UK Politics

[francovendee]

Al,
I don't comment on the forum anymore but this time I feel strongly that your first statement is very true.
Coming from a generation born during WW2 and brought up in a time when aspirations weren't about; where shall we take our next holiday, have a new car, kitchen TV etc?
Although having some rewarding jobs I have never been a high earner, but never wasted money. To get the money for a house deposit we saved every penny for 5 years, going without holidays, car or new furniture just content with stuff given to us. Was it tough, was it worth it? You bet it was I've never regretted it.
The ability to live within our (modest) means was instilled into me by the actions of my parents.
I have a pension and some savings but I don't consider myself rich.
My daughter's partner tells me having savings is wrong and money needs to be spent to keep the economy healthy.
He follows this and has quite a number of loans. He works and has a decent job but his life is like a house built from playing cards, lose his job and his whole lifestyle is in danger of collapsing.
In a nutshell for me I refuse to feel guilt for having ended up with a house (paid for) a few £'s in savings and a state pension I contributed to all my working life.
Every generation has to overcome hurdles, mine were different to today but none the less difficult.
Waiting to see what the 'wise men' on here say.

[al_yrpal]

Franco, you think like me. We have both done the right thing all our lives and managed to acquire a home and some savings for that almost inevitable rainy day, never had anything from the state or anything like the gold plated pensions common in Academia and public service. We helped our kids, in my case quite a lot because of my daughters severely disabled son. And yet... we have critics who alledge we are robbing the young? - Barmy! People like us dont run the economy, we just do the best we can for us and our loved ones.

Al

[gbnz]

The Big Issue, Al, is the way a wealth divide entrenches, becomes dug-in and starker over time

Look on the bright side, the wealthiest section of society, the most significant recipients of welfare, inflicting huge health costs on the nation, whilst contributing to homelessness and vast levels of motorig pollution........

Will die off earlier, than those of a productive age. Suppose more radical moves are needed, the withdrawal of FOC medical care from those +60yr's, banning them from the use of motor vehicles, sequesting the wealth they've accumulated by exponential increases in property prices. Who knows, perhaps those over 60yr's should be obliged to move into suitably sized housing, 1 room, perhaps give them a larger cupboard for the microwave and toilet facilities ? It's absurd that when thousands are dying of homelessness in the UK, OAP's should have a surplus of oversized housing in the UK, whilst banning social housing being built, near them

The outcomes would be life changing, productive elements of society would be able to live in housing, with huge reductions in the UK's health & welfare costs, whilst having an exponential effect on the reduction in pollution caused by the 4/4 OAP. Perhaps some of them could be obliged to work for their pension, can't see why they should be paid a fortune for going off hill walking or whatever. Why can't they be obliged to wash floors of nursing homes, stack supermarket shelves, or whatever. Why should the wealthiest in society, be paid more in welfare than the poorest ?

[Carlton green]

My daughter's partner tells me having savings is wrong and money needs to be spent to keep the economy healthy.
He follows this and has quite a number of loans. He works and has a decent job but his life is like a house built from playing cards, lose his job and his whole lifestyle is in danger of collapsing.

Waiting to see what the 'wise men' on here say.

There’s a lot of political grandstanding on here, but mixed in there is some wisdom too; a case of normally ignoring some folk and normally listening up to what others have to say.

Your daughter’s partner has attitudes that would give me concern, whilst I’ve been lucky our children don’t always get involved with sensible people - love has a tendency to be both blind and stupid. Saving has many forms and only the foolish or misguided believe in willingly spending all they have without thought for the future.

It's absurd that when thousands are dying of homelessness in the UK, OAP's should have a surplus of oversized housing in the UK, whilst banning social housing being built, near them

Interestingly there are a lot of big homes for sale in my area and they’re not shifting, those that want to downsize are struggling to do so. Political will is interesting, in the Pandemic the homeless were housed; now, the hundreds of migrants crossing the channel ‘illegally’ are housed yet historically we wouldn’t house our own homeless.

I’m inclined to wonder about the sick, the more effective treatment of the sick, and the need for some work to be still available for those in imperfect health. I’m also inclined to think that the further education student population should be in paid work, contributing to the economy, rather than in full time education. As a rough rule of thumb if an employer doesn’t value your knowledge enough to fund part time study then the subject isn’t worth pursuing.

Is the retirement age too low and has retirement lost its original meaning? I’m inclined to think that whilst full time work becomes mentally and physically unsustainable we retire too early, an easier and more flexible way of working in later life would enable us to go on longer. Having said that many older people care for their parents and or grandchildren, and others volunteer for community support activities.

. Why should the wealthiest in society, be paid more in welfare than the poorest ?

I’m not at all sure that they are, most retired folk have both state and private pensions which they funded during their working lives; a private pension is not a welfare benefit.

[Nearholmer]

In a nutshell for me I refuse to feel guilt

It isn’t about guilt, or about ‘blaming the pensioners’ as someone back up steam said, or any such thing, it’s about what sort of society we want to leave to our children and grandchildren.

We from the postwar generations struck incredibly lucky, because our parents and grandparents had decided to create the most level income and wealth distribution that the country ever had, and to “get behind” the provision of high-quality public services. It was a time when individual, personal wealth, income, and owning material goods came second to creating a very good ‘public realm’.

The way we are going, we will leave behind us something akin to Edwardian society, with incredibly stark division between the haves and the have-nots, only worse, because while the public realm was constantly being improved in late-Victorian and Edwardian times, we will leave it in decay.

Everyone deludes themselves that if they stack-up a big enough stash, and pass it to their children, then their children and grandchildren will be protected, will be among those in the top-hats and tails, rather than the ragged majority, but the maths of that simply don’t work ……… if any of us want our descendants to live decent lives, the maths of probability say absolutely that we should be looking to leave behind us a good public realm, and a flattish distribution of wealth/income. Scandinavians get the plot!

[Bonefishblues]

That's a very sensible and measured addition to the discussion, thanks.

[Carlton green]

Scandinavians get the plot!.

^^ Credit Nearholmer.

Yes they do and if I were both a younger man and we were still in the EU the I’d have wondered about relocating Northwards. This country is ruled by the rich for the rich and evermore shall be so; the grass isn’t always (actually) greener elsewhere but in too many countries wealth is being concentrated in the hands of a relatively tiny group of people whom the rest of us in some way or other serve (whether we like it or not).

[roubaixtuesday]

The cast iron belief of some of the older posters here in their own moral superiority over the young does them no credit.

Critical thinking and empathy are two key skills they could do with learning from young people.

[roubaixtuesday]

In a nutshell for me I refuse to feel guilt

It isn’t about guilt, or about ‘blaming the pensioners’ as someone back up steam said, or any such thing, it’s about what sort of society we want to leave to our children and grandchildren.

We from the postwar generations struck incredibly lucky, because our parents and grandparents had decided to create the most level income and wealth distribution that the country ever had, and to “get behind” the provision of high-quality public services. It was a time when individual, personal wealth, income, and owning material goods came second to creating a very good ‘public realm’.

The way we are going, we will leave behind us something akin to Edwardian society, with incredibly stark division between the haves and the have-nots, only worse, because while the public realm was constantly being improved in late-Victorian and Edwardian times, we will leave it in decay.

Everyone deludes themselves that if they stack-up a big enough stash, and pass it to their children, then their children and grandchildren will be protected, will be among those in the top-hats and tails, rather than the ragged majority, but the maths of that simply don’t work ……… if any of us want our descendants to live decent lives, the maths of probability say absolutely that we should be looking to leave behind us a good public realm, and a flattish distribution of wealth/income. Scandinavians get the plot!

Very well said and critical thinking others here would do well to pay heed to.

I'd also add that those in retirement, regardless of assets they may have accumulated, are still absolutely dependent on those working being willing to support them in the style they believe they deserve. Taking for granted this willingness will continue forever, while economic opportunities are slammed shut, could be very unwise indeed.

[PDQ Mobile]

Now we've moved from blaming pensioners to threatening then!

A lot of pensioners are tax payers, that has already been stated.
Others play active roles in society where they hopefully bring some long life experience into the mix.
..........

On the direct subject of UK politics.
Boris Johnson has been found in breach of rules designed to stop abuse of public office.
He charges £150000 (not a typo) for a speaking engagement.
And "earns", amongst other income, £500000pa for a Daily Mail column.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... hdog-finds

Sunak has just taken another job "advising" some AI firm.
As ex PM I imagine some algorithms he might suggest could be "interesting".
He is sitting MP for Richmond Yorks.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -anthropic


Personally I would legislate to stop any MP holding another job.
The job of MP is a full time one- or should be.

These are the things that make folk sceptical about our democracy.

Do you think these two dodgy characters pay their fair share of tax?
I for one doubt it very much.

[al_yrpal]

I am trying to cut through and understand what you are saying and claiming. As far as I can make out...

1. You want really great public services.

2. You want a flatter wealth distribution

3. In some way retired folk have created an unequal society, are running down public services and are complacent about it.

My thoughts...

To have great public services you need a very successful private sector to generate enough wealth to fund it.

Wealth creators need an environment in which they can succeed. Who cares if some get filthy rich? We need these people.

Personally I never saved to fund my offspring or their kids. I saved so that I could protect my immediate family and enjoy retirement. In my case I could comfortably afford to ensure that my wife could be looked after in a decent care home when her dementia got too difficult to handle in her home environment.

I have observed that younger people often fail to appreciate that retirement savings are a safeguard against the unknown.

Al

[Nearholmer]

Who cares if some get filthy rich?

I do.

Why?

Not because of “the politics of envy”, which is the next tired trope that will get trotted round the paddock, but because too much inequality, and too much focus on personal consumption and possessions, make for a crappy society for the vast majority of people, they lead inexorably to private affluence for some, and public squalor for all.

Scandinavian countries provide a positive model.

The USA provides a stark warning in the form of high crime rates, widespread poverty, poor educations, and very poor health outcomes. It is a very rich nation, it has a very high GDP/capita, but is one where most of the people are poor.

In our own dear country, we have pot-holed roads, poor-quality housing for way too many of the population, water supply systems that haven’t been kept up to scratch, nearly every youth club shut down; the list of failures to provide and maintain a decent public realm is endless.

Yet, at the very same time, we have populated the roads with ever-bigger cars, imported enough pointless consumerist tat to build a pile bigger than Everest, and colluded in a huge increase in the division of wealth/incomes, rendering the poor poorer and more numerous, and the wealthy wealthier.

The idea that very wide inequality is a necessary precondition in order for industry and trade to generate prosperity is simply wrong. It isn’t true. If it was true, the poorest countries in the world would be those with the flattest distributions of wealth and incomes, which absolutely is not the case.

As I keep saying, this isn’t about “blaming pensioners”, it’s about what we want the country to be like when all us current pensioners are dead and buried, and if we want to leave it in decent shape for succeeding generations then, yes, we do have to think really hard about how wealth is currently spread, including among pensioners. We can’t put everyone over 65yo, and all their property and incomes, and all the funds needed to care for them, in a glass box with a label on it saying “do not touch” ……… it’s too big a proportion of the population, with too big a proportion of national spending devoted to it, to permit that.

[Pebble]

I know of more than a few young folk who have taken out loans to buy a car that are way beyond their means .
I am still running a car that we purchased 10 years ago .
I see absolutely no point in spending a large amount of money on something that spends most of it's time parked up or stuck in traffic.
Add to that the depreciation of it, I don't get it.
I do not think that most retired folk are sitting on a pile of money.
Indeed many take out equity release to continue to live or help their off spring .
Many others already pay tax on their private pension.
The demographic bomb has been known about for at least the last 25 plus years and is coming home to roost .

seems par for the course around here, young couples with a newish car each, often top marques too, then complain they can't afford a house

Heading well off topic here but I cycled to and from work until mortgage was paid off

[Cugel]

To have great public services you need a very successful private sector to generate enough wealth to fund it.

You fail to realise that it isn't a one-way process. Wealth creators need public services (e.g. a resilient nation state and all of its institutions) to produce, maintain and protect conditions which promote wealth creation. These conditions include a well-educated healthy population who are not badly punished by, and disaffected with, socio-economic conditions, along with a rule of law and associated institutions to run it so that wealth creators are neither robbed blind or allowed to create damage and havoc by sacrificing everything and everyone to their profit-lusts.

Wealth creators need an environment in which they can succeed. Who cares if some get filthy rich? We need these people.

Al

See above. You shouldn't assume that wealth creation needs an environment free of restraints such as regulation, rule of law and social contracts to enable as well as protect those who actually do the low-level production of wealth.

Ownership of the means of production is not really a requirement of creating wealth and neither is allowing some to write the laws via bought politicians that enable them to become filthy rich (and powerful) at the expense of everyone else, especially those producing their wealth down at the various coal faces. We don't need the sort of filthy rich people you mention. In fact, they are the main cause of a great many social and economic ills.

[roubaixtuesday]

seems par for the course around here, young couples with a newish car each, often top marques too, then complain they can't afford a house

Heading well off topic here but I cycled to and from work until mortgage was paid off

You seem to think that thoughtless self aggrandisement and disparaging youth is to your credit.

It's not.

And even the tales of turpitude were true - who brought up these younglings and created a world which shaped them into such depraved monsters?