But does he really 'understand'?

No. I think it’s because you know that’s what you have done on previous occasions when I have mentioned former government actions.

I was sad that you said it was wrong if I did it.
I am happy to see that it’s now OK to do so.

Mollygo

I wonder why you thought I meant you Doddledog?

I didn't know - as I said, I was assuming (as your post was under mine), which is what 'some people' posts make people do.

Would you rather nobody really knew to whom your attacks are levelled, but everyone just had to wonder? We had a teacher like that at school - fond of saying things like 'we have a thief in our midst', and 'there are people in this class letting the school down'. All she did was stir up trouble, as people accused one another, and the wrong people felt guilty whilst the guilty deflected the accusations.

We've both said this before on other threads though, so you know what I'm talking about.

I wonder why you thought I meant you Doddledog?

To be fair to Corbyn ( who I never liked as leader but thought he was a good back bencher with a conscience, the sort of MPs parliament needs) he does lead a humble life

I agree with all of that.

I don't know if wealth should preclude anyone from becoming a politician. It might mean they would be less likely to accept bribes.

Tony Benn was an example of a wealthy but good MP, but even he used loopholes to avoid inheritance tax.

Allira

MayBee70

HowVeryDareYou2

He's a millionaire - how could he possibly understand anything about ordinary, working-class people? Sunak was the same. None of them can relate to the majority of the voters.

But when the electorate were offered a socialist government under Corbyn they overwhelmingly chose Boris Johnson and the Conservatives.

Corbyn wasn't exactly your poor boy made good, though, was he!

No Far from it. I think Keir started from much humbler beginnings. To be fair to Corbyn ( who I never liked as leader but thought he was a good back bencher with a conscience, the sort of MPs parliament needs) he does lead a humble life. There is no way that Keir wouldn’t be in a millionaire bracket given his career and having to live in London properties but there is no way that his wealth can be compared to people like Sunak and probably Johnson (if the latter didn’t have to spend so much money on divorces and multiple progeny he would be even richer). From what I’ve heard in interviews Keir’s family aren’t very rich either, he is the success story in a very ordinary family.

MayBee70

HowVeryDareYou2

He's a millionaire - how could he possibly understand anything about ordinary, working-class people? Sunak was the same. None of them can relate to the majority of the voters.

But when the electorate were offered a socialist government under Corbyn they overwhelmingly chose Boris Johnson and the Conservatives.

Corbyn wasn't exactly your poor boy made good, though, was he!

Mollygo

Having been reprimanded on GN for referring to the continuing impact of actions of PMs prior to the last conservative government, I am delighted to see that its now allowed by the same people who criticised me for doing it.
Even better since I agree with all the complaints about governments back as far as when Harold Wilson was in power.

This is a bit of a 'some people' post, Molly. As you don't say who the 'same people' are, or when you've been 'reprimanded' and why, it's impossible to reply with any confidence about whether I am being accused of something or not (but you know how the 'some people thing works, don't you?).

Assuming you are replying to me, I have no recollection of 'reprimanding' you for anything - it's not my style, really. I don't remember specific posts about previous PMs from me or anyone else, and without the context of a quote it's hard to know what to say.

Also, nobody on here can 'allow' others to do anything - it doesn't work like that.

You mentioned sarcasm in another post - are you being sarcastic when you say you are delighted that (IYO) some hypothetical rules have been relaxed? Again, not easy to tell, just as it's not easy to answer vague points, particularly when they seem to be digs.

I always struggle with this sort of post, and know I'm not alone - in fact you've said you feel the same way in the past . People are left with the choice of letting a probable dig go unchallenged or trying to answer something so vaguely couched that it's all but impossible. Much better when people just come out and say what (and whom) they disagree with and why - that way there can be a debate about the issues, rather than sniping.

Anyway, it's interesting that you agree with all complaints about all governments. You've said that you see yourself as even-handed politically, so it's odd that you've been so disillusioned since the 60s. I wonder what is that would please you?

MayBee70

HowVeryDareYou2

He's a millionaire - how could he possibly understand anything about ordinary, working-class people? Sunak was the same. None of them can relate to the majority of the voters.

But when the electorate were offered a socialist government under Corbyn they overwhelmingly chose Boris Johnson and the Conservatives.

But when the electorate were offered a socialist government under Corbyn they overwhelmingly chose Boris Johnson and the Conservatives.

Yes - including presumably those who complain that millionaires don't understand anything about the lives of ordinary working people?

There might be a number of millionaires among the electorate - if assets are included in the calculation.

I don't think Starmer and Sunak were quite in the same income bracket, were they?

Doodledog

I can imagine how annoying that must be for those on the old pension- a bit like when people assume that all ‘boomers’ have million pound houses they bought with buttons. I suppose it’s because there are so many variables - as has been said, some on the old pension get more than on the new, and by no means everyone gets the full one in either case. It would be impossible to list all the possibilities, but a caveat would be good, to acknowledge that.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

MayBee70

HowVeryDareYou2

He's a millionaire - how could he possibly understand anything about ordinary, working-class people? Sunak was the same. None of them can relate to the majority of the voters.

But when the electorate were offered a socialist government under Corbyn they overwhelmingly chose Boris Johnson and the Conservatives.

Of course they did, not even many Labour voters wanted Corbyn let alone anyone else.There was also the Brexit issue to consider.
We don’t need a Corbyn just a sensible Labour government, which after the blips up to now, I think we’ve got.

westendgirl

I do think this business of searching out things to attack is getting ridiculous. If it's not clothes then it's speech .
I thought he spoke very well at Conference and feel that the man is honourable. He is there to serve and yes , he does care.
I think they handled the WFA badly, but hopefully will learn by that . I am not going to start drawing comparisons because I believe we have to look forward.

So agree with this. It’s a relentless dig for dirt and it is becoming pathetic.

HowVeryDareYou2

He's a millionaire - how could he possibly understand anything about ordinary, working-class people? Sunak was the same. None of them can relate to the majority of the voters.

But when the electorate were offered a socialist government under Corbyn they overwhelmingly chose Boris Johnson and the Conservatives.

He's a millionaire - how could he possibly understand anything about ordinary, working-class people? Sunak was the same. None of them can relate to the majority of the voters.

The biggest misinformation is given in percentages.
100% of £100 is worth less than 5% of £1000. People who are earning more always get more when a % pay rise is given, but if you don’t know what the pay was before the rise, percentages are meaningless information.

Mollygo

Jane43
^ Rishi Sunak did this numerous times during the election campaign, he claimed that pensioners received a £900 rise this year when of course only those on the new state pension did.^
I noticed that every time I heard it. I did hope for better this time.🤷‍♀️

And, of course, some believe what they've read or heard on the news - take it as gospel truth and therefore don't bother to research the matter - why would they?

It happens with other issues - strikes, for example; the media insist that xxx workers are on £xxx pa - usually picking the maximum-pay that the average worker will not get, not to mention that they completely ignore the other matters like working conditions, and certainly the detail is ignored.

It's all so obvious and manipulative. Of course some pensioners will get that large amount, and some strikers are already on a 'good' wage, but it's not the whole picture. It never is because otherwise, if people really knew the detail, it would be more difficult to divide and rule... workers and pensioners might band together, and other disaffected might join the band wagon and then the whole nation could end up being against the government - any government - and that is the very last situation it would want to deal with.

So the misinformation will continue, as it always does, with the usual and inevitable result that we will carry on fighting among ourselves, rather than holding them to account.

Jane43
^ Rishi Sunak did this numerous times during the election campaign, he claimed that pensioners received a £900 rise this year when of course only those on the new state pension did.^
I noticed that every time I heard it. I did hope for better this time.🤷‍♀️

I can imagine how annoying that must be for those on the old pension- a bit like when people assume that all ‘boomers’ have million pound houses they bought with buttons. I suppose it’s because there are so many variables - as has been said, some on the old pension get more than on the new, and by no means everyone gets the full one in either case. It would be impossible to list all the possibilities, but a caveat would be good, to acknowledge that.

Rosie51

Picking him up over the common practice of using a 'filler phrase' for thinking time is being overly picky.

GrannyGravy13 I didn't see the interview, but if he has said all pensioners are getting a £440 increase then he needs to issue an apology and correction pretty swiftly. I'm amazed he is unaware of the different pension levels, I'd have expected that to have arisen during talks about withdrawing WFA.

Rishi Sunak did this numerous times during the election campaign, he claimed that pensioners received a £900 rise this year when of course only those on the new state pension did. He has never apologized about it.

Someone has passed KS those figures and so that’s what he says, it’s only true for some younger pensioners.

I’ve made that point several times on other threads Mollygo, but I’m glad you’re making it again. There are many, many pensioners who will receive far less than the £440 Starmer said they would receive and he claimed the £440 as a fact.

He did say all pensioners are getting a £440 increase in their pensions next year, which is incorrect only this born after 1953 and on the new state pension will receive that amount others a lot less.
And that applies even to those who paid NI for the full number of years.
I get the I had to wait or I had to pay in for more years but that doesn’t change the fact that some pensioners, even those who have paid the full number of national insurance contributions are still getting £52 a week less to live on, whilst paying the same electricity, the same gas, same food bills, as those born after 1953.
Actually, some of the same living expenses that MPs can claim subsistence or allowance for.

2507C0

GrannyGravy13

I watched him being interviewed on GMB by Susanna Reid this morning, hats off to Sir Starmer, in 10 minutes he managed to get in £22 million black hole 9 times, stabilising the economy 11 times.

He did refuse to apologise regarding removing the WFA.

He did say all pensioners are getting a £440 increase in their pensions next year, which is incorrect only this born after 1953 and on the new state pension will receive that amount others a lot less.

And only those who have paid into National Insurance for the required number of years will get £440 next spring ( as the weather begins to warm up). Of course many older women who paid "married women's stamp" and women who took time off from work to have and bring up children, will not get anywhere near that . There are more women than men who do not have a full pension pot. Women are being penalised more than most men by the stripping of the WFA for those unable to claim Pension Credit etc. makes me very angry. Misogamy is alive and well even with a Labour government in power. 😡

It is very important that future generations are taught to understand that the pension is a contributory benefit, and that what they get out is based on what they pay in.

It is already going to be difficult for them to retire below the age of 70 without making extra provision. It has to be made clear that if they pay in less they can't expect to take out the full state pension as though they had made full contributions. I think that everyone should get a free pension forecast (with advice) every ten years - maybe at the age of 30 and on every '0' birthday afterwards - so people know in plenty of time if their contributions are going to fall short. That way they can make them up over time, and make informed decisions about taking time out of the workplace or cutting their contributions.

I know the married woman's stamp no longer exists, but many women seem to assume that their husbands' contributions cover theirs if they opt out of working. Legally, of course, they don't - so again, proper advice is necessary so they aren't going to find themselves short-changed if their husbands don't (or can't) provide for them in retirement, and they can make provision for if they are widowed or divorced in older age.

Alternatively, we could work towards a system where everyone gets a pension regardless of contributions, and there is no NI element. The funding would have to come from increased taxation, however, and the burden of that couldn't fall only on those in work, or those spending the earnings of someone else on a 2 for 1 deal. I can't see a pension poll tax being popular either, but a system where some people expect to get something for nothing whilst others have to pay just can't work. Even if the economics hold up, the basic unfairness would make it unfeasible - who is going to volunteer to be in the 'worker' cohort?

I suspect that this sort of thing comes under the 'difficult decisions' that the government is talking about. Yes, they will be difficult for some, but overall, much fairer. The difficulty is knowing how they can best be phased in without disadvantaging people retrospectively.

GrannyGravy13

I watched him being interviewed on GMB by Susanna Reid this morning, hats off to Sir Starmer, in 10 minutes he managed to get in £22 million black hole 9 times, stabilising the economy 11 times.

He did refuse to apologise regarding removing the WFA.

He did say all pensioners are getting a £440 increase in their pensions next year, which is incorrect only this born after 1953 and on the new state pension will receive that amount others a lot less.

And only those who have paid into National Insurance for the required number of years will get £440 next spring ( as the weather begins to warm up). Of course many older women who paid "married women's stamp" and women who took time off from work to have and bring up children, will not get anywhere near that . There are more women than men who do not have a full pension pot. Women are being penalised more than most men by the stripping of the WFA for those unable to claim Pension Credit etc. makes me very angry. Misogamy is alive and well even with a Labour government in power. 😡

Thatcher's vanquishing of the unions may have appeared to been a good thing in many people's eyes, but it was the economic ideology she embraced and implemented that has been the cause of the UK's deterioration over the last 40 years.
The ideas that drove it were:

a) that nationalisation caused the nationalised sectors to become inefficient and expensive; that the private sector was more efficient because of the need to compete by holding prices down and making whichever service they were providing more attractive to the consumers the company needed in order to make their profits.

b) that people should not become dependent on the state to provide for their needs; that people should work and strive to provide for themselves and their families without calling on the state for help

c) that markets should be minimally regulated because regulation interfered with their efficient operation

d) that loss making industries should be allowed to wither and die rather than be supported by the state when we could import their products more cheaply and 'the market' would ensure that the vacuum created by their loss would be filled by eager entrepreneurs setting up innovative and profitable businesses to provide wealth and employment to the areas where industry had been.

e) that taxation should be light because it would free money up for consumers, which would increase demand and lead to growth, and it would incentivise businesses and the wealthy to invest more money in the country.

Well, we all know what happened with that, don't we?

Not only was privatisation a failure in many cases, but suppression of the unions and generous tax regimes for businesses and the wealthy concentrated money upwards and diminished 'workers' share of the national income.

These make interesting reading. All but the 1990s one has a table showing the share of national income. Notice how it shrinks for the employed and increases for business in the 1980s...

The House of Lords Library has produced a series of papers on the economy of each decade from 1950 to 1990

lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uk-economy-in-the-1950s/
lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uk-economy-in-the-1960s/
lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uk-economy-in-the-1970s/
lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uk-economy-in-the-1980s/
lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uk-economy-in-the-1990s/

I think that joining the EU and the oil revenues masked our decline but it is now quite obvious.

Ah well- Donald Trump thinks he is a nice man. Make of that what you will.