Bye Bye Boris!

[NotoriousREV]

I’ve said it before: the Greatest Generation was survived by the Worst Generation.

[Swervin_Mervin]

On a serious note for a second, what frustrates me most about the key demographic that have installed the liar in chief is that they are the ultimate ladder-puller-uppers. They've likely benefitted from universal free education, affordable housing, good wage inflation, unprecedented gains in life quality and expectancy, long retirements (when the pension age should've been raised years ago), numerous tax breaks like married persons tax relief and mortgage interest tax relief, they may have a BTL or two to supplement their pension, so farming the subsequent generation to feather their own nests, triple locked state pensions and defined benefit private pensions, and the ironic few will have even taken advantage of free movement to retire to the Costa del England in Spain somewhere, etc etc and yet likely because of the hate stoked bollox by Paul Dacre in the Daily Facist, combined with an increased number of sightings of 'brown people' around they want to rewind the country back to 1965 just so that they can get their rose tinted NHS prescribed specs out of the drawer and to hell to anyone else, their jobs, their opportunities or their prosperity.

The 'Gammon', as has been coined in the media (a phrase I used to hate, but to hell with it) really don't understand what they're doing, but what do they care with their protected incomes and their sunburnt sour faced harreden wives? They'll be singing 'Rule Britannia' and waving their plastic Union Jack flags whilst Boris delivered his bollox this afternoon, whilst sitting in their lounges lined with Royal Wedding 1981 commemorative plates and pictures of their white white friends from the bridge club.

That generation need to feel the pain of what they've done.

What a load of utter bollox

[Zonda_]

On a serious note for a second, what frustrates me most about the key demographic that have installed the liar in chief is that they are the ultimate ladder-puller-uppers. They've likely benefitted from universal free education, affordable housing, good wage inflation, unprecedented gains in life quality and expectancy, long retirements (when the pension age should've been raised years ago), numerous tax breaks like married persons tax relief and mortgage interest tax relief, they may have a BTL or two to supplement their pension, so farming the subsequent generation to feather their own nests, triple locked state pensions and defined benefit private pensions, and the ironic few will have even taken advantage of free movement to retire to the Costa del England in Spain somewhere, etc etc and yet likely because of the hate stoked bollox by Paul Dacre in the Daily Facist, combined with an increased number of sightings of 'brown people' around they want to rewind the country back to 1965 just so that they can get their rose tinted NHS prescribed specs out of the drawer and to hell to anyone else, their jobs, their opportunities or their prosperity.

The 'Gammon', as has been coined in the media (a phrase I used to hate, but to hell with it) really don't understand what they're doing, but what do they care with their protected incomes and their sunburnt sour faced harreden wives? They'll be singing 'Rule Britannia' and waving their plastic Union Jack flags whilst Boris delivered his bollox this afternoon, whilst sitting in their lounges lined with Royal Wedding 1981 commemorative plates and pictures of their white white friends from the bridge club.

That generation need to feel the pain of what they've done.

What a load of utter bollox

Which bit do you disagree with?

[Swervin_Mervin]

On a serious note for a second, what frustrates me most about the key demographic that have installed the liar in chief is that they are the ultimate ladder-puller-uppers. They've likely benefitted from universal free education, affordable housing, good wage inflation, unprecedented gains in life quality and expectancy, long retirements (when the pension age should've been raised years ago), numerous tax breaks like married persons tax relief and mortgage interest tax relief, they may have a BTL or two to supplement their pension, so farming the subsequent generation to feather their own nests, triple locked state pensions and defined benefit private pensions, and the ironic few will have even taken advantage of free movement to retire to the Costa del England in Spain somewhere, etc etc and yet likely because of the hate stoked bollox by Paul Dacre in the Daily Facist, combined with an increased number of sightings of 'brown people' around they want to rewind the country back to 1965 just so that they can get their rose tinted NHS prescribed specs out of the drawer and to hell to anyone else, their jobs, their opportunities or their prosperity.

The 'Gammon', as has been coined in the media (a phrase I used to hate, but to hell with it) really don't understand what they're doing, but what do they care with their protected incomes and their sunburnt sour faced harreden wives? They'll be singing 'Rule Britannia' and waving their plastic Union Jack flags whilst Boris delivered his bollox this afternoon, whilst sitting in their lounges lined with Royal Wedding 1981 commemorative plates and pictures of their white white friends from the bridge club.

That generation need to feel the pain of what they've done.

What a load of utter bollox

Which bit do you disagree with?

All of it pretty much. But particularly the idea that an entire generation has schemed to fvck over subsequent generations, rather than just having lived and worked at a particular time in this country's economic history. It's total twaddle.

[IanF]

What a load of utter bollox

Which bit do you disagree with?

All of it pretty much. But particularly the idea that an entire generation has schemed to fvck over subsequent generations, rather than just having lived and worked at a particular time in this country's economic history. It's total twaddle.

^ I agree

[Simon]

The point of my diatribe was that the gammon generation had it good - really good - and are behaving this way because they somehow think that things are actually bad for them and these votes will improve things for them (selfishly) irrespective of the consequence on anyone else.

My points about how good they've had it are all true. They've lived in a particular time in history that's had it better than probably any other. And they're not deliberately voting to screw over subsequent generations, but those are the effects regardless.

[Swervin_Mervin]

The point of my diatribe was that the gammon generation had it good - really good - and are behaving this way because they somehow think that things are actually bad for them and these votes will improve things for them (selfishly) irrespective of the consequence on anyone else.

My points about how good they've had it are all true. They've lived in a particular time in history that's had it better than probably any other. And they're not deliberately voting to screw over subsequent generations, but those are the effects regardless.

I think you're conflating Conservative Party members with a certain demographic of Brexit voters in general. I doubt your average Tory Party member is a flag flying, Carling swilling ex-pat in Spain.

[ZedLeg]

I think this is a disconnect a lot of people have. When people talk about the gammons it’s not just Tommy Robinson loving rednecks. It’s Daily Mail reading NIMBYs, the “self made” wealthy and the more traditional upper class who don’t want to share. All of whom are exactly who voted for Boris.

It’s why I try not to use the term if I’m trying to make a serious point, it’s easy for people arguing against it to dismiss it.

[V8Granite]

Can someone pop an age range into the ones who got all the benefits and the ones who have lost out please.

I feel my parents generation had it quite hard, my Dad just retired at 64 but isn’t quite swimming in cash.

I feel my generation had it easier, mid 30s as we had good access to finance, lending and all my friends are doing well considering the salaries.

The generation below me, mid 20s seem to have decent wages but no money, far more stuff though.

50-75 ?

35-50?

20-35?

Dave!

[ZedLeg]

It’s generally thought that the baby boom generation had the best shot. Cheap housing and higher education, well paying jobs with security and the benefits of the welfare state before it was picked apart by subsequent governments.

Of course there will be people who don’t fit the trend but the evidence shows that it gets harder and harder for each subsequent generation to get established and secure because the boomers are hoarding everything they got.

[V8Granite]

It’s generally thought that the baby boom generation had the best shot. Cheap housing and higher education, well paying jobs with security and the benefits of the welfare state before it was picked apart by subsequent governments.

Of course there will be people who don’t fit the trend but the evidence shows that it gets harder and harder for each subsequent generation to get established and secure because the boomers are hoarding everything they got.

I’m wondering what things they are hoarding? If it’s money then what do you expect them to do, cash in a decent pension early or sell their house ? In 1998 we had to sign out of any pension arguments when signing our apprenticeship contract as the final salary scheme was phased out.

Everyone I know had crap first cars, one girl had a 106 a few years old but everyone else had Minis, knackered french and Ford hatches etc.

Only 1 person got help from their parents buying a house. Most just saved a lot or inherited something from dead relatives.

Our 2 luxuries were gym memberships and mobile phones which at the time seemed relatively expensive for what they were. We didn’t really have anything, money was spent on trying to get laid but mainly failing

I see the biggest problems with each generation is people’s expectations, education, career development and acquiring s things takes time. Over stretching yourself to get what you want just harms you in the future unless it’s home ownership it seems. Saying that though everyone I know ended up stuck in their homes when the housing slump hit, I missed out as I didn’t buy till my late 20s.

On a minimum wage job for a 20 year old you bring home £1140 a month on 40 hours a week.

I genuinely feel sorry for young people who are kicked out on their own at 16 or so and not given chance to put anything away. If you are 20 though and in work and still living at home like huge amounts are, you need to prioritise.

There are extreme cases at every end but in general, I don’t see a huge difference in the last 20 years with regards to spare cash after the essentials.

This is a view from East Anglia and the low end of the wages arena, some areas may vary.

Dave!

[RobYob]

I'd definitely flag the massive difference in property purchasing power as one of the biggest luxuries enjoyed by the boomers. Owning your home is still a huge life goal for most and you're signing up to decades of debt to achieve it these days.

Not being an economist I've no idea how you deflate the bubble to realign property with wages.

Oh and free education, seriously who the fvck thought making opportunity more economically exclusive was a good idea?

I'll stop there as I'm getting angry. The impending cliff face of debt to get my kids educated to the level I enjoyed (partially gov subsidised) let alone that of my parents (fully gov subsidised) is depressing.

[Rich B]

If we’re generalising, twenty somethings want to buy their own houses (in the best areas), but they also want brand new German cars, annual holidays to the Far East/America/Australia, £20k weddings, £1k phones, expensive watches and clothes, new everything, etc....

If they did without all those they could probably buy a house (in a less desirable area).

[NotoriousREV]

If we’re generalising, twenty somethings want to buy their own houses (in the best areas), but they also want brand new German cars, annual holidays to the Far East/America/Australia, £20k weddings, £1k phones, expensive watches and clothes, new everything, etc....

If they did without all those they could probably buy a house (in a less desirable area).

This blithely ignores the fact that, adjusted for inflation (and therefore in today’s prices) the average house 20 years ago was the equivalent of £120k vs £220k now. When I was born, the average house was the equivalent of £90k, so the big increase in the average cost of houses has been in the last 10 years or so.

[Jobbo]

Areas change in any case. Do the 20-somethings really want to buy in enclaves of wealthy retirees? I remember Clapham being a bit edgy when I first moved to London in 1990s, with Tooting a bit no-go (that changed by 2000), and now even Brixton and Streatham are desirable and expensive places to buy. As 20-somethings started buying in numbers further out, they reached the suburbia occupied by their parents' generation so they started buying in East London and gentrifying that. London's a nice easy market to study but the same thing plays out across the country.

ETA: Rev, the average house is now occupied by two earners, and interest rates are at a historic (seemingly permanent) low meaning the actual cost of buying hasn't really changed.

[RobYob]

If we’re generalising, twenty somethings want to buy their own houses (in the best areas), but they also want brand new German cars, annual holidays to the Far East/America/Australia, £20k weddings, £1k phones, expensive watches and clothes, new everything, etc....

If they did without all those they could probably buy a house (in a less desirable area).

I'll generalise and say I've never met a single person that fits the above description.

Would you say a "less desirable area" to buy a house is one that's nowhere near where you work?

[ZedLeg]

If we’re generalising, twenty somethings want to buy their own houses (in the best areas), but they also want brand new German cars, annual holidays to the Far East/America/Australia, £20k weddings, £1k phones, expensive watches and clothes, new everything, etc....

If they did without all those they could probably buy a house (in a less desirable area).

This blithely ignores the fact that, adjusted for inflation (and therefore in today’s prices) the average house 20 years ago was the equivalent of £120k vs £220k now. When I was born, the average house was the equivalent of £90k, so the big increase in the average cost of houses has been in the last 10 years or so.

Yeah, I just did some maths for 1970 and last year, I figured the first wave of baby boomers were probably mostly working and living on their own by around then? This was all based on figures from government sources.

Inflation adjusted the average salary was around £25k and the average house price was around £59k.

Last year average salary was £29k and house price was £240k.

So salaries have barely moved but costs have gone way up.

We can all just say stuff to confirm our own biases though.

[RobYob]

ETA: Rev, the average house is now occupied by two earners, and interest rates are at a historic (seemingly permanent) low meaning the actual cost of buying hasn't really changed.

It be easy to dismiss that statement as utterly counter to reality. However as it may only be counter to my reality I'll ask for some data to correlate it back to general reality.

[Sundayjumper]

Cheap... higher education...

A bit of a red herring that one, how many people went to Uni in the sixties ? Not very many, but you're implying things were better then. Higher education is FAR more accessible nowadays.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliam ... N04252.pdf

 In 1950 17,300 students were awarded first degrees

 In 2010/11 331,000 full-time students were awarded first degrees

Although you can take that as a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your point of view

[Jobbo]

From this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordabi ... ed_Kingdom



The first of those is what Rev is talking about, the second is the actual monthly cost of a mortgage. I hadn't appreciated how much prices had climbed versus earnings in the last few years, though.

Exactly 20 years ago is a slightly unfair comparison, because it's quite different to 19 years or 21 years ago; the climb out of the 90s recession all seemed to happen around 1997-1999.