Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Is anyone better off since Labour

1000 replies

Luckymum20 · 26/08/2025 20:26

I am not just talking financially but feeling optimistic about the future for children, old age.

With the £22 billion debt now pasing £50 billion.

The increase in Council tax (that they said the wouldn't do). OAPs raid on pensions and no Winter fuel relief. Changes to finance regarding care homes. Utilities up. TV licence up. Food costs up...

I know minimum wage has increased but all costs have increased by a greater amount!

In 2021 minimum wage was almost 30% lower than it is now...

So I ask. Is anyone actually feeling better off, optimistic and pleased with this Government.

Also the October budget of likely to bring more stains on the 'average working man"

YABU - change will happen. It a good thing.

YANBU - not good

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
Tryingtokeepgoing · 29/08/2025 22:06

Goldenbear · 29/08/2025 21:56

Well no apparently it isn't as if it was, you would have noted that I was referring to an article written in 2023, for the approval of the poster who didn't like my 2012 reference.

I’m sorry you don’t understand. Since neither link supports your claim of the level of poverty in your post I’m not sure what the purpose of providing them was. Surely the simplest thing to do, when asked to support the claim, is link to the report from which the data is sourced? Not link to a series of articles on the topic. As I say, it’s a ‘you’ problem in not being able to communicate.

Clavinova · 29/08/2025 22:12

Goldenbear · 29/08/2025 21:49

You think I've made it up, no don't have link and not going to upload it for you.

There is an article by the FT referring to same report and explains the worsening of the situation with austerity measures..

I mean I'm aghast that the article I did link by the Independent is not shocking enough for you. In all honesty count yourself lucky if you think this is fiction and possibly look at your moral compass.

You think I've made it up

I think you've misunderstood. * *

no don't have link and not going to upload it for you

That's a bit childish.

I mean I'm aghast that the article I did link by the Independent is not shocking enough for you

I was working backwards - I had not read your Independent link when I posted. Although, of course, importing a million or so lower income workers from Eastern and Central Europe is clearly going to add to our share of low income families.

Goldenbear · 29/08/2025 22:14

Tryingtokeepgoing · 29/08/2025 22:06

I’m sorry you don’t understand. Since neither link supports your claim of the level of poverty in your post I’m not sure what the purpose of providing them was. Surely the simplest thing to do, when asked to support the claim, is link to the report from which the data is sourced? Not link to a series of articles on the topic. As I say, it’s a ‘you’ problem in not being able to communicate.

I didn't provide two links, I provided one.

There is no link, I would have to upload and I'm not going to do that.

Tryingtokeepgoing · 29/08/2025 22:33

Goldenbear · 29/08/2025 22:14

I didn't provide two links, I provided one.

There is no link, I would have to upload and I'm not going to do that.

We are going round in circles. You yourself referred to a 2012 article and a 2023 one. Apologies if I misrepresented those references as links. If there is no link to the report that supports the claim in your original post, and that others have questioned, you can’t be surprised if people don’t find it a credible claim. The onus is on the person making the claim to support it, not just say ‘go and find it I don’t have a link’. Surely that’s reasonable? It doesn’t mean that we are not concerned about child poverty - we can all agree that there is child poverty, and that any level is too much, but without any evidence, it’s hard to believe the 44% claim in isolation is correct. If it is then that’s terrible…but it also should be possible to link to the report.

Goldenbear · 29/08/2025 22:53

Tryingtokeepgoing · 29/08/2025 22:33

We are going round in circles. You yourself referred to a 2012 article and a 2023 one. Apologies if I misrepresented those references as links. If there is no link to the report that supports the claim in your original post, and that others have questioned, you can’t be surprised if people don’t find it a credible claim. The onus is on the person making the claim to support it, not just say ‘go and find it I don’t have a link’. Surely that’s reasonable? It doesn’t mean that we are not concerned about child poverty - we can all agree that there is child poverty, and that any level is too much, but without any evidence, it’s hard to believe the 44% claim in isolation is correct. If it is then that’s terrible…but it also should be possible to link to the report.

But I'd have to upload it not link it and I don't want to do that. I linked the 2023 article and there is a FT article on the UNICEF report. I don't think me uploading it would make any difference to my credibility in some posters' eyes tbh.

Goldenbear · 29/08/2025 22:54

Goldenbear · 29/08/2025 22:53

But I'd have to upload it not link it and I don't want to do that. I linked the 2023 article and there is a FT article on the UNICEF report. I don't think me uploading it would make any difference to my credibility in some posters' eyes tbh.

I should add, Mumsnet posts on threads do not have to be peer reviewed.

Allisnotlost1 · 30/08/2025 00:36

TheNuthatch · 29/08/2025 16:04

According to Starmer last month, there is lots of social housing that can be used 🙄.
https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1947303901771784295

I missed that. Seems like an insane comment to make.

Allisnotlost1 · 30/08/2025 00:41

Goldenbear · 29/08/2025 22:14

I didn't provide two links, I provided one.

There is no link, I would have to upload and I'm not going to do that.

Is this the link?

“In the United Kingdom and Italy, more than 44% of children were living in households lacking at least two of the items considered necessary for their healthy development.”
(UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Report Card 10, 2012)

ETA: no, it’s not. Oops.

Alexandra2001 · 30/08/2025 07:19

twistyizzy · 30/08/2025 07:12

So a 4.7% increase in food prices in the last 12 months?

BUT food prices rose 32% in the previous 4 years..... an avg of 8% per year...... Funny how you weren't complaining about this earlier......

Food price inflation is also driving costs higher, pushing consumer prices above forecasts this summer. Prices for food and non-alcoholic drinks rose 4.9% in the year to July and are now 37% higher than five years ago, according to data from the Office for National Statistics

twistyizzy · 30/08/2025 07:51

Alexandra2001 · 30/08/2025 07:19

So a 4.7% increase in food prices in the last 12 months?

BUT food prices rose 32% in the previous 4 years..... an avg of 8% per year...... Funny how you weren't complaining about this earlier......

Food price inflation is also driving costs higher, pushing consumer prices above forecasts this summer. Prices for food and non-alcoholic drinks rose 4.9% in the year to July and are now 37% higher than five years ago, according to data from the Office for National Statistics

The title of the thread is "is anyone better off under Labour", many posters pay for school meals so this is another expense, partly driven by Labour policy ie employers NI plus rising inflation. So they will be slightly worse off again. Of course you ignore that bit though.
The title of the thread isn't "what the Tories did wrong" is it?

Alexandra2001 · 30/08/2025 08:07

twistyizzy · 30/08/2025 07:51

The title of the thread is "is anyone better off under Labour", many posters pay for school meals so this is another expense, partly driven by Labour policy ie employers NI plus rising inflation. So they will be slightly worse off again. Of course you ignore that bit though.
The title of the thread isn't "what the Tories did wrong" is it?

Edited

Context isn't it?

I just find it amazing that people like you weren't screaming blue murder when inflation was 12%, food inflation at 30%, energy prices trebled.

So yes, most people are better off.

Katypp · 30/08/2025 08:13

Alexandra2001 · 30/08/2025 07:19

So a 4.7% increase in food prices in the last 12 months?

BUT food prices rose 32% in the previous 4 years..... an avg of 8% per year...... Funny how you weren't complaining about this earlier......

Food price inflation is also driving costs higher, pushing consumer prices above forecasts this summer. Prices for food and non-alcoholic drinks rose 4.9% in the year to July and are now 37% higher than five years ago, according to data from the Office for National Statistics

Seriously @Alexandra2001, is there ANYTHING Labour have or might do you will not accept and justify?
Would you defend a 4.7% jump in food prices if the Tories were in charge? I'm not talking about ignoring it, but actively defending it.
Would you not raise your eyebrows at the very least if a Tory manipulated the CGT rules like Rayner has? Yet you cone on here to justify it.
They are just two examples in the last day.
Can you honestly say you would be coming up with reasons why a collapsing job market, rise in unemployment and/or an economy spiralling out of control are all perfectly OK because the Tories knew what they were doing?
To say nothing of hoovering freebies, hypocrisy, resignations, U-turns and not delivering on promises which were implied would be easy pre-election?
I know we all have our prejudices- I certainly know i will not give Labour the benefit of the doubt in the same way I might Tories, but come on!!

twistyizzy · 30/08/2025 08:16

Alexandra2001 · 30/08/2025 08:07

Context isn't it?

I just find it amazing that people like you weren't screaming blue murder when inflation was 12%, food inflation at 30%, energy prices trebled.

So yes, most people are better off.

"People like me"? Who are "people like me"?

twistyizzy · 30/08/2025 08:17

Katypp · 30/08/2025 08:13

Seriously @Alexandra2001, is there ANYTHING Labour have or might do you will not accept and justify?
Would you defend a 4.7% jump in food prices if the Tories were in charge? I'm not talking about ignoring it, but actively defending it.
Would you not raise your eyebrows at the very least if a Tory manipulated the CGT rules like Rayner has? Yet you cone on here to justify it.
They are just two examples in the last day.
Can you honestly say you would be coming up with reasons why a collapsing job market, rise in unemployment and/or an economy spiralling out of control are all perfectly OK because the Tories knew what they were doing?
To say nothing of hoovering freebies, hypocrisy, resignations, U-turns and not delivering on promises which were implied would be easy pre-election?
I know we all have our prejudices- I certainly know i will not give Labour the benefit of the doubt in the same way I might Tories, but come on!!

They tie themselves in complete knots and scream "what about the tories" at everything. It's deflection from having to admit reality.

Katypp · 30/08/2025 08:19

twistyizzy · 30/08/2025 08:17

They tie themselves in complete knots and scream "what about the tories" at everything. It's deflection from having to admit reality.

Yes. The Tories were/are/would be worse is a handy catch-all justification for most tricky questions I have found.

ThatWaryOchreQuoter · 30/08/2025 08:30

Allisnotlost1 · 30/08/2025 00:41

Is this the link?

“In the United Kingdom and Italy, more than 44% of children were living in households lacking at least two of the items considered necessary for their healthy development.”
(UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Report Card 10, 2012)

ETA: no, it’s not. Oops.

Edited

I’m beginning to think this report doesn’t exist.

MumOfManyAliases · 30/08/2025 09:22

Allisnotlost1 · 30/08/2025 00:36

I missed that. Seems like an insane comment to make.

And how is that going to make people who have been on the housing waiting list for months/ years feel? If there’s lots of social housing, then why are they saying there is a need to build 1.5 million new homes over the next 5 years?

Alexandra2001 · 30/08/2025 18:07

Katypp · 30/08/2025 08:13

Seriously @Alexandra2001, is there ANYTHING Labour have or might do you will not accept and justify?
Would you defend a 4.7% jump in food prices if the Tories were in charge? I'm not talking about ignoring it, but actively defending it.
Would you not raise your eyebrows at the very least if a Tory manipulated the CGT rules like Rayner has? Yet you cone on here to justify it.
They are just two examples in the last day.
Can you honestly say you would be coming up with reasons why a collapsing job market, rise in unemployment and/or an economy spiralling out of control are all perfectly OK because the Tories knew what they were doing?
To say nothing of hoovering freebies, hypocrisy, resignations, U-turns and not delivering on promises which were implied would be easy pre-election?
I know we all have our prejudices- I certainly know i will not give Labour the benefit of the doubt in the same way I might Tories, but come on!!

When people moan about food inflation at 4.7% but ignore the previous 4 years when it ran at 32% then no, i wont play their tune.

Btw inflation under the Tories was caused mainly by global price shocks, same as rises in commodities and inputs are causing it now.... Brexit has never helped either.

Labour have no more control over coffee, grain or energy prices than anyone else.

But what the 'right do is blame global events when it suits them but ignore them when it comes to Labour, as you and the pp are doing.

Food inflation in much of the western world is running at 3 to 4% France bucks this with heavy interventions on pricing and shrinkage.

So at worst Reeves is responsible for less than 1% of the increase.

You guys make out she is to blame for all of it.... perhaps try being fairer in your criticism?

As i have just been on the Cons and inflation.

Alexandra2001 · 30/08/2025 18:12

@Katypp Rayner CGT ? no idea, has she failed to declare a capital gain? link please?

Economy spiralling out of control? err can you explain? interest rates falling, 1% growth first 2 Q's, equal highest in G7.
Unemployment has gone slightly.

When the Cons had this in 2024, you guys all told us Reeves was handed a golden booming economy......

HappiestSleeping · 03/09/2025 03:46

I love these threads where the OP starts a contentious question and is never seen again.

I think a better question might have been "are we worse off under the Labour government than we would have been had the Conservatives stayed in?"

And of course, the answer to that is "no, we aren't".

ThatWaryOchreQuoter · 03/09/2025 07:51

HappiestSleeping · 03/09/2025 03:46

I love these threads where the OP starts a contentious question and is never seen again.

I think a better question might have been "are we worse off under the Labour government than we would have been had the Conservatives stayed in?"

And of course, the answer to that is "no, we aren't".

The answer is yes we are worse off under Labour.The childish tax, spend, crying and non sensical spite class domestic policies have led the markets to conclude Labour don’t know what they are doing. 30 year Gilts are at their highest since 1998 to price in the risk of lending to us, everyone will feel this.

HappiestSleeping · 03/09/2025 09:12

ThatWaryOchreQuoter · 03/09/2025 07:51

The answer is yes we are worse off under Labour.The childish tax, spend, crying and non sensical spite class domestic policies have led the markets to conclude Labour don’t know what they are doing. 30 year Gilts are at their highest since 1998 to price in the risk of lending to us, everyone will feel this.

Edited

I realise this, although I think some of the things they've done are the right thing with the wrong cut off. What I meant was, if we consider it a given that we are worse off under Labour, is it because we would be worse off under any government and Labour just happen to be in the chair. I am pleased that they've tried something different even if it didn't work. We would have been much worse of had the Conservatives still been in.

ThatWaryOchreQuoter · 03/09/2025 09:21

HappiestSleeping · 03/09/2025 09:12

I realise this, although I think some of the things they've done are the right thing with the wrong cut off. What I meant was, if we consider it a given that we are worse off under Labour, is it because we would be worse off under any government and Labour just happen to be in the chair. I am pleased that they've tried something different even if it didn't work. We would have been much worse of had the Conservatives still been in.

We wouldn’t be worse off under the Tories. The markets, polls, betting odds and foreign media have made their decisions based on Labours performance. They all agree.

TheNuthatch · 03/09/2025 09:25

HappiestSleeping · 03/09/2025 03:46

I love these threads where the OP starts a contentious question and is never seen again.

I think a better question might have been "are we worse off under the Labour government than we would have been had the Conservatives stayed in?"

And of course, the answer to that is "no, we aren't".

I was better off under the tories, and would be much better off today under Sunak. My small business was thriving, now it's in trouble. We survived the financial crash and covid, but we may not survive this government.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.