But does he really 'understand'?

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.

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.

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.🤷‍♀️

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

I wonder why you thought I meant you Doddledog?

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.

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

^How have we ended up like this ? A huge gap between the haves and have nots? Any semblance of public services detroyed?^

Because successive governments, since even before Harold Wilson’s time have sought to improve things.
Their improvements have not succeeded.
The rich have got richer, the poor, poorer.
Now, to make matters worse, thanks to the internet, we quickly see how much milking of the system has gone on by MPs and their friends.
Add to that, people being told by others, that things they can’t afford are their own fault or as a result of their own poor organisation. . .

I wrote a long post to counter your suggestion that we have 'ended up like this' because of governments 'since before Harold Wilson's time have sought to improve things. However, I omitted to directly mention that.

So perhaps you'd like to respond to me rather than niggle at Dd

Mollygo

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.

So I was right that you were referring to me? I thought so from the way your post following, but as ever, the ‘some people’ tactic is designed to wrong-foot people. Thank you for clearing that up.

Can you point me to the ‘previous occasions’ please? You may be right - I don’t claim to be 100% consistent - but I don’t remember every post, and as I say, context is all, so it would be good to see what the accusation actually is.

Yes Doodledog you were right I was referring to you. I thought the person who did what I mentioned would be the one to reply.
And you did.
Thanks.

Doodledog Why should he not be pulled apart. In opposition he and Angela Rayner were quick to criticise and pull the Government up over the slightest thing. Now the boot is on the other foot and they are found to be hypocrites of the highest order, don’t do as I do, do as I say! Proven to have taken gifts worth thousands of pounds, and he is supposed to be for the working people! Even right minded Labour MP’s are angry and so they should be. Starmer hasn’t been in office for 100 days yet and his standing is already lower than Rishi Sunak. With winter ahead of us things are only going to get worse but no doubt with his heating allowance he will be able to turn the dial up!

Allira

^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.

And Benn ( who I admire greatly) is pretty much elevated to sainthood by the far left of the party.

And by people who would have no more voted for Benn at the time than flown to the moon. My dad often talks about what a great man Benn was, he would have had a fit if he had gained power at the time.

Mollygo

Yes Doodledog you were right I was referring to you. I thought the person who did what I mentioned would be the one to reply.
And you did.
Thanks.

Eh? You meant me, so rather than say so, you made a vague accusation to see who replied? That makes not sense, really.

Why not just say what happened and when, so I could respond fairly? I had to assume you meant me because your reply was under my post - not because I have the first idea what you referring to. As I said, if you can point to where I 'reprimanded you' for referring to PMs past, I can respond, but otherwise it feels like an unfounded personal attack.

What are you thanking me for? I have not been caught out in some sort of trap, or proved your point, unless the point was to make me feel uncomfortable for disagreeing with you, which I don't.

I accept that there are different points of view about these things, and am comfortable with mine, just as I assume others are with their own. I thought the point of discussions was to put forward our views, not to trick people into putting a foot wrong in some elaborate dance.