Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[DynamicSpirit]

I didn't say he actually said that. But that, in my view is, essentially, the meaning conveyed by him ranting on about the strikes.

Fair enough if that's what you believe, But I'd urge you to compare what he actually said with the meaning that you think he conveyed. They are totally different. As far as I can see, there is nothing in any of what he said in that video clip that could by any plausible stretch of the imagination be reasonably interpreted to mean, "Meanwhile us Tory MPs can do what the hell we want". I mean - he isn't even talking about MPs! I understand you're being genuine and trying to say what you think, but it looks to me like you're letting your existing dislike for the Tories get in the way of any sensible interpretation of Lee Anderson's comments.

By contrast, he doesn't share in others' pain. He is off holidaying in Uruguay.

So what? We don't pay MPs to share pain, We pay them to scrutinise legislation and represent their constituents. That doesn't preclude them taking holidays sometimes. - after all, being able to take a certain number of weeks holiday a year from your job does seem to be generally viewed as an important workers' right

If he was on holiday like every other week then you'd have a point.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2023 ==

You might like to ask Jared O'Mara about whether he personally benefitted from his attempted expense submissions...

Haha, yes, maybe I should've said most MPs. To my mind though, the fact that Jared O'Mara has been jailed does seem to show that we probably have good checks to deter/prevent abuse of the system.

 

[Darandio]

If he was on holiday like every other week then you'd have a point.

Like Boris Johnson for example?

 

[DarloRich]

Lee appears to have defected at a time Labour had all but completely abandoned those values.

30p Lee didn't defect from Labour because of Corbyn ( although he says he did) - He was suspended by Labour in February 2018 after receiving a community protection warning by the council for using boulders to block members of the Traveller community from "setting up camp" at a site in his council seat area.

Private Eye have long had interest in him.

I think that the Labour Party of yore - without necessarily agreeing with Anderson - would have understood where he's coming from, and would have recognised that he's expressing concerns shared by a lot of their working class voters. The Labour Party of yore would have understood that there are good arguments both for and against capital punishment, and wouldn't have unthinkingly dismissed pro-capital-punishment views as some kind of aberration. Similarly, the Labour Party of yore wouldn't have been totally shocked by the concept that, if a tenant is behaving really anti-socially and making their neighbours' lives hell, you kick the offending tenant out, nor by the concept that, if you're giving food to people who are really struggling, it'd be a good idea to also make sure that those people know how to budget etc. (Which appear to be the kinds of things Lee Anderson is getting at, behind his rather rough choice of words).

I think the "labour party of yore" had a strong connection with the Protestant work ethic, personal responsibility and understanding the importance of work and the dignity within work in providing for families and creating solid role models. However, they also understood that when things went wrong people needed help and support so that (most importantly) no one got left behind.

it is that last section people like Anderson and many Tories forget.

I am not sure I agree with your suggestion around capital punishment - it was Labour MP's pressure that led to the removal of the military death penalty for "cowardice" in the 1920's. In 1927 Labour, under Ramsey MacDonald, published thier abolitionist ‘Manifesto on Capital Punishment’. Labour backbenchers wanted abolition in thier policy suite in the 1945 Labour government and only narrowly failed. ( They did get flogging and penal servitude banned at that point). 1956 Labour backbenchers got the application of the death penalty reduced to things like "cop killing" whereas before it was a mandatory sentence for murder.

The 1965 Act that abolished the death penalty was co sponsored by Tory and Labour MP's but built on a labour MP private members bill and was supported by the likes of Michael Foot and Shirley Williams.

Anyway: 30p Lee is a balloon and not worth your time in defending him ( see recent silliness with his being pictured with actual fasc!)

 

[SuspectUsual]

I think the good ones in the Tory party seem harder to find now since the purgings

And there’s another thing. There are some MPs on the Tory side who happily support some of the worst policies, and who act as rent-a-quote mouthpieces for the right wing, but who seem to be very good constituency MPs. Amazingly - and it makes me feel wrong just to type this - Scott Benton is one of them.

And that’s one of the things that niggles me when people predict a complete wipeout of the Tories at the next election - I think some voters will vote based on their direct experience and on local rather than national issues, and some Tories might earn a reprieve

 

[MikeWM]

Remember back in the Autumn when Liz Truss was resisting spending vast amounts of money on advertisements telling us how to save energy? As I said at the time

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/liz-truss-and-the-conservative-party.236903/post-5878853

There's no point in the government spending lots of money on telling the population things a five-year-old should be able to work out for themselves. If Truss is going to treat us like adults as opposed to idiots that need continually prodding or nudging, that's a big plus in my opinion.

Well, they got rid of Truss and are spending goodness-knows-how-much running the adverts anyway. Here is the masterpiece they came up with - which, entirely as predicted, indeed treats us like total idiots by telling us things a five-year-old should trivially be able to work out without help, like turn off lights and turn down the boiler temperature. And they tell us the government is short of money!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nu0OfDYeOk

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, they got rid of Truss and are spending goodness-knows-how-much running the adverts anyway. Here is the masterpiece they came up with - which, entirely as predicted, indeed treats us like total idiots by telling us things a five-year-old should trivially be able to work out without help, like turn off lights and turn down the boiler temperature.

Turning down boiler flow temperature isn't obvious unless you understand how condensing boilers work (and it's pointless if you have a very old non-condensing boiler). The reason it works is that it gives you a lower return temperature from your heating circuit. The condenser uses the heating return for cooling so the flue products condense, and this improves efficiency the better it works (and reduces emissions). On a non-condensing boiler you just trade circuit temperature for longer running to get the temperature up, so it doesn't save anything and may actually in some cases cost you more.

It's also necessary to understand that with smaller radiators it may cause your system to be ineffective and not be able to keep the temperature up. I turned mine down as an experiment and had to turn it back up as it had difficulty maintaining temperature during January's cold snap - my radiators aren't big enough for it to work.

 

[MikeWM]

Turning down boiler flow temperature isn't obvious unless you understand how condensing boilers work...

Well, I'd say it was an *obvious* thing to do to try to save energy, even if the reason that it works - or not! - isn't remotely obvious.

It's a good point though, that not only are the government talking to us like idiots and wasting lots of our money to do so, they are also over-simplifying the message and not conveying the nuances, thus making the message potentially counter-productive as well!

 

[jon0844]

I really can't imagine many people even daring to change the flow temperature as they might be renting or have it serviced annually and think they're not allowed to alter the controls. Wrong, of course, but still the case.

And the flow temperature may indeed need to be adjusted on really cold days (few people likely have a smart system that can actually do this automatically).

 

[The Ham]

They do say you get more right wing as you get older, but I also think that a lot of people who traditionally support(ed) Labour as working class may share many views of the far-right, such as topics like immigration.

Unless you're a Millennial, then there's research that shows that (both in the UK & US) you are actually likely to get more left wing as you age.

 

[jon0844]

Unless you're a Millennial, then there's research that shows that (both in the UK & US) you are actually likely to get more left wing as you age.

I'd agree with that for myself, albeit more centre mid than right (as was the Tory party a decade or so ago). I don't recognise the party today.

 

[AM9]

I'd agree with that for myself, albeit more centre mid than right (as was the Tory party a decade or so ago). I don't recognise the party today.

Same for me. I religously voted Conservative until the mid '80s when the deception behind the Thatcher administration's actions began to show. That's when their policies began to widen gap between the haves and have nots. I consider myself a have, i.e. in the top 10% of income but can see that those who aren't as fortunate really do get a rough deal which the past 13 years has got much worse.

 

[brad465]

Same for me. I religously voted Conservative until the mid '80s when the deception behind the Thatcher administration's actions began to show. That's when their policies began to widen gap between the haves and have nots. I consider myself a have, i.e. in the top 10% of income but can see that those who aren't as fortunate really do get a rough deal which the past 13 years has got much worse.

"The problem with neoliberalism is that you eventually run out of assets to strip in order to balance the books."

 

[Cross City]

Unless you're a Millennial, then there's research that shows that (both in the UK & US) you are actually likely to get more left wing as you age.

Trouble is for the Tories is, there's nothing left to conserve.

Home ownership in these generations is very low, there little long-term investments in stocks or pensions, the NHS is buggered, and we've had our rights to live and work in every other European country ripped from our hands against our wills. Wages have stagnated whilst house prices are 5x what they we're in the 90s, home ownership for many below 35 now is a pipedream.

Add this on top of an undercurrent of xenophobia and borderline hate speech against anybody isn't a straight white born and bred Brit in a world that hasn't been like that in 20 years, and there pretty much nothing that's going to entice the average under 40-50 year old person to vote for them.

The only thing they've successfully managed in their tenure in charge is to make two whole generations "Never Tory" same as Labour did in the 80s.

I'm in my mid 30s now and there hasn't been a single point in my life that this country has felt optimistic and that the future is going to be good, save for a few years mid Blair term. It's utterly, utterly depressing. My hopes of ever owning a home or saving for a comfortable retirement went out the window 10 years ago, if they ever existed to begin with.

It wouldn't shock me if they're the 3rd party in the next decade. The loony right has fractured the right-leaning parties beyond recognition and I don't think its reparable enough for an election challenge for 10+ years

 

[The Ham]

"The problem with neoliberalism is that you eventually run out of assets to strip in order to balance the books."

The problem with the current cuts to services policies is that you far more quickly run out of services you can cut before people start to notice.

As an example of a generational difference in the tax system. Those claiming child benefits (which exist in part to encourage people to have children to enable there to be a working population in the future) start to be taxed at a rate so they gradually get less and less from £50,000 until the nothing left.

Anyone with any level of income can claim state pension.

Even if there was a policy of earn more than (say) £120,000 a year and you would have your state pension automatically deferred (which means that a higher weekly rate would be paid out at a future date), this would be seen as at least there being some equivalent tax between those who are younger and those who are older.

Whilst over time it may not cost less in pension payments, the fact that we are running a budget deficient means that there would be interest payments on loans which weren't being paid.

I expect two responses to that:

But they've paid for their pension - yes they have and they still have it, they just have to wait a bit longer for it to start. As a state pension should enable a minimum level of living, rather than giving the very wealthy another very nice holiday.

But they'll be paying 40% tax so a lot would be going back to the government - indeed, so why should those with child benefits be taxed to take them away?

Likewise the current government are taking about so these new family centres they are seeing up, even though they are basically Sure start centres which they closed many many more of.

 

[takno]

The problem with the current cuts to services policies is that you far more quickly run out of services you can cut before people start to notice.

As an example of a generational difference in the tax system. Those claiming child benefits (which exist in part to encourage people to have children to enable there to be a working population in the future) start to be taxed at a rate so they gradually get less and less from £50,000 until the nothing left.

Anyone with any level of income can claim state pension.

Even if there was a policy of earn more than (say) £120,000 a year and you would have your state pension automatically deferred (which means that a higher weekly rate would be paid out at a future date), this would be seen as at least there being some equivalent tax between those who are younger and those who are older.

Whilst over time it may not cost less in pension payments, the fact that we are running a budget deficient means that there would be interest payments on loans which weren't being paid.

I expect two responses to that:

But they've paid for their pension - yes they have and they still have it, they just have to wait a bit longer for it to start. As a state pension should enable a minimum level of living, rather than giving the very wealthy another very nice holiday.

But they'll be paying 40% tax so a lot would be going back to the government - indeed, so why should those with child benefits be taxed to take them away?

Likewise the current government are taking about so these new family centres they are seeing up, even though they are basically Sure start centres which they closed many many more of.

It's the wrong policy for child benefit. universal benefits should be universal, otherwise you start to hit issues with stigma and difficulty claiming them.

On pensions, you say 120k, but that's hardly going to affect anybody. It's fairly obvious that the next step is to say "why don't we make it 50k, the same as child benefit?", At which point it's probably still fine, but you can bet on somebody not index linking it, or creeping it down until basically the state pension is just another state benefit, and is effectively not payable at all to anybody who had the temerity to move abroad while they still could.

I'm not sure if this is just an idea you've hit on to wind pensioners up, but it's really just the sort of thing that constantly ends up splitting the left and letting the Tories through the gap.

 

[Snow1964]

But they've paid for their pension - yes they have and they still have it, they just have to wait a bit longer for it to start. As a state pension should enable a minimum level of living, rather than giving the very wealthy another very nice holiday.

But they'll be paying 40% tax so a lot would be going back to the government - indeed, so why should those with child benefits be taxed to take them away?

I have retired early (was made redundant in late 50s when company I worked for collapsed during covid, as people weren't paying)

Part of reason is could draw my tax free lump sum, but the tax system just worked against me working. At least 20% tax, and NI, and if I have higher income (than company pension) means get hammered for student loan parent contributions (daughter gets less to live on as a student at university if I work). Basically tax system and student loan parental assessment are disincentive to go back to work.

NI contributions seem to have a cap, once you have paid your 35 years (nearer 39 years if contracted out), still expected to pay full NI even though not affecting state pension (which I have to wait 8 years for).

But as I see it, state pension is just a top up for some nice holidays and luxuries etc, no one would expect to live a nice life on it.

On pensions, you say 120k, but that's hardly going to affect anybody. It's fairly obvious that the next step is to say "why don't we make it 50k, the same as child benefit?",

You can dodge the child benefit clawback over £50k by putting extra money into pension contributions, I did, and reaping rewards now. The marginal rate of PAYE, NI and clawback was well over 50%, and pension was topped up by basic rate so if salary is 60k, allocating 10k to pension means only lose about 4k in take home, but have 12k extra pension.

 

[Broucek]

The problem with this is planning.

Retirement savings should be planned over decades but successive governments have messed about with the Annual Allowance and Lifetime Allowance (LTA). They've also messed about with the second tier element of the state pension. How is anyone supposed to plan responsibly for their retirement in this context?

I must admit that, as a fairly high earner in his 50s, I'm working on the basis that I need to be able to get by without ANY state pension at all in case they do apply a savage means-test.

(Of course all this will help keep older workers in the workforce which may help the economy!)

 

[takno]

You can dodge the child benefit clawback over £50k by putting extra money into pension contributions, I did, and reaping rewards now. The marginal rate of PAYE, NI and clawback was well over 50%, and pension was topped up by basic rate so if salary is 60k, allocating 10k to pension means only lose about 4k in take home, but have 12k extra pension.

I dodged the issue by choosing to not have kids some years before George even thought up his nasty little scheme. He has turned a wide variety of people on to the benefits of additional pension contributions though between the clawback there and the 60% effective rate between 100k and 125k. I suppose a charitable assessment would be that he was trying to push people into charitable giving instead, since it has the same effect. Overall he's probably created enough people who are now heavily incentived to get into some form of tax avoidance that the effect has been net negative.

Just another example of how the entire period of Conservative government has been destructive rather than just the latter period under Johnson, Truss and Sunak.

 

[najaB]

Theoretically, one might hypothesise that people on lower incomes are - on average - LESS good at budgeting on the basis that, on average, they are likely to have worse maths skills and impulse control.

A source?

 

[Busaholic]

Unless you're a Millennial, then there's research that shows that (both in the UK & US) you are actually likely to get more left wing as you age.

I'm 75 in April and asking for a Momentum subscription (life membership) as a present.

As for Lee Anderson, if Johnny Speight was not dead, I'd have thought him to be a creation of the Till Death Us Do Part author. Alf Garnett might not on superficial examination appear to bear too much resemblance to Anderson, but the loudmouthness, misogyny, boorishness and utter conviction that he is right are strikingly similar.

 

[nw1]

Unless you're a Millennial, then there's research that shows that (both in the UK & US) you are actually likely to get more left wing as you age.

It's an interesting one. The most "right wing" phase of my life was when I was about 15 or 16, but was probably not old enough to fully think for myself and was over-influenced by other family members (others' experiences at this age may differ).

From 17 onwards I have been firmly left-of-centre, though when I was younger I was probably further left on some matters, such as rail privatisation, than I am now. (I'm still pro-nationalisation, but not as militantly as I was in the 90s).

I'd say I've become more stridently pro-immigration and pro-European integration as I've got older, and my annoyance at overpaid CEOs running monopolistic private companies has remained pretty much unchanged.

However, there is evidence for people drifting to the right as they get older. I always considered my generation (GenX) as pretty left wing and liberal, with the poll tax protests, the release of Nelson Mandela, and the falling of the Berlin Wall key events of our youth - yet these days there appears to be significant support for such things as Brexit and anti-immigrationism in my generation. Perhaps though it was always there, even in the liberal late 80s and 90s, but I didn't mix with the more right-wing individuals...

 

[Broucek]

A source?

I used the words "theoretical" and "hypothesise" and "are likely"

I never claimed I could prove or source what I suggested
This is a forum, not an academic essay

 

[DustyBin]

My hopes of ever owning a home or saving for a comfortable retirement went out the window 10 years ago, if they ever existed to begin with.

How come? (I’m genuinely interested). Are you tied to an area with high house prices? Does your employer not offer much in terms of a pension scheme?

You may not wish to go into specifics for obvious reasons, but if you’re in your mid 30s there’s time to change things.

 

[najaB]

I used the words "theoretical" and "hypothesise" and "are likely"

I never claimed I could prove or source what I suggested
This is a forum, not an academic essay

Okay. Thought that was a fact-free comment intended to denigrate the less fortunate in society. Thanks for confirming.

 

[Broucek]

Okay. Thought that was a fact-free comment intended to denigrate the less fortunate in society. Thanks for confirming.

You're projecting. I had no intention to denigrate.

 

[Cross City]

How come? (I’m genuinely interested). Are you tied to an area with high house prices? Does your employer not offer much in terms of a pension scheme?

You may not wish to go into specifics for obvious reasons, but if you’re in your mid 30s there’s time to change things.

High rental prices throughout the whole country and decades of poor wage growth making it practically impossible to scrape together a deposit. It's not nice to say but my only hope of getting enough is through a family member dying and leaving me a chunk. Even then most of that will go towards paying off a few grand's worth of built up debt.

I'm not like we make bad wages (we have a combined income of 45ish K) but most of that goes to just living.

I couldn't afford to pay more into a pension and continue to live in the house we do (small 2 bed terrace in a semi-reasonable area). Every employer I've ever had has only offered the legal minimum pension plan.

House prices are outstripping wages so quickly that it's pretty pointless to scrimp, save and live a poor quality of life to save 1000s for a deposit when the goalposts are quickly moved and what you plan to have in a couple of years time wont be enough.

Our situation is far from unique. I'm not mad about it, its just the way things are and I'm content with my life.

The government in charge is going to have a massive headache in 40 years when an entire generation needs care and housing because they haven't been able to accrue wealth through artificially inflated property investments and generous pension pots because just being alive is too expensive after 20 years of wage stagnation.

 

[Typhoon]

Theoretically, one might hypothesise that people on lower incomes are - on average - LESS good at budgeting on the basis that, on average, they are likely to have worse maths skills and impulse control

This is one of the bugbears of mine. As someone who has a degree in Mathematics I can assure you that 99.9% of the mathematics I ever learnt won't help in budgeting. I think you mean 'arithmetical skills' and I would argue (without any evidence) that it may well depend on what job people do. If they work in retail, for instance, they will probably have to give change because miserable s**s like me refuse to use cards unless there is an incentive to do so, but also because they will see the embarrassment as a customer, someone they may see at the school gate, asks for an item or items to be put back because they can't pay the total bill, or have first one, then another card declined, while people behind are grumbling. They want to avoid the same. I sympathise; when I go shopping I keep a mental note of the approximate total so I have the right note (or notes) at the till. Just recently the bill has regularly been more than my estimate and not by pence; when I've checked - no mistake. I was one, or perhaps two, price rises out of date and hadn't really noticed. I'm OK at the moment (not directly affected when the price of fuel went up) but anyone getting by a year ago will be struggling now.
Additionally, as I tried to point out in a previous post, it is the one off event - the car breaks down, someone has their hours of work cut, the rent/ mortgage goes up - a lot, or (as I gather from Radio 4's You and Yours is happening increasingly) they are subjected to a 'no-fault' eviction (sometimes because the landlord/ lady needs the cash), that throws even the best budgetter off their stride. There must be a very good reason why, while I was typing this, I received an(other) e-mail suggesting I took out a credit card, just under 30% interest. I bet those struggling get an offer much higher than that. We have had years of stable interest rates, not any longer, and anyone about to lose the roof over their head will be looking to secure a new home first, then seeing how they can make ends meet.

High rental prices throughout the whole country and decades of poor wage growth making it practically impossible to scrape together a deposit. It's not nice to say but my only hope of getting enough is through a family member dying and leaving me a chunk. Even then most of that will go towards paying off a few grand's worth of built up debt.

I'm not like we make bad wages (we have a combined income of 45ish K) but most of that goes to just living.

I couldn't afford to pay more into a pension and continue to live in the house we do (small 2 bed terrace in a semi-reasonable area). Every employer I've ever had has only offered the legal minimum pension plan.

House prices are outstripping wages so quickly that it's pretty pointless to scrimp, save and live a poor quality of life to save 1000s for a deposit when the goalposts are quickly moved and what you plan to have in a couple of years time wont be enough.

Our situation is far from unique. I'm not mad about it, its just the way things are and I'm content with my life.

The government in charge is going to have a massive headache in 40 years when an entire generation needs care and housing because they haven't been able to accrue wealth through artificially inflated property investments and generous pension pots because just being alive is too expensive after 20 years of wage stagnation.

I wish I could give you 5* s for this. And, (and this is not to denigrate the City where I spent my working life) Birmingham is far from the most expensive place to live. I was about to comment (in another place) on a housing development not far from where I live. Five artists impressions, in two most (if not all) properties have balconies. I bet there is nothing under £399,999, Apparently, the new residents will bring wealth and prosperity into the area (according to a local councillor), so he is not expecting the 'just getting by'. If Sunak (or, indeed, Starmer) want to get the electorate on side, start by sorting out housing, and that doesn't mean chucking money at a few people, so they just get on the housing ladder. every now and again. Sort might mean making house prices affordable (how? No idea, I've never wanted to be an MP.) but also giving those who have to rent some security that they can't just be chucked on the streets.

 

[Broucek]

I think you mean 'arithmetical skills'

I did! I agree that's not the same as "maths".

Additionally, as I tried to point out in a previous post, it is the one off event - the car breaks down, someone has their hours of work cut, the rent/ mortgage goes up ...

Sort might mean making house prices affordable (how? No idea, I've never wanted to be an MP.) but also giving those who have to rent some security that they can't just be chucked on the streets.

My vicar friend who intentionally lives on a housing estate talks about the "precariat" - those who are more-or-less getting by but don't have the financial resources to deal with a modest financial setback. (And will often lack the "social" capital that can help in these situations because their friends and family are in a similar boat.)

 

[The Ham]

It's the wrong policy for child benefit. universal benefits should be universal, otherwise you start to hit issues with stigma and difficulty claiming them.

On pensions, you say 120k, but that's hardly going to affect anybody. It's fairly obvious that the next step is to say "why don't we make it 50k, the same as child benefit?", At which point it's probably still fine, but you can bet on somebody not index linking it, or creeping it down until basically the state pension is just another state benefit, and is effectively not payable at all to anybody who had the temerity to move abroad while they still could.

I'm not sure if this is just an idea you've hit on to wind pensioners up, but it's really just the sort of thing that constantly ends up splitting the left and letting the Tories through the gap.

I was using it to highlight where there's a significant policy difference between those under 45 and those over 65.

The post was, in part, designed to create a reaction from those over 65. Why? As they are likely to have had a very different experience to those under 45 (with those aged 45-65 being closer in experience to the group that they are closer in age to) and often say things which would have helped them at that point in life but (to be blunt) often just wind up the younger generations.

Yes any such change would unlikely make much of a difference, in the same way that those with kids getting the benefits clawed back is unlikely to make much of a difference.

Arguably it would be easier and result in a better outcome to put the higher rate tax rate up by a small amount (say 0.25%) rather than create such schemes.

I dodged the issue by choosing to not have kids some years before George even thought up his nasty little scheme. He has turned a wide variety of people on to the benefits of additional pension contributions though between the clawback there and the 60% effective rate between 100k and 125k. I suppose a charitable assessment would be that he was trying to push people into charitable giving instead, since it has the same effect. Overall he's probably created enough people who are now heavily incentived to get into some form of tax avoidance that the effect has been net negative.

Just another example of how the entire period of Conservative government has been destructive rather than just the latter period under Johnson, Truss and Sunak.

The issue with too many people taking the tax avoidance step of not having kids is that we'd rapidly run out of working aged people to support those who are being paid a pension.

Arguably we need more immigration (how much more is debatable, but just as unlimited isn't the right answer so isn't zero the right answer) to ensure that we have a suitable sized working population (as I've pointed out previously most of our growth in population size since the 1990's had been in the over 65 group with limited changes in any group below that).

Also there's a chance it could cost them a significant amount of money later in life as they may not be family which they could call on as they age and so have to pay others to help them.

Of course what it costs it's still likely to be much lower than the cost of having kids (as they tend to be fairly expensive, even if you don't need to move home to allow them to have their own rooms).

 

[Typhoon]

I did! I agree that's not the same as "maths".

My vicar friend who intentionally lives on a housing estate talks about the "precariat" - those who are more-or-less getting by but don't have the financial resources to deal with a modest financial setback. (And will often lack the "social" capital that can help in these situations because their friends and family are in a similar boat.)

There is currently an assumption of 'The Bank of Mum and Dad', unfortunately, in some cases. mum and/or dad are just about coping having previously survived on their 'Bank of Mum and Dad', who, themselves, now need every penny because they have just too much to avoid paying care fees. I have relatives in their late teens; I don't know how they are going to cope, their parents will do the best they can but it will necessarily be more 'The Piggy Bank of Mum and Dad'.

Your friend is spot on.

The government in charge is going to have a massive headache in 40 years when an entire generation needs care and housing because they haven't been able to accrue wealth through artificially inflated property investments and generous pension pots because just being alive is too expensive after 20 years of wage stagnation.

At the moment we are showered with adverts for equity release, and the encouragement to 'spoil the kids' (= help them with the basics); that depends on the older generation owning a property with at least most of the mortgage having been paid off; at the current rate, more and more will leave this world only marginally richer than when they joined it. Sadly, I think it may happen earlier than you predict if nothing is done, but, hopefully, after I am confined to history.