I just posted something above, which shows that it was a Tory policy, being honoured by Labour, and where the figures for the increases come from ie not directly decided by the Chancellor but decided on after receiving guidance, in many cases from independent pay review boards.

They didn't just snatch at "OK, now we're in office we'll bump up the pay of the public sector", nor can I imagine any reason why they would.

Just upholding the regulations which are currently law would be a start, as regulators were starved of cash during the Tories' time in offices, regulations weren't enforced.

Already feeling not so good about Labour. Just saw Lisa Nandy interview in Paris where she waded into the debate about the women boxers- she kept going on about how women need to feel safe when competing. Clearly had no idea that the individual is a woman herself and not someone who has undergone treatment. Poorly informed politicians is not what we want.

I think her statement completely contradicts the bolded part.

My point was not whether the policies mentioned necessarily good or bad, just in the overall scheme of things I am unsure why it would a surprise Labour would follow such a path. As far as the so-called "hole" in public finances I have not looked at in any detail but I would not be surprised at anything the party of Brexit, rich-brat Sunak, and Truss got up to.

I am hoping Labour will establish a youth mobility scheme with EU countries- the Brexit idea that reducing opportunities for the young is and was ridiculous.

Some were, some were not.

Speaking of the hole in public finances, this is how things looked BEFORE brexit:



Guess what happens when you close the door to the EU and then allow the floodgates to be opened up to non-EU immigration?

That data is not surprising and judging from anecdotal observation locally the gap is higher.

Starmer has perfect opportunity with the majority he has to engage in discussions with EU on your mobility schemes and other matters without worry about Brexiters.

Not a very sound conclusion, I wouldn't have thought.

When a member of the EU, the UK had a restrictive immigration policy when it came to 3rd country nationals, which would have affected the way various stats like the above averaged out. Now that EU and non EU nationals are treated identically, that difference is highly unlikely to persist, even though amongst the non EU there will be a proportion admitted on humanitarian grounds.

The report by Oxford Economics much beloved by people on both sides of the arguments has been discredited by a number of learned authorities for its triteness, and lack of comprehensiveness. This references one such commentary but it is a complex albeit well reasoned rebuttal.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u...ion-in-the-uk/

Most telling is the following: Estimates of the fiscal effects of immigration have many limitations. For example, the studies reviewed in this briefing rely primarily on the Labour Force Survey (LFS) to identify the characteristics of migrants and the factors associated with tax contributions (e.g. whether someone is working) and expenditure (e.g. whether some has school-age children). However, the LFS itself has important limitations. It excludes migrants living in communal establishments, and some groups may be underrepresented due to non-response to the survey. Income is a crucial component of fiscal impact calculations, but LFS income information is limited and only includes employee earnings.

Nevertheless it still keeps being trotted out as if it had veracity.

Age concern or CAB should be able to advise her, on it's face it does seem wrong that she's not entitled to some benefits, and possibly some arrears!

The UK was always in full control of non-EU migration, contrary to Tory lies about how the EU is responsible for high migration figures to the UK. What they forgot to mention (possibly fearing the loss of votes) is that net migration from OUTSIDE the EU has been higher in each and every year than from within the EU. I bet 99.99% of the public wasn't even aware of this.

So whilst they were blaming the EU for basically everything (including migration), they were knowingly keeping the floodgates open and letting in even more people from outside the EU.

It hasn't been discredited and is still used as the most accurate study up to date. Some people will argue with Oxford Economics and they're perfectly within their rights to do so. That doesn't mean they've discredited anything.

He needs to step up a gear but youth schemes alone won't be enough. He needs to apply to join the EEA (European Economic Area).

Brexit wasn't a one off, it continues to wreck damage to the economy. It's like a bleed that won't stop. The only way to stop the continuous damage is to be in the EEA, like Norway.

Intresting none is mentioning brexiters rioting on streets of UK, looting & burning.
Those people are reason we lost EU free movement.

Indeed, the rioters are guaranteed to be Leave/Reform voters who wanted to leave the EU because they thought it would reduce immigration from commonwealth countries. Real Brain of Britain contenders.

The UK desperately needs a Norway type deal but the EU are reluctant to move towards that at the moment because the UK is so unstable. Starmer would jump at the chance but he was probably warned by the EU during various meetings he had with them that it is a non starter.

Apparently the EU is worried that precious time would be taken up with negotiations and then the UK would elect another basket case government in 5 years' time. With Farage waiting in the wings and stoking up division, it's just too risky.