity.

Then throw Brexit into the mix, a decision taken by the population in the light of the above. The system actually broke, possibly irrevocably, when politicians went rogue and declared themselves as individuals who knew better than the people. That is unforgivable and it needs a clear out. As I said, a single transferable vote would be best - PR brings chaos through coalition and the associated political jostling.

Edit:
I should add that to bring housing into affordable bounds, land value has to reduce. The guvmin could compete with the private sector by giving up large swathes of land for free to developers who would be constrained by contract as to price and profit. That would eventually trickle through to general market conditions. This, in turn, would leave people with greater spending power and that would trickle through into employment, manufacturing and so on.

Something has to give.


.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Apart from your ‘baby boomer’ remark, I largely agree with you. On the matter of baby boomer, Sajid Javid used the term extensively much along your lines, wanting to take from them to level matters out for the equally insulting term ‘millenials’ and later. To categorise people in this insulting way -people- is to be deplored.

The so-called ‘baby boomers’ did not have advantages. They worked to and responded to normal market conditions.

Those market conditions changed round a bout the time of Maastricht - I do see a connection. Economics changed, dependencies changed, employer behaviour changed, population influx eventually stretched the housing market and screwed the NHS much of that at a time when there was a global financial crisis and austerity.

Then throw Brexit into the mix, a decision taken by the population in the light of the above. The system actually broke, possibly irrevocably, when politicians went rogue and declared themselves as individuals who knew better than the people. That is unforgivable and it needs a clear out. As I said, a single transferable vote would be best - PR brings chaos through coalition and the associated political jostling.

.

We disagree. Here a Telegraph article making the points I make:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...an-beings.html

The facts speak for themselves. More than 80pc of the nation's £6.7trn in wealth is owned by baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964). Collectively, the country owns £2.6trn in shares and savings – and those aged 50 to 64 own £1trn of this. A third of the £1.8trn held in pension funds is owned by this age group (and a further quarter is owned by those aged between 45 and 50). And they own 40pc of the £2.5trn tied up in property. In fact, property has been such a staggeringly good investment for this generation that one in five baby boomers owns a second home.

As Will Hutton of the Work Foundation – and a baby boomer himself – pointed out: "Having enjoyed a life of free love, free school meals, free universities, defined benefit pensions, mainly full employment and a 40-year-long housing boom, [the baby boomers] are bequeathing their children sky-high house prices, debts and shrivelled pensions. A 60 year-old today is a very privileged and lucky human being."

These are the facts. You may not like to hear them but there are what they are ..

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

We disagree. Here a Telegraph article making the points I make:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...an-beings.html


These are the facts. You may not like to hear them but there are what they are ..

I’m looking at the underlying cause of what we both have described. You are pinned to the mast of inequality.

Boris, not my choice of PM, wants to open up the land of opportunity and bring boom back to the country. Laudable, but needs all of the measures I have suggested and more. Is a Boris guvmin capable of taking the bold Steps?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Apart from your ‘baby boomer’ remark, I largely agree with you. On the matter of baby boomer, Sajid Javid used the term extensively much along your lines, wanting to take from them to level matters out for the equally insulting term ‘millenials’ and later. To categorise people in this insulting way -people- is to be deplored.

The so-called ‘baby boomers’ did not have advantages. They worked to and responded to normal market conditions.

Those market conditions changed round a bout the time of Maastricht - I do see a connection. Economics changed, dependencies changed, employer behaviour changed, population influx eventually stretched the housing market and screwed the NHS much of that at a time when there was a global financial crisis and austerity.

Then throw Brexit into the mix, a decision taken by the population in the light of the above. The system actually broke, possibly irrevocably, when politicians went rogue and declared themselves as individuals who knew better than the people. That is unforgivable and it needs a clear out. As I said, a single transferable vote would be best - PR brings chaos through coalition and the associated political jostling.

Edit:
I should add that to bring housing into affordable bounds, land value has to reduce. The guvmin could compete with the private sector by giving up large swathes of land for free to developers who would be constrained by contract as to price and profit. That would eventually trickle through to general market conditions. This, in turn, would leave people with greater spending power and that would trickle through into employment, manufacturing and so on.

Something has to give.


.

Your comments about boomers are so far off-beam its hard for me not to assume you are one. Who else could insist that black is white, up is down and move along, there’s nothing to see here, in the way you have.

This generation has consistently ridden the wave of the welfare state where and when it was most generous, bought houses cheaply while new building was a major activity and seen the value of their property soar even as the cost of their mortgages was inflated away.

You may despise the label “baby boomer” and what it insinuates but it is a cold, hard fact that those born in the two decades after WW2 continue to enjoy enormous economic advantages, often at the direct cost of their grandchildren.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

[COLOR="Blue"]..... "the term "baby boomer" is just that and highly offensive

No its not, I'm not even remotely "offended".

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Your comments about boomers are so far off-beam its hard for me not to assume you are one. Who else could insist that black is white, up is down and move along, there’s nothing to see here, in the way you have.

This generation has consistently ridden the wave of the welfare state where and when it was most generous, bought houses cheaply while new building was a major activity and seen the value of their property soar even as the cost of their mortgages was inflated away.

You may despise the label “baby boomer” and what it insinuates but it is a cold, hard fact that those born in the two decades after WW2 continue to enjoy enormous economic advantages, often at the direct cost of their grandchildren.

Thank you ..

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Your comments about boomers are so far off-beam its hard for me not to assume you are one. Who else could insist that black is white, up is down and move along, there’s nothing to see here, in the way you have.

This generation has consistently ridden the wave of the welfare state where and when it was most generous, bought houses cheaply while new building was a major activity and seen the value of their property soar even as the cost of their mortgages was inflated away.

You may despise the label “baby boomer” and what it insinuates but it is a cold, hard fact that those born in the two decades after WW2 continue to enjoy enormous economic advantages, often at the direct cost of their grandchildren.

It says little for you that you cast that age-group as akin to villains who are gorging on their fortunate situation.

They were born when they were born; schooled in the system of the day; worked in the available jobs; bought houses as per the market of those times and managed to see a doctor same day.

To characterise them as having ridden a wave of which they were unaware at the time is disgraceful.

The following generation are the victim of poor government and wider circumstances that I have described in this debate.

As to the insulting term "baby boomer", it's only ever used in a denigratory sense and it is discriminatory.



---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:51 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

Thank you ..

I thought more highly of you than to applaud what Chris has said. It saddens me that I'm wrong.

The people born after the war were completely unaware that the future would disadvantage the cohort born in the 1980s.

To characterise them as priviliged and by implication villains is grossly unfair.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It says little for you that you cast that age-group as akin to villains who are gorging on their fortunate situation.

They were born when they were born; schooled in the system of the day; worked in the available jobs; bought houses as per the market of those times and managed to see a doctor same day.

To characterise them as having ridden a wave of which they were unaware at the time is disgraceful.

The following generation are the victim of poor government and wider circumstances that I have described in this debate.

As to the insulting term "baby boomer", it's only ever used in a denigratory sense and it is discriminatory.



---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:51 ----------



I thought more highly of you than to applaud what Chris has said. It saddens me that I'm wrong.

The people born after the war were completely unaware that the future would disadvantage the cohort born in the 1980s.

To characterise them as priviliged and by implication villains is grossly unfair.

Grow up. There was a baby boom when world war 2 ended and large numbers of conscripts were demobbed and sent home. The infants born to the generation who fought the war are, and have always been, known as baby boomers. It’s a fact of history and it’s utterly hilarious of you to claim it’s discriminatory. If you’re of that generation, and especially if you’re white, male and middle class, you have been best placed of anyone in that generation to benefit from being
the first born into the welfare state and, as a young adult, among the ones who fought for, and achieved, social liberation, and also among the ones who saw housing cheap and mortgage values shrink almost by the month. You of all those who have lived in this country since the war are the most economically privileged and least discriminated against in our entire history.

I have never claimed that all of these circumstances were brought about deliberately by boomers. Some indeed were the deliberate and direct outcome of policies boomers campaigned and voted for; others were not. However, the massive wealth pile this generation now sits on, and votes to ensure it retains, is a problem that boomers as a generation are obviously unwilling to easily part with, even though they are clearly intelligent enough to understand the negative consequences their second homes and triple-locked pensions are having on their children and their grandchildren’s own future prospects.

Observe the way Teresa May crashed and burned for daring to suggest that this generation ought to pay back a little, which it could well afford to pay, out of its pension pot. That tells you everything you need to know about the priorities of this generation.