Starmer says we are going to have more money in our pockets (new year's speach

[JoyousPinkPeer]

Do you beleive him or do you think he is a liar?

A couple of years ago it was £3.60 return for a journey which is now 6 pounds. The great flat fare con.

The speech is not aimed at you

@LostittoBostik did you even hear it?

"And finally, I promise this. A determination to bring our country together, not exploit its divisions"

Doesn't really match up with your comment, does it? The Prime Minister is there to represent every citizen of this country and every single one of them should rightly be expecting him to take appropriate steps to improve their lives. That's his job.

"So I want to be clear: until you can look forward and believe in the promise and the prosperity of Britain again, then this Government will fight for you... The security of working people. That is the purpose of this Government. The goal of our plan for change. And we will push it forward in 2025."

Presumably that poster does work? So why does she according to you not count as part of Britain according to you, which allegedly is going to be become more prosperous for all? Why this nasty comment at IVTT?

So many similar examples on this thread of pure spite. No sensible proposals of course how anything might actually be improved for everyone, which is what Starmer claims to want to achieve. It's just a shame that every single measure he's taken so far is having the opposite effect, per every credible economic forecast.

It would be nice if he could have bothered to regale us with some policy proposals that might actually improve things even slightly, rather than make them continually worse, but I guess six months hasn't been long enough to come up with even one positive idea? We have such unreasonable expectations.

The old quote about a country getting the Governments it deserves was very accurate. It's just a shame for the minority of us who actually deserve better.

Er if they are a working person who contributes to this country then yes the speech was aimed at them.

Please could you elaborate?

Lol love to hear you explain both those points ?

Absolutely. All countries have their problems but Ireland has taken some very smart economic decisions in recent decades and also in the last few years has been a big beneficiary of the UK shooting itself in the face with Brexit, the cherry on the cake.

As I have never driven a train, I am fairly sure that no government in the future is going to give much weight to my views. I am (just) retired, I have saved sensibly to do so, but my pension isn't going to be larger than a middle-ranking public sector worker, and importantly, my pension income is dependent on my investment success, not paid by the tax payer, and it won't be inflation-related. But it will be funded by income forgone in earlier higher-earning years, by me and us, so I am a bit peevish about anything I leave to the DC becoming part of the estate and subject to IHT.

@LostittoBostik MPs are elected and paid to represent all of their citizens. They can’t just pick and choose any demographic.

With both a full time job and a 5hr a week part-time job I certainly meet the criteria of “hard-working people” contributing to the economy. Why don’t I deserve more money in my pocket?

With 3 children moving to State schools we will cost the Gvt around £22.5k a year more than we do now.
The silver lining for me is I don’t have to be quite so hard-working at that point so am excited to be reducing my days at work!
But oops that’s a chunk of income tax gone too.
How is this better for the economy again? Your posts lack detail…
Rather like Labour’s plans.

@ThisPageIsBlank

"God, most of the comments on this thread are depressing and just emphasise the point I made. People arguing over which of the pathetic excuses for proposed leaders would be the least useless when all of them are totally incapable of doing anything to improve the UK and not one of these "parties" has been able to articulate a remotely plausible and cohesive policy programme that would start to improve things"

Because if any candidate ever told the truth then they would forever remain a candidate and never be elected.

Everyone wants the Government to spend more money on services that directly benefits them provided it's paid for either by taxes on someone else or Government debt that paid for by the next and subsequent generations.

For example people want green energy but don't like higher energy prices and don't want solar farms or wind turbines built near them.

Or first time buyers and young families complain about house prices but once they have a home would be the first to complain about new houses being built on the adjacent fields.

The policies to stop the managed decline are easy to list, it's just that no one would vote for them.

@IVTT

"But oops that’s a chunk of income tax gone too.
How is this better for the economy again? Your posts lack detail…
Rather like Labour’s plans."

Because for most voters the attraction of the VAT on private school fees has nothing to do with raising taxes revenues (which in any case looks like it may raise less than it costs) but more to do with "bashing the rich" because it's not fair when the wealthy can afford things they can't and even more unfair when it relates to their children.

Exactly a million times.

I use the private sector for education and know for a fact many of my friends are planning to move state and either one parent will give up work entirely (usually the mother) or both will reduce hours as they no longer have to work all the hours they do. Loss to the state of income tax. Additional burden to the state to educate their children. Slow hand clap, Starmer.

Also FWIW the fact i use all my disposable income to pay for my child with autism, adhd, tourettes, dyspraxia and global development delay to be in a very nurturing independent means that I actually work fulltime (I am in a regulated profession) plus evening shifts in our local pub for about 8 weeks a year so we can go on a nice summer holiday each year. I don't care if anyone believes me on MN (they have not when i have said it before) but it's a fact;. We are not all rich arseholes.

I'm out of pocket already quite significantly. But Starmer does not give a shit about the likes of me. Not in a union. Not reliant on the state. Never again a Labour voter as far as i can imagine.

At a base level I am out of pocket. The bus fare cap target has gone up 50%. From £2 max each journey to £3.

and this too. I have a colleague on just above minimum wage. We are all pretty rural and she has to take 3 buses each way to get to work. The total trip is around 9 miles, but how the bus system runs and having to get to the main interchange. That is an extra £6 pounds a day- or £30 extra a week. That is a significant hike for someone on min wage. When it was announced she was in tears in our office because she was already struggling as it was.

👏👏👏 yep! It is a nasty petty policy designed to inflict maximum damage for very little financial income. The fact it is being brought in mid-year proves that.
The other fact is that Labour are taking 3 years to increase duty on vapes but only 3 months to tax education. So they think indy schools are more damaging to kids than vapes.

What did she do before September 2022?

Ticket prices were lower... say £2.10... or £4.05 return so you were only just better off buying the capped single.
In the meantime ticket prices have increased ahead of inflation during the capped time , as they do when a new "target" is set for them (so no one could really complain). So now real ticket prices are £3.25. and the cap is £3. "Isn't it wonderful". Nope. No cap in the first place would have kept prices around the £2.25 sort of rate. But the companies knew the cap would be increasing and went for it on pricing.
It is truly sickening for those of us who rely on public transport and were saying all this when the cap came in, and AGAIN when they said it would increase. The future cap rate quickly became a target to exceed.
£2.25 would have been a fair increased cap, and should have been touted as the future cap rate, to keep baseline actual prices affordable.

Their majority was wide but very thin: many seats including those of several cabinet ministers won on just a few hundred votes.

If they do not deliver growth (and therefore rising living standards) as promised then they will be toast, and we are likely to end up with a hung Parliament, potentially ever the swivel-eyed Reform loons holding the balance of power because the electorate proved in 2016 that many of them are stupid enough to vote for such idiotic policies.

It's therefore in everyone's interests that Labour gets its act together and takes measures to improve growth as it said it would, hence the great disappointment that so far everything they have done has actively sabotaged any prospect of it and them spouting a word salad of vague "missions" and "goals" in every speech rather than having any plan whatsoever to improve the economy.

@CamelsForChristmas
“Do they go to an independent school” is a ridiculous indicator of excess wealth in the most part.
Our car is 14 years old. Our house is falling apart. We haven’t had a foreign holiday since before Covid.
Plenty of wealthy people use their cash to tutor for grammar schools (none in my City!) or buy a house in catchment for a great state school.
But they don’t get lambasted for those choices do they? Taking state funds for something you could afford to pay for is a bad thing isn’t it? Except in eduction. 🤯

And yes this is our choice.
As a child of a nurse and lorry driver, I grew up poor and I fully believe education is the best way to escape poverty and I want to invest in my children in this way.
My husband is now in his 50s and is STILL the only person in his family to have gone to university.
I want every child to have a great education. But this policy will not provide that.
And yes I’m pissed about that. I’m not a Tory voter either and I want a better future in the UK too.

The OP asked a very clear question in their post. And I, along with the majority regardless of their life choices, are saying No we won’t have more money in our pockets.
He is lying to everyone.

Even his Councillors don’t trust him. Why should I? www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-broxtowe-labour-councillors-b2672965.html

She didn;t work at my workplace.

The problem with a cap is it removes competition. Because if the govt capped something at, say, £1500, no company is going to say "well, we will only charge £1000" they will charge the maximum because they're allowed to.

I suppose the cap prevents companies charging excessively, but any that do that would lose business anyway to more reasonable providers.

As far as I can see only People on NMW will have a little more in their pocket for literally thirty seconds until it goes out again to pay for any good or service they chose or need to use . Everything we buy and use will increase in price as NI increases the costs of supply or production for literally everything.

I can’t think of any other group who will get anymore in their pocket though even for that transient thirty seconds . Their costs just go up.

I don’t believe him and I worry that some do

about 5% of children go to private school and yet this thread is full of them.
The education system of the UK is divisive. It needs changing for the benefit of all children.

7% which rises to 18% at 6th form. I tell you what is divisive, a policy which brings in very little £ but causes a lot of damage. Indy schools are being scapegoated for all that's wrong with the education system. I can guarantee that if you got rid of all indy schools tomorrow then none of the problems in state sector would be solved/disappear.
You have been sold a lie by Labour. Just 1 example of this is: the pledge to recruit 6,500 extra teachers could cost £5 billion annually, according to research from @TheNFER - far more than the £1.8 billion Labour claimed the policy would fetch in (I say claimed because that was based on half the number of kids leaving Indy for the whole year than actually have already left in 1 term).
It is a nasty, petty, smoke + mirrors policy to distract you from the fact that they aren't doing anything concrete to improve state schools eg increasing the funding per pupil which is what is actually needed.

Once you divide children from each other, you create a divisive society if that’s what you want, if that’s what you think will improve this country - go ahead and support it

But kids in state are divided eg grammars/by catchment areas etc. There is massive inequality in the state sector, to ignore that is incredibly naive.
There is a thread currently which highlights how kids from same socio economic groups tend to stick together within mixed state schools.