Discussion
Hayek said:
RedTrident said:
sidicks said:
That's because Corbyn isn't in charge to implement his policies. HTH.
The underlying political and social environment on the UK is nothing like Venezuela. It's fear peddling and scare mongering. Hayek said:
RedTrident said:
sidicks said:
That's because Corbyn isn't in charge to implement his policies. HTH.
The underlying political and social environment on the UK is nothing like Venezuela. It's fear peddling and scare mongering. RedTrident said:
Hayek said:
RedTrident said:
sidicks said:
That's because Corbyn isn't in charge to implement his policies. HTH.
The underlying political and social environment on the UK is nothing like Venezuela. It's fear peddling and scare mongering. Likes Fast Cars said:
Which is exactly why we are worried! Corbyn trying to out-do the mad Venezuelan dictators, I hope we never have to witness that.
Let's start with a difference that you've identified - Dictator.Although that is inaccurate, he was elected each time. Of course there were allegations of corruption but a classic Dictator doesn't usually bother with elections.
Without running to Wikipedia, what's your understanding of South American geopolitics and Venezuela in particular? Maybe one for another thread.
Theresa May meanwhile will carry on until some Tory comes along and puts her out of her misery. The most limp prime minister in my lifetime. It's the Tory equivalent of Michael Foot if he'd got elected. Hopefully nothing more significant happens under her steer. I wouldn't trust this 'very difficult woman' to see us through anything of national significance.
chris watton said:
Until very recently, Corbyn and his acolytes used Venezuela as a true template for an alternative to nasty Capitalism. Are you really saying that Corbyn did not want the same template for the UK?
Really? Again one for another thread. You'll have to point me in the right direction of articles to read.RedTrident said:
Let's start with a difference that you've identified - Dictator.
Although that is inaccurate, he was elected each time. Of course there were allegations of corruption but a classic Dictator doesn't usually bother with elections.
Dictators often do bother with elections, they are always corrupt and they have no chance of losing, but they go through the motions to boost their position as an "elected" leader. It wont take you much effort to find examples of this.Although that is inaccurate, he was elected each time. Of course there were allegations of corruption but a classic Dictator doesn't usually bother with elections.
What were you doing in Venezuela?
RedTrident said:
Hayek said:
RedTrident said:
sidicks said:
That's because Corbyn isn't in charge to implement his policies. HTH.
The underlying political and social environment on the UK is nothing like Venezuela. It's fear peddling and scare mongering. Odd how this thread descends into hatred and personal animosity towards the PM. Over 137 pages her detractors, none of whom know or have met her and with only personal opinions derived from their favourite news outlets (which by definition will only reflect their own views), profess inside knowledge of her thought processes.
From such sages there seems a reluctance to admit, in mitigation of the mistake the PM made in listening to trusted advisors and assorted rank and file colleagues that as all previous ministers have always done, and with very little PM experience, she trusted previous friends’ assessment of the political scene and is now expected to carry all responsibility for the debacle that ensued.
Added to that the ‘promise’ from Corbyn that he would abolish student fees, thereby attracting a previously silent minority young vote that virtually bought the massive number of votes needed partially to overcome the stigma of Labour record when in office, which after the election he reneged on, the result was very damaging.
Criticism is one thing, but what seems to be downright dogma to deny the facts is quite another. She needs encouragement and support, not vitriol.
RedTrident said:
You'll have to point me in the right direction of articles to read.
Start here:https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/3090657449...
Thorodin said:
Odd how this thread descends into hatred and personal animosity towards the PM. Over 137 pages her detractors, none of whom know or have met her and with only personal opinions derived from their favourite news outlets (which by definition will only reflect their own views), profess inside knowledge of her thought processes.
From such sages there seems a reluctance to admit, in mitigation of the mistake the PM made in listening to trusted advisors and assorted rank and file colleagues that as all previous ministers have always done, and with very little PM experience, she trusted previous friends’ assessment of the political scene and is now expected to carry all responsibility for the debacle that ensued.
Added to that the ‘promise’ from Corbyn that he would abolish student fees, thereby attracting a previously silent minority young vote that virtually bought the massive number of votes needed partially to overcome the stigma of Labour record when in office, which after the election he reneged on, the result was very damaging.
Criticism is one thing, but what seems to be downright dogma to deny the facts is quite another. She needs encouragement and support, not vitriol.
Talking of facts, can you show me where Corbyn said he would abolish student fees?From such sages there seems a reluctance to admit, in mitigation of the mistake the PM made in listening to trusted advisors and assorted rank and file colleagues that as all previous ministers have always done, and with very little PM experience, she trusted previous friends’ assessment of the political scene and is now expected to carry all responsibility for the debacle that ensued.
Added to that the ‘promise’ from Corbyn that he would abolish student fees, thereby attracting a previously silent minority young vote that virtually bought the massive number of votes needed partially to overcome the stigma of Labour record when in office, which after the election he reneged on, the result was very damaging.
Criticism is one thing, but what seems to be downright dogma to deny the facts is quite another. She needs encouragement and support, not vitriol.
eccles said:
Talking of facts, can you show me where Corbyn said he would abolish student fees?
His exact words:“Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden.”
“I don’t have the simple answer for it yet - I don’t think anybody would expect me to, because this election was called unexpectedly; we had two weeks to prepare all this - but I’m very well aware of that problem,” Corbyn continued.
“And I don’t see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after. I will deal with it.”
Not a clear statement but a rather strong hint.
Rovinghawk said:
eccles said:
Talking of facts, can you show me where Corbyn said he would abolish student fees?
His exact words:“Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden.”
“I don’t have the simple answer for it yet - I don’t think anybody would expect me to, because this election was called unexpectedly; we had two weeks to prepare all this - but I’m very well aware of that problem,” Corbyn continued.
“And I don’t see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after. I will deal with it.”
Not a clear statement but a rather strong hint.
I'm no fan of his, but there's no need to perpetuate the bad journalism that gave rise to the belief that he said he'd abolish student fees.
eccles said:
So he didn't say it then!
Like I said: Not a clear statement but a rather strong hint.
eccles said:
I'm no fan of his, but there's no need to perpetuate the bad journalism that gave rise to the belief that he said he'd abolish student fees.
I didn't- I quoted his exact words.He said he would "deal with" the unfairness of some having student debt that others didn't have. What interpretation would you put on those words?
Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 30th August 21:09
eccles said:
Rovinghawk said:
eccles said:
Talking of facts, can you show me where Corbyn said he would abolish student fees?
His exact words:“Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden.”
“I don’t have the simple answer for it yet - I don’t think anybody would expect me to, because this election was called unexpectedly; we had two weeks to prepare all this - but I’m very well aware of that problem,” Corbyn continued.
“And I don’t see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after. I will deal with it.”
Not a clear statement but a rather strong hint.
I'm no fan of his, but there's no need to perpetuate the bad journalism that gave rise to the belief that he said he'd abolish student fees.
eccles said:
Talking of facts, can you show me where Corbyn said he would abolish student fees?
Its in the labour manifesto. http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2...go to page 43
jsf said:
Isn't that explicitly taking about removing future fees rather than cancelling existing debt?Regardless, to anyone that saw the res coverage in the run up to the election, the implication from Corbyn was extremely clear and to suggest that he never explicitly said it is missing the point. It was quite clear that he meant students to interpret his words to mean that existing debt would be reduced / cancelled.
eccles said:
Thorodin said:
Odd how this thread descends into hatred and personal animosity towards the PM. Over 137 pages her detractors, none of whom know or have met her and with only personal opinions derived from their favourite news outlets (which by definition will only reflect their own views), profess inside knowledge of her thought processes.
From such sages there seems a reluctance to admit, in mitigation of the mistake the PM made in listening to trusted advisors and assorted rank and file colleagues that as all previous ministers have always done, and with very little PM experience, she trusted previous friends’ assessment of the political scene and is now expected to carry all responsibility for the debacle that ensued.
Added to that the ‘promise’ from Corbyn that he would abolish student fees, thereby attracting a previously silent minority young vote that virtually bought the massive number of votes needed partially to overcome the stigma of Labour record when in office, which after the election he reneged on, the result was very damaging.
Criticism is one thing, but what seems to be downright dogma to deny the facts is quite another. She needs encouragement and support, not vitriol.
Talking of facts, can you show me where Corbyn said he would abolish student fees?From such sages there seems a reluctance to admit, in mitigation of the mistake the PM made in listening to trusted advisors and assorted rank and file colleagues that as all previous ministers have always done, and with very little PM experience, she trusted previous friends’ assessment of the political scene and is now expected to carry all responsibility for the debacle that ensued.
Added to that the ‘promise’ from Corbyn that he would abolish student fees, thereby attracting a previously silent minority young vote that virtually bought the massive number of votes needed partially to overcome the stigma of Labour record when in office, which after the election he reneged on, the result was very damaging.
Criticism is one thing, but what seems to be downright dogma to deny the facts is quite another. She needs encouragement and support, not vitriol.
So 'he didn't say it then!'? Who do you think wrote the manifesto? There's nothing implied, inferred, or indeed ambiguous about what Corbyn brandished as a 'fully-costed' manifesto. That was a rash and knowingly false election campaign promise, made in response to a TV interview where Corbyn reiterated the principle as stated in his manifesto. The deafening silence from his befuddled supporters speaks volumes and he should be charged with electoral fraud. The double standards applied to him in comparison to the PM is stark and indicative of the current slimy tide of dog-whistle politics. And the world and his wife expect the PM to broadcast her precise and detailed strategy for EU negotiations? Meanwhile the pygmies clamour for the PM's downfall!
sidicks said:
jsf said:
Isn't that explicitly taking about removing future fees rather than cancelling existing debt?Regardless, to anyone that saw the res coverage in the run up to the election, the implication from Corbyn was extremely clear and to suggest that he never explicitly said it is missing the point. It was quite clear that he meant students to interpret his words to mean that existing debt would be reduced / cancelled.
The Labour policy at the time of the GE was that student fees would be abolished.
There was no official policy on the position regarding writing off existing debt accrued.
The former would be an incentive for future university attendees and their families to vote Labour.
It was stated by Corbyn that he would "look at it" when the existing debt was discussed, he made no formal promise, but he certainly placed in the mind of many people that there was a possibility this would be at least reviewed, that was designed to sway more votes to Labour. You cant argue against this being what happened, because that is what happened.
jsf said:
sidicks said:
jsf said:
Isn't that explicitly taking about removing future fees rather than cancelling existing debt?Regardless, to anyone that saw the res coverage in the run up to the election, the implication from Corbyn was extremely clear and to suggest that he never explicitly said it is missing the point. It was quite clear that he meant students to interpret his words to mean that existing debt would be reduced / cancelled.
The Labour policy at the time of the GE was that student fees would be abolished.
There was no official policy on the position regarding writing off existing debt accrued.
The former would be an incentive for future university attendees and their families to vote Labour.
It was stated by Corbyn that he would "look at it" when the existing debt was discussed, he made no formal promise, but he certainly placed in the mind of many people that there was a possibility this would be at least reviewed, that was designed to sway more votes to Labour. You cant argue against this being what happened, because that is what happened.
NME: You’ve pledged to scrap tuition fees, which has gone down well. But it’s also kicked up a question for people who already have that debt, or people who are currently in university. What does it mean for people who’ve already been paying £9,000 a year?
JC: “First of all, we want to get rid of student fees altogether. We’ll do it as soon as we get in, and we’ll then introduce legislation to ensure that any student going from the 2017-18 academic year will not pay fees. They will pay them, but we’ll rebate them when we’ve got the legislation through – that’s fundamentally the principle behind it. Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden. I don’t have the simple answer for it at this stage – I don’t think anybody would expect me to, because this election was called unexpectedly; we had two weeks to prepare all of this – but I’m very well aware of that problem. And I don’t see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after. I will deal with it.”
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff