Discussion
jsf said:
There was no official policy on the position regarding writing off existing debt accrued.
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.
Weasel words. The intended interpretation is very clear.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.
don'tbesilly said:
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.”
Rovinghawk said:
jsf said:
There was no official policy on the position regarding writing off existing debt accrued.
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.
Weasel words. The intended interpretation is very clear.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:
don'tbesilly said:
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.”
jsf said:
Rovinghawk said:
jsf said:
There was no official policy on the position regarding writing off existing debt accrued.
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.
Weasel words. The intended interpretation is very clear.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.
Rovinghawk said:
jsf said:
Rovinghawk said:
jsf said:
There was no official policy on the position regarding writing off existing debt accrued.
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.
Weasel words. The intended interpretation is very clear.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.
don'tbesilly said:
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.”
Rovinghawk said:
RedTrident said:
You'll have to point me in the right direction of articles to read.
Start here:https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/3090657449...
jsf said:
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?
I see the PM is in Japan talking up her longevity as PM.
I was doing some work for a little while in Caracas. Chavez looked interesting in his white tracksuit singing like a virgin (I'm not joking!). Whilst I was there I could see why people loved him and others hated him. I'd spend my evenings speaking with people in the plaza where they'd all gather.
He definitely took from the rich, didn't look like enough then made its way to the poor but it did p
s off the rich! Old fashioned nationalisation (a feature of socialism) of course was not working as the unions do what they do. But having spent my life working in poor places, my thoughts have always been that it was never about giving things to the poor, rather about making sure they had access to stuff through which they could build a platform so they could get things off their own merit. There wasn't enough of that, it had become ideological. We hate the rich, they stole everything... We hate the poor, they're lazy, criminals and have too many babies they can't afford to look after...
May's first speech as PM was really all about dealing with this. So far she's delivered absolutely nothing on it. Education, Health, Training & Employment, Housing, Transport etc. There are no key messages, no this is wrong and this is what we're going to do to fix it.
I have met her by the way and one of her two aides when she became Home Secretary. She understands this. She's not Cameron who came from a place that had only observed this. Stubborn absolutely, to a fault imo. There's a difference between developing your understanding and just digging in for fear you'll be seeing as u turning. When you dig your heels in the way she has done on some issues and then finally are forced to give, it can make you look out of touch and not in control.
As a Labour voter, I would be rubbing my hands if May was to lead the Tories in to the next election. That's if Corbyn hasn't flown off to take charge of Bolivia first
AMG Merc said:
Just heard May's comment about being in the job for the long term - deluded, concerning, but not surprising spings to mind. Seriously, Prime Minister?! 
All it took was a bit of a holiday and she completely forgot about all the reasons she won't be there long term. Unless no-one else wants the job.She always was an awful person with awful ideas, she hasn't improved with time. I don't know which electorate she thinks she appeals to but most of the time it feels more like the authoritarian left (Blairite style), she certainly isn't conservative or Conservative and it shows. The only reason she even managed the performance she did in the election was because people held their noses and voted for her because the alternatives were even worse.
The sooner she goes the better, though hopefully not replaced by one of her equally dim Cabinet acolytes like that arse Hammond.
RedTrident said:
Absolutely. So the UK is nothing like Venezuela.
I see the PM is in Japan talking up her longevity as PM.
I was doing some work for a little while in Caracas. Chavez looked interesting in his white tracksuit singing like a virgin (I'm not joking!). Whilst I was there I could see why people loved him and others hated him. I'd spend my evenings speaking with people in the plaza where they'd all gather.
He definitely took from the rich, didn't look like enough then made its way to the poor but it did ps off the rich! Old fashioned nationalisation (a feature of socialism) of course was not working as the unions do what they do.
But having spent my life working in poor places, my thoughts have always been that it was never about giving things to the poor, rather about making sure they had access to stuff through which they could build a platform so they could get things off their own merit. There wasn't enough of that, it had become ideological. We hate the rich, they stole everything... We hate the poor, they're lazy, criminals and have too many babies they can't afford to look after...
May's first speech as PM was really all about dealing with this. So far she's delivered absolutely nothing on it. Education, Health, Training & Employment, Housing, Transport etc. There are no key messages, no this is wrong and this is what we're going to do to fix it.
I have met her by the way and one of her two aides when she became Home Secretary. She understands this. She's not Cameron who came from a place that had only observed this. Stubborn absolutely, to a fault imo. There's a difference between developing your understanding and just digging in for fear you'll be seeing as u turning. When you dig your heels in the way she has done on some issues and then finally are forced to give, it can make you look out of touch and not in control.
As a Labour voter, I would be rubbing my hands if May was to lead the Tories in to the next election. That's if Corbyn hasn't flown off to take charge of Bolivia first
Very interesting, thanks for posting it.I see the PM is in Japan talking up her longevity as PM.
I was doing some work for a little while in Caracas. Chavez looked interesting in his white tracksuit singing like a virgin (I'm not joking!). Whilst I was there I could see why people loved him and others hated him. I'd spend my evenings speaking with people in the plaza where they'd all gather.
He definitely took from the rich, didn't look like enough then made its way to the poor but it did p
s off the rich! Old fashioned nationalisation (a feature of socialism) of course was not working as the unions do what they do. But having spent my life working in poor places, my thoughts have always been that it was never about giving things to the poor, rather about making sure they had access to stuff through which they could build a platform so they could get things off their own merit. There wasn't enough of that, it had become ideological. We hate the rich, they stole everything... We hate the poor, they're lazy, criminals and have too many babies they can't afford to look after...
May's first speech as PM was really all about dealing with this. So far she's delivered absolutely nothing on it. Education, Health, Training & Employment, Housing, Transport etc. There are no key messages, no this is wrong and this is what we're going to do to fix it.
I have met her by the way and one of her two aides when she became Home Secretary. She understands this. She's not Cameron who came from a place that had only observed this. Stubborn absolutely, to a fault imo. There's a difference between developing your understanding and just digging in for fear you'll be seeing as u turning. When you dig your heels in the way she has done on some issues and then finally are forced to give, it can make you look out of touch and not in control.
As a Labour voter, I would be rubbing my hands if May was to lead the Tories in to the next election. That's if Corbyn hasn't flown off to take charge of Bolivia first
I would say I'm more of a centrist rather than left or right and, for the first time in my life (voted Labour and Lib Dem previously), voted Conservative in this election as Corbyn and the shadow cabinet looked, frankly, shambolic in my eyes.
However, the Conservative campaign was utterly dreadful. If they'd ran a decent one I think they could (and probably should) have annihilated Labour.
UK politics is a joke at the moment.
HarryW said:
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:
Eddie Strohacker said:
She's finally achieved her aim of uniting the country. In laughing at the idea she'll stand again.
I wouldn't be too concerned, she has a long and regular history of U turns.Conservatives are still split over EU and nobody wants the Brexit job. labour aren’t going to get rid of Corbyn.
She still appeals to Conservatives who don’t have anything more right wing to vote for and centrist voters who think Corbyn is too left wing.
Dazed and Confused said:
You need to get over it whether it's true or not. The Tories recent failure was over general anger regarding brexit.
You genuinely believe that? Why did the LibDems do so poorly if that's the case? Labour were saying nothing materially different to the Tories during the GE. And both those parties increased their share of the vote.
The Tories whole campaign was woeful. Another display of negativity, ad hominems towards Corbyn, general FUD and some truly idiotic and wholly unnecessary "policies" that they ended up having to back track on making them look weak even against someone like Corbyn.
Brexit was a side show to the shambolic way she ran that campaign. That, and not Brexit, has sealed her fate as shortlived.
The only possible way out for her IMO is for an unbelievably stonking exit deal with the EU happening. If she pulls that off then maybe she'll last. But even as an ardent Leave voter I don't see that happening. Any deal will have compromise, and with how she's done in the last 12mths that won't be good enough to save her.
(Corbyn also ran a great campaign IMO. Mobilising the youth vote the way he did was great, though the timing of the GE helped his cause here.
I do not see him ever getting more of the vote personally. And with no other party anywhere near the running it will continue to be the Tories to lose, either with a majority, confidence and supply or a coalition arrangement. Time will tell though).
Dazed and Confused said:
You need to get over it whether it's true or not. The Tories recent failure was over general anger regarding brexit.
What absolute nonsense! The Tories increased their share of the vote and the UKIP vote was split with Labour who (at the time) were providing basically the same message as far as Brexit was concerned.The only main party proposing a different Brexit outcome were the Lib Dems, who made marginal gains.
So the evidence does not align with your claims.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff