P.J. Denyer wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:50 pm
I think there's a degree of denial, a degree of "I'll be gone before it effects me"(**cough** climate change **cough**), but in recent years I've become more and more convinced that there's a strong element among boomers who go beyond 'I don't need it any more so get rid of it to save money for stuff I want" into full on "I don't need it any more so destroy it so no-one else can have it" territory.
Speaking as a boomer, I'm just getting to the stage where I really need the NHS as indeed are many others so we're not likely to want to scrap it. And I've never encountered the "I don't need it any more so destroy it so no-one else can have it" attitude anywhere. You most associate with some very strange people.
Student grants?
Building enough houses so there are affordable ones for my generation and those younger than me?
Your generation (not you personally) got the freest ride of any in history, and spread tacks and oil behind you so that subsequent generations are f.cked
I was talking specifically about the NHS and saying that I'm not aware of any boomers who want to destroy it or think they don't need it.
Having said that, you're right about student grants. I argued in The Other Place against student loans and for grants but apparantly I'm just an addled Marxist who doesn't understand how the world works (I paraphrase). And it wasn't even boomers saying that.
As for property - during the 80s I was unable to buy because of ridiculously high prices (as were many boomers). The ONLY reason I was able to get on the property ladder was the early 90s property crash. I have also argued that we need another one so that housing becomes affordable again.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
P.J. Denyer wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:50 pm
I think there's a degree of denial, a degree of "I'll be gone before it effects me"(**cough** climate change **cough**), but in recent years I've become more and more convinced that there's a strong element among boomers who go beyond 'I don't need it any more so get rid of it to save money for stuff I want" into full on "I don't need it any more so destroy it so no-one else can have it" territory.
Speaking as a boomer, I'm just getting to the stage where I really need the NHS as indeed are many others so we're not likely to want to scrap it. And I've never encountered the "I don't need it any more so destroy it so no-one else can have it" attitude anywhere. You most associate with some very strange people.
Student grants?
Building enough houses so there are affordable ones for my generation and those younger than me?
Your generation (not you personally) got the freest ride of any in history, and spread tacks and oil behind you so that subsequent generations are f.cked
C'mon, Tom, you know that's mostly bollocks.
5-7% of my year group went to university and not everyone got full grants (the means testing meant my folks had to pay a chunk and they weren't particulary wealthy); we graduated just in time for graduate unemployment to become A Thing and some of us spent many years on the dole; many of my peers, self-included, did not vote for any of the governments who changed university funding, refused to build more social housing; etc; etc.
It isn't a generational thing: it's a class thing and a political thing.
It's so much more attractive inside the moral kiosk
P.J. Denyer wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:50 pm
I think there's a degree of denial, a degree of "I'll be gone before it effects me"(**cough** climate change **cough**), but in recent years I've become more and more convinced that there's a strong element among boomers who go beyond 'I don't need it any more so get rid of it to save money for stuff I want" into full on "I don't need it any more so destroy it so no-one else can have it" territory.
Speaking as a boomer, I'm just getting to the stage where I really need the NHS as indeed are many others so we're not likely to want to scrap it. And I've never encountered the "I don't need it any more so destroy it so no-one else can have it" attitude anywhere. You most associate with some very strange people.
Student grants?
Building enough houses so there are affordable ones for my generation and those younger than me?
Your generation (not you personally) got the freest ride of any in history, and spread tacks and oil behind you so that subsequent generations are f.cked
Returning to the point of the thread (possibly briefly), something else I've noticed on the BBC on their current affair comedy programs and I'm thinking mostly of HIGNfY but other programs like Mock The Week and the News Quiz also seem to do it. Negative references in the scripted portions to the Tories are 'balanced' with negative references to Labour, regardless of whether there's anything to criticise, and the Conservative jokes are about the Conservative Party and usually concentrate on other MPs than Johnson, such as Nicky Morgan this week, but the Labour joke is almost always about Corbyn (and will usually be something like a random piece of footage of someone trying to go up an escalator or crashing a car which they'll then joke is Corbyn).
Maybe there's a policy difference wrt deference to office. Party leader is a party role rather than a government post. Hard to get a baseline feeling to compare- Blair and Brown seems a like long time ago.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.
In most of the Beeb, errrrrr, topical comedy shows, radio or TV, the whole "balance" thing has become a bit meta, with gags about how this "balance" can be achieved or counting up the mentions of so-and-so against those for such-and-such.
It's so much more attractive inside the moral kiosk
nekomatic wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:06 pm
I think we’ve watched all of the current series of both HIGNFY and MTW and there’s been plenty of taking the piss out of Johnson.
Yes but my point was that it's mostly been a) in the unscripted parts and b) actually relevant to the news while the Corbyn gags are more often pre written and included even if there is nothing topical to base them on, for example the recent jokes about footage of person running the wrong way up an escalator or crashing a car into a wall attributed to being Corbyn.
I have found myself wondering while listening to things like The Now Show, about how the need to appear balanced weakens their scripts. I mean, it's formulaic as hell but sometimes there's a news item about some politician that's an absolute gift for a great joke but then you have to come up with a balancing joke about their opposite number when there's nothing of any note to hang a gag on. The result is pretty excruciating which is probably why I don't bother listening any more.
They do use the antisemitism of the labour party as a stick to beat them with without actually showing the antisemitism of the labour party. You can actually show Johnson being a racist because he is a racist and has shown it, repeatedly.
P.J. Denyer wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:00 pm
And Europe of course.
I suppose it would be annoying of me to point out Boomers were a significant part of the 17million or so pro Europe votes in the referendum. In 1975.
In 1975 only Boomers born in the 12 years between 45 and 57 would be able to vote in 75. The oldest would just be scraping 30. They make up around 8% of the UK population. So no, not a significant part.
Population of uk in 1975: ~56.3 million
Number of people born in UK between 1945 and 1967:~9.3 million
Percentage of 1975 UK population too young to vote: ~24
Voting age population in 1975: ~forty-two million seven hundred eighty-eight thousand.
Boomer population of voting age proportion 1975: ~21.7%
Significant.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.
username wrote: Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:39 am
Population of uk in 1975: ~56.3 million
Number of people born in UK between 1945 and 1967:~9.3 million
Percentage of 1975 UK population too young to vote: ~24
Voting age population in 1975: ~forty-two million seven hundred eighty-eight thousand.
Boomer population of voting age proportion 1975: ~21.7%
Significant.
That's assuming they (a) all voted & (b) voted in significant part to be part of the EEC
username wrote: Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:39 am
Population of uk in 1975: ~56.3 million
Number of people born in UK between 1945 and 1967:~9.3 million
Percentage of 1975 UK population too young to vote: ~24
Voting age population in 1975: ~forty-two million seven hundred eighty-eight thousand.
Boomer population of voting age proportion 1975: ~21.7%
9.7m ish boomers in 1975. (It was 17%, not 8% - need to look at both sides of the pyramid).
Turnout was 64%.
Assuming equal turnout (awkward but can't find an age-based breakdown)
Boomers at that time were, even then, the least likely group to vote for EEC membership. Support was much higher amongst over 65s.
62% of 1975 boomers voted in
Taking all that, roughly 3.8m boomers voted in, out of 17.4m votes in. So, around 22%. Would've been won without it, but that's true of every other age group as well.
username wrote: Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:39 am
Population of uk in 1975: ~56.3 million
Number of people born in UK between 1945 and 1967:~9.3 million
Percentage of 1975 UK population too young to vote: ~24
Voting age population in 1975: ~forty-two million seven hundred eighty-eight thousand.
Boomer population of voting age proportion 1975: ~21.7%
Significant.
Since when did eight year olds get to vote?
Lol typo. 1957. I used ONS data for my calcs.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.
