Well duh, of course they are, as a group the boomers and gen-Xers have accumulating wealth for longer.
That part is a given, but there is the additional factor where millennials are far behind where they should be in terms of wealth accumulation. They have accumulated far less wealth than boomers and genX had by the same age. And it's not because they keep buying avocado toast.
The dis-proportionally wealthy are going to vote to keep their wealth while the dis-proportionally poor are going to vote to redistribute that wealth.
That is why age is such a good indicator of voting intention. Currently the older you are the more dis.proportionally wealthy you are (STATISTICALLY, NOT YOU INDIVIDUALLY).
We need to focus on the root causes of the wealth inequality not the symptoms.
The root cause is that boomers have been the largest voting bloc for 50 years and have been voting for parties that will ensure they can accumulate and keep the most wealth.
It's not that they are evil, it's just demographics and voting.
Under the Tories we've had the biggest cut in incomes since the Napoleonic wars, av pay on trend should have been £14k higher than it is. Meanwhile, the number of billionaires .....
This is just absolute complete unadulterated bollocks.
Just out of interest, how old are you?
Roughly, we don't need your date of birth.
If you are older you are also STATISTICALLY MORE LIKELY (sorry, if I don’t shout everyone just assume I mean them as an individual) to be wealthier.
You keep saying it, and it continues to be an utterly meaningless generalisation that's inaccurate for many thousands of people. Talk about age and likelihood of voting for particular parties by all means if you wish, but knock the generalisations about wealth on the head. You wouldn't do it about, say, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, etc.
You said Tony Blair didn’t follow the rule that politicians’ careers always end in failure, Ernie. As far as I’m concerned he was the biggest failure in the last 100 years.
I am of course referring to whether they won or lost elections and whether they were sacked or simply retired at a time of their own choosing. Not whether I personally approved of them or not.
Using that criteria I cannot think of any postwar prime minister or party leader who didn't either lose an election or was sacked by their own party, apart from Tony Blair.
On a personal level my dislike for Tony Blair was so great, even before he became prime minister, that in the 1997 general election I canvassed for the Liberal Democrats. As prime minister he was even worse than I had expected. There is a reason why Margaret Thatcher famously claimed that "New Labour" represented her greatest success.
Anyway, photo of the week goes to Rishi once again failing the Malcolm Tucker test
’yes… right a bit, prime minister, yeah, a bit further right… perfect!’
I keep popping back here for sensible, reasoned debate from intelligent people.
Seems very lacking though - just ‘I know best’ points scoring and the same old argument going round and round.
You wouldn’t do it about, say, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, etc.
Actually, I would say ethnicity and gender are pretty good indicators of wealth (and also voting intentions). Both have been discussed with respect to voting intentions in the last few pages.
Not sure if sexuality and religion are good indicators of wealth but they certainly are of voting intentions.
Can you please just dial down your sensitivity a bit and realise that when we talk about voting you have to generalise? Otherwise you end up polling every single individual in the UK. We are going to do that anyway on 4th July but unless you want to not talk about the election before that date I suggest you just accept that generalisations have to be made.
I keep popping back here for sensible, reasoned debate from intelligent people.
Are you new here?
Rishi is getting properly desperate now. After we’ve had 5 years of the total non-emergence of ‘Levelling Up’ and it turning out to be (surprise, surprise) nothing more than a soundbite, the little fella is heading to the ‘Red Wall’ today with some loose change he found down the back of the sofa…
Tories pledge £20m each of levelling-up funds to 30 more towns
Hes going to give 30 towns 20 million quid each OVER TEN YEARS and that’s supposed to make up for the absolute decimation of local council budgets over the last 14 years of austerity, is it Rishi?
Someone should remind him of the Who lyric “we won’t be fooled again”. They’re finished up here!
I’m sure his minders will ensure he’s helicoptered in and out without the possibility of bumping into any of those scary northerners
Maybe just coincidence but the years Blair was in the country felt a better place to live in.
When Tony Blair became prime minister he inherited from the Tories a thriving economy, and there was still plenty of family silver to sell off, by the time the shit hit the neoliberal fan he was conveniently gone and he had retired from Westminster politics.
So yeah, I can understand the perception. But it is about as useful as perceiving that Sir Keir Starmer must be the greatest ever postwar leader of the Opposition because the current Tory government are about to be annihilated next month.
@ernielynch - other than the willingness to follow the US to war, what did you dislike about the Blair years?
On the plus side I recall poverty falling, particularly child poverty. I would agree though they didn’t do enough to stop people and organisations taking on debt and some of the financial instruments in use got out of hand.
Can you please just dial down your sensitivity a bit and realise that when we talk about voting you haveto generalise?
If you want to generalise about voting intentions, be my guest - generalising about generational wealth and intentions to vote based on maintaining that wealth is lazy, inaccurate stereotyping.
Hes going to give 30 towns 20 million quid each OVER TEN YEARS and that’s supposed to make up for the absolute decimation of local council budgets over the last 14 years of austerity, is it Rishi?
One is minded of Robert Jenrick - put in charge of a similar scheme to fund the 100 poorest constituenciea, he awarded the maximum amount to his and his mates constituencies, which were barely amongst the 300 poorest constituencies.
If you want to generalise about voting intentions, be my guest – generalising about generational wealth and intentions to vote based on maintaining that wealth is lazy, inaccurate stereotyping.
Generational wealth is not speculation. It's something that can and does get measured. And the measurements reveal that millennials are behind when compared to boomers at the same age.
And voting in your own interests is not something that is limited to a particular generation. Sure, some people are going to be more or less altruistic but on average there is always a slight preference for parties that are going to advance your own personal wealth. Over time, even small preferences compound and boomers have had a slight advantage for 50 years.
It adds up.
I'm not saying anything that isn't backed up by data and I'm not saying any generation is 'better' than the other. Where we are is just an accident of demographics in the Western world.
@ernielynch – other than the willingness to follow the US to war, what did you dislike about the Blair years?
Well I wouldn't really want to discuss the paid advisor to brutal and murderous dictators at the best of times, and I don't think this thread should be the place to do it anyway.
But to sum it up in one sentence - I dislike him for all the reasons that Margaret Thatcher liked him.
And his premiership sowed the seeds for the 2010 coalition government and austerity.
Differing perspectives I guess.
Iraq
2003 – 2007 Fatalities: 174, Wounded: 2,602.Afghanistan
2001 – 2007 Fatalities: 86, Wounded: 834I’d say the UK **** sucked for the individuals, families and those who came home with significant & life changing injuries.
In total that's less than 2 months worth of UK road deaths. I feel sorry for those we invaded but life here for the vast majority was much better under Blair than under the subsequent Tory governments.
In total that’s less than 2 months worth of UK road deaths. I feel sorry for those we invaded but life here for the vast majority was much better under Blair than under the subsequent Tory governments.
Going back to the point I made originally (before someone who regularly refers to 'racist pensioners' got offended by an age based generalisation), I think it's easy to overestimate the effects of a government.
Blair was in power in a post-Soviet, pre-financial crisis period of perma-expansion and debt fueled excess. He may have made things a bit better for certain sections of society, but the party was going to happen whether he was there or not.
The Tories took over and made a period that was going to be rough anyway even rougher than it had to be.
But if Blair was born 15 years later and took over in 2010 things would have still been rough. Perhaps not quite as rough but his politics doesn't suggest to me the poor would have had a much easier time.
Generational wealth is not speculation. It’s something that can and does get measured.
I don't doubt.
And the measurements reveal that millennials are behind when compared to boomers at the same age.
Ah - those sweeping generalisations again.
And voting in your own interests is not something that is limited to a particular generation. Sure, some people are going to be more or less altruistic but on average there is always a slight preference for parties that are going to advance your own personal wealth.
I don't think many are voting to protect their wealth - I think the majority have been sold a bunch of lies about a new period of British Empire and manufactured fear about refugees, immigrants, knife crime, leftie lawyers, the woke and Muslims.
Ah – those sweeping generalisations again.
Also known as data.
I don’t think many are voting to protect their wealth – I think the majority have been sold a bunch of lies about a new period of British Empire and manufactured fear about refugees, immigrants, knife crime, leftie lawyers, the woke and Muslims.
This is the crux of the matter.
There is little debate on economics and distribution of wealth because in reality there is little difference between Labour and the Tories on these points. That's why everything you mentioned is front and centre.
In total that’s less than 2 months worth of UK road deaths. I feel sorry for those we invaded but life here for the vast majority was much better......
Yeah the hundreds of thousands who died as the result of the decision to go to war were mostly foreigners.
Which of course was always going to be the case otherwise Blair would never have agreed to go to war. He obviously never believed for a moment that weapons of "mass" destruction existed, so he could be sure that thousands of Brits would not die.
I feel "sorry" for all those foreigners who died too. I think this is when thoughts and prayers are important.
He may have made things a bit better for certain sections of society, but the party was going to happen whether he was there or not.
That's totally inaccurate. There were deliberate policies by Blair and Brown to bring down poverty and child poverty. The poorest in our society were targeted to improve their lot.
We've had increasing inequity in our society since 2010, more children in poverty, more children in destitution, less access to services.
Surestart and the minimum wage were progressive policies that genuinely improved our country. When certain commentators in here bang on about them being red Tories; the Tories would never have done surestart and got rid of it as fast as they could in austerity
@BruceWee, I'm 55. I'm relatively rich, I know that. And that's before any inheritances. Not sure how it really affects the argument. Which is that 14 years of tory austerity and spiteful vandalism has basically wrecked the economy, based on a toxic combination of economic zealotry and isolationist jingoism.
I'm old enough to remember black wednesday, and for all the harm that did (very real tangible harm to many real people) the economy as a whole recovered and people as a whole got richer.
Also putting aside the financial mechanism (PFI); the new labour government invested in new hospitals and schools (building schools for the future).
PFI was a bad execution of a good intention, which again we would not have seen with a continuation of the Tories.
They also put money into improving homes, and there were some massive schemes being developed that were killed by austerity
There were deliberate policies by Blair and Brown to bring down poverty and child poverty.
Well using government money to subsidise greedy money-grabbing profit-chasing employers who won't pay a decent living wage is one way to do it I guess.
Just as well that there is a generous money tree after all, eh?
PFI was a bad execution of a good intention, which again we would not have seen with a continuation of the Tories.
PFI was a Tory government initiative which New Labour grabbed and ran with.
Also known as data.
No, that's not data - it's a sweeping generalisation.
That’s why everything you mentioned is front and centre.
Everything I mentioned is front and centre because for almost all of the last 14 years, that's what the government has been selling. So I think that saying...
The dis-proportionally wealthy are going to vote to keep their wealth while the dis-proportionally poor are going to vote to redistribute that wealth.
... is a nonsense. I don't think many Tory voters do so to keep their wealth, I think they do it because they're ultimately worried about being knifed by an illegal immigrant who'll be got off the charges by a woke lefty lawyer.
That’s totally inaccurate. There were deliberate policies by Blair and Brown to bring down poverty and child poverty. The poorest in our society were targeted to improve their lot.
Child poverty also decreased in the US over the same period. My point is no government can eliminate the effects of the global economy. All it can do is mitigate them (or make them worse).
That's why saying, 'Things seemed so much better under Blair' is not really helpful. Of course things were better under Blair. Even the Tories would have struggled to **** things up completely the same period.
Anyway back to 2024 :
“The Conservatives would have fewer than 100 seats. They would be the official opposition, but they would have less than half of the opposition MPs - 72 out of 157.”
The Tories would be a minority within the opposition, how humiliating! 🤣😂
I’m old enough to remember black wednesday, and for all the harm that did (very real tangible harm to many real people) the economy as a whole recovered and people as a whole got richer.
For people of your generation.
People of my generation are only now getting on the housing market, starting a pension, etc
You said the financial crisis was all over by 2010. Sorry, but for people under the age of 40 that's complete and utter bollocks. But I appreciate that for people who are around 55 it's true.
No, that’s not data – it’s a sweeping generalisation.
No, if you count up all the money and then put the numbers in a spreadsheet then it's data. Which is what they did. Sorry if you don't like the numbers.
Everything I mentioned is front and centre because for almost all of the last 14 years, that’s what the government has been selling.
Yes, because if Labour and the Tories fundamentally agree on the economic questions then what else is there?
I don’t think many Tory voters do so to keep their wealth,
The reason wealthy people have no reason to fear anyone coming for their stuff is no party is willing to even talk about doing it. They are free to spend their time worrying about brown people and the wokerati instead.
What has been going on since 2010 isn't the financial crisis of 2008! It's the Tory crisis! I'm well aware that the economy has tanked for many people since then. My own business was wiped out by brexit. I would be even richer if it hadn't been. Instead, I'm retired, economically inactive, barely paying a penny in tax. My business paid a few tens of thousands while it was running. That's just one example of the real tangible harm done by the tories for purely ideological reasons and nothing at all to do with the global financial crisis of 2008.
It’s the Tory crisis!
How are the Tories affecting US politics, the European economy, etc?
Don't get me wrong, I think the Tories made a bad situation much much worse but I think blaming them for all the ills of the Western world is a bit much.
It's almost as if both parties subscribe to the idea that the private sector creates wealth without the state.
Doesn't matter let it fail. Results will be obvious eventually. Labour will then have to do something that needs a larger deficit. Be ready for that one.
Streeting got a good kicking on QT. And Farage on there... My god.
Apparently a *shocker* of a poll coming tonight from the Observer (bigging up their own poll no doubt.)
And d:ream banned Labour from using their song! 🤣
Quite looking forward to the debates. I don't think either will come out looking good. But Sunak for sure is rubbish at front of house stuff.
I’m not blaming the tories for all of the ills in the western world. I’m blaming them for quite deliberately making things worse.
That’s just one example of the real tangible harm done by the tories for purely ideological reasons and nothing at all to do with the global financial crisis of 2008.
It’s worth noting that the present polling not only has a substantial general lead for Labour, but they’ve been consistently ahead on economic competence. It’s one area where they’re winning, hands down. And rightly so.
If anyone was in any doubt the damage the Tories have inflicted on the economy with Brexit, austerity and other purely ideological nonsense* then Mad Lizzies insane mini-budget certainly put paid to that
*Brexit has cost the company I’m presently working for tens of millions of pounds in additional costs. When the mountains of paperwork and added costs materialised after Johnson’s ‘oven-ready’ deal, they hemorrhaged the EU business they’d built over decades and had no option but to open 2 offices and a warehousing operation within the EU, laying UK staff off. Well done for ‘Taking Back Control’ 🙄
No, if you count up all the money and then put the numbers in a spreadsheet then it’s data. Which is what they did. Sorry if you don’t like the numbers.
Numbers are numbers, my opinions of them are of no relevance. However...
And the measurements reveal that millennials are behind when compared to boomers at the same age.
... is a sweeping generalisation.
The reason wealthy people have no reason to fear anyone coming for their stuff is no party is willing to even talk about doing it. They are free to spend their time worrying about brown people and the wokerati instead.
You weren't talking about wealthy people, you were talking about most boomers and gen X.
they’ve been consistently ahead on economic competence. It’s one area where they’re winning, hands down. And rightly so.
IME people's perception of "economic competence" is not good. Which imo is why the Tories are so successful in winning general elections and creating myths surrounding the economy.
Edit: According to the latest figures from YouGov Labour lead the Tories over the economy by 7%. I am not sure I would describe that as winning hands down.
IME people’s perception of “economic competence” is not good. Which imo is why the Tories are so successful in winning general elections and creating myths surrounding the economy.
Totally.
There has been this myth perpetuated for years about the Tories with the economy - and all that was taking place was a transfer of state created wealth through to the finance sector giving the illusion of success.
You can only keep selling stuff off for so long until it catches up with you.
eBay economy.
However Labour didn't help themselves at the last election by not defending themselves against the GFC and claiming they'd ran out of money. That was ridiculous. And although a joke it got picked up by lots of journos.
you were talking about most boomers and gen X.
'Statistically more likely' and 'most' are not the same thing.
So Sunak today trying taking full advantage of the Diane Abbott fiasco. Vote Starmer, get Rayner and the hard labour left. Fine by me. 😀
I really don't know what the hard left actually is these days. More like the soft left.
Can you really look at the Zack Polanski and call him hard left. 🤣 Hanging out with dogs and trees.
I see we agree on much about Blair, Ernie.
In the 97 manifesto he promised not to introduce tuition fees but did so immediately after the election. Student debt has become a problem both for the students in debt and the economy as a whole as much of it will have to be written off one day.
I lived the economic "boom" of the Blair period in France. It had very little to do with Blair's policies if it was a boom at all. It was boom and bust with little, too little management by the "independant" BOE or government. I was so concerned about the runaway train tech boom economy that the banks were fuelling I sold my whole share portfolio in Spring 2000 thus escaping a far more significant market hiccup than subprime. It was only last year that the CAC 40 reached 2000 levels again.
I watched from afar and did a lot of head shaking, he then started going on about WMDs and I got angry because Hans Blix said there weren't any apart from some old British chemical shells they'd handed over.
And Starmer in all that. Promises, U-turns, hates the socialists in his own party. If ever there was an opportunity to make some vaguely socialist pledges, stick to them and still win an election it's now. It's an opportunity Mr DPP, natural authoritarian Tory isn't interested in.
