JC speaks

[Wrong-Direction]

I think it's a generational thing. Im of the understanding that you're roughly my age? (I'm 30). Most of my friends of around the same age as me have pretty much voted for a different party at each election- some have MAINLY voted for one party but have switched allegiance a few times as well- myself included. I'm not sure I know anyone my age who has voted for the same party every time they've voted. Whereas my parents generation seem to "pick a side" and it would take something fairly drastic to change that- i.e. a huge shift in policy (i.e.. old school Labour voters leaving when it became "new labour"). And then my grandparents generation basically never seem to switch at all.

I'm aware that this is a HUGE generalisation but I think it's a fairly consistent trend

You're spot on, the older generation are just sheep unfortunately and believe everything they're told/read

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Is it PotG?]

Hmmm

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-jeremy-corbyn-is-now-britains-preferred-prime-minister-2017-6

That is dated "Jun '17".

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

I thought it was to do with Jesus coming back, again.

The way some of his supporters sing his name you would think he was the second coming.

 

[seagulls4ever]

Really? There is Youtube evidence of a Labour candidate talking to schoolchildren about it, but if you want something a bit more up to date.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nnell-party-conference-brighton-a7965956.html

I don't know what YouTube clip you are referring to, but scraping pre-existing student debt was never a policy (hence why it never appeared in the manifesto).

As I have also mentioned on here not long ago, the Independent is no longer a reliable source of news - since they scraped the newspaper they have transformed their business model, which is now based on sensationalism and click bait. They do this because their income is now from ads on their website. The quality of journalism, if you can call it that, has markedly deceased. They are now a website which unfortunately facilitates the spread of misinformation.

However, I see nothing in the article which provides any proof that Labour has or has had in the past a policy to wipe pre-existing student debt, aside from the quote from the person who wrote the article, 'John McDonnell has renewed the Labour Party's promise to scrap tuition fees and cancel existing student debt in a speech to the Labour Party Conference.'. I put this down to them not doing their research properly and/or misrepresenting information. As I say, the Independent's standards of journalism aren't what they used to be. Labour have NEVER promised to cancel existing student debt. To be fair to the Independent, Labour's position has been misrepresented widely across the media, not just by them.

There are some quotes from John McDonnell which backs up their previous statements that they would find a way to deal with pre-existing student debt. One of the options being considered is wiping off pre-existing student debt, especially as research now suggests it wouldn't be as expensive as previously reported. This correlates with John McDonnel's previous statements that writing off student debts is an ambition, not a promise. Until Labour state that wiping off pre-existing student debt is a policy, then it isn't one.

I think the original source of this misinformation came from Corbyn's NME interview just before the GE, where his statements were misrepresented. Unfortunately, subsequent media outlets have decided not to fact check their information by going direct to the original source, instead relying on incorrect reports that followed the misrepresentation.

“First of all, we want to get rid of student fees altogether,” Corbyn told NME. “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,” said Corbyn. “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.”

http://www.nme.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-will-deal-already-burdened-student-debt-2082478

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I don't know what YouTube clip you are referring to, but scraping pre-existing student debt was never a policy (hence why it never appeared in the manifesto).

Post 160 as JC Footy Genius saved me the problem of finding it.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

I think it's a generational thing. Im of the understanding that you're roughly my age? (I'm 30). Most of my friends of around the same age as me have pretty much voted for a different party at each election- some have MAINLY voted for one party but have switched allegiance a few times as well- myself included. I'm not sure I know anyone my age who has voted for the same party every time they've voted. Whereas my parents generation seem to "pick a side" and it would take something fairly drastic to change that- i.e. a huge shift in policy (i.e.. old school Labour voters leaving when it became "new labour"). And then my grandparents generation basically never seem to switch at all.

I'm aware that this is a HUGE generalisation but I think it's a fairly consistent trend

As an older voter my observations are that successive governments since the 60s have dug us all into deeper and deeper holes from which no party is really going to get us out of. Europe became something noone ever envisaged when we entered into the EEC and noone had any input into the changes that developed onto the Europe of today. Now they are talking about making Europe even more centralised.
As far as UK parties are concerned I have usually gone with my gut as it has been quite close between parties in recent decades - until now. How the hell Corbyn reckons he can renationalise all those industries without the wheels falling off I have no idea. It's not that I don't agree with having nationalised industries - indeed I wish that many of the things that the Tories changed had never happened (selling off council house stocks etc). However all the silver got sold and buying it back will wreck a lot of lives and secondary industries. ...... and I really don't like the current Laboir bully boy tactics. He has some horrible people working for/with him.

 

[dazzer6666]

I don't know what YouTube clip you are referring to, but scraping pre-existing student debt was never a policy (hence why it never appeared in the manifesto).

As I have also mentioned on here not long ago, the Independent is no longer a reliable source of news - since they scraped the newspaper they have transformed their business model, which is now based on sensationalism and click bait. They do this because their income is now from ads on their website. The quality of journalism, if you can call it that, has markedly deceased. They are now a website which unfortunately facilitates the spread of misinformation.

However, I see nothing in the article which provides any proof that Labour has or has had in the past a policy to wipe pre-existing student debt, aside from the quote from the person who wrote the article, 'John McDonnell has renewed the Labour Party's promise to scrap tuition fees and cancel existing student debt in a speech to the Labour Party Conference.'. I put this down to them not doing their research properly and/or misrepresenting information. As I say, the Independent's standards of journalism aren't what they used to be. Labour have NEVER promised to cancel existing student debt. To be fair to the Independent, Labour's position has been misrepresented widely across the media, not just by them.

There are some quotes from John McDonnell which backs up their previous statements that they would find a way to deal with pre-existing student debt. One of the options being considered is wiping off pre-existing student debt, especially as research now suggests it wouldn't be as expensive as previously reported. This correlates with John McDonnel's previous statements that writing off student debts is an ambition, not a promise. Until Labour state that wiping off pre-existing student debt is a policy, then it isn't one.

I think the original source of this misinformation came from Corbyn's NME interview just before the GE, where his statements were misrepresented. Unfortunately, subsequent media outlets have decided not to fact check their information by going direct to the original source, instead relying on incorrect reports that followed the misrepresentation.



http://www.nme.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-will-deal-already-burdened-student-debt-2082478

I don't think they have, they've just simply a clip of a shadow minister explicitly stating to a group of schoolkids that all existing debts will be wiped out - as [MENTION=14365]Thunder Bolt[/MENTION] says, #161

 

[ManOfSussex]

And leave the Falklands alone. They don't want talks with Argentina.

What's Corbyn planning to do with The Falkland Islanders? Is he planning to shaft them like Thatcher did with The Rhodesian's?

 

[seagulls4ever]

Perhaps he just listened to the Shadow Justice secretary



Telling fibs to children and students ... *tut*

Or maybe to another shadow minister ..

Media smears or Labour ineptitude/fibbing?

He was clearly incorrect. What he states that JC said - he never actually said. Either he hasn't read the article and has simply heard the false information second hand from someone else, or he actually read the article and is inept. There are loads of examples of politicians getting policy details wrong, on all sides. Boris is quite good at it. Here's what JC actually said:

“First of all, we want to get rid of student fees altogether,” Corbyn told NME. “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,” said Corbyn. “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.”

http://www.nme.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-will-deal-already-burdened-student-debt-2082478

Although the tweet you have posted is a bit misleading, no where does it state it's a policy.

See my post #164 for more.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

What's Corbyn planning to do with The Falkland Islanders? Is he planning to shaft them like Thatcher did with The Rhodesian's?

He wants talks with Argentina about them. That's a betrayal of the Islanders and our forces that went there in 82. The Falklands have been the Falklands longer than Argentina has been a country. 99.9% of the Islanders want to stay British.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...power-sharing-deal-falkland-islands-argentina

 

[seagulls4ever]

I don't think they have, they've just simply a clip of a shadow minister explicitly stating to a group of schoolkids that all existing debts will be wiped out - as [MENTION=14365]Thunder Bolt[/MENTION] says, #161

Just seen that, thanks. He was wrong. Just as Boris Johnson is every week.

It's easy to see why opponents of JC/Labour misrepresented what he actually said. They will obviously be keen to pounce on a mistake by a shadow minister claiming that JC said something which he didn't actually say, rather than quoting from the original source where JC never said what he was reported to have said.

Even Andrew Marr got this wrong, by claiming Labour announced a policy just before the GE to wipe pre-existing student debt in a post-election interview with McDonnell.

 

[maltaseagull]

Maybe im a bit naive but isnt 'having a party' really quite stupid?

I voted Labour because this time round, their manifesto appealed to me more. Im not a labour 'supporter' and they are not 'my party'.

Last time I voted tory.

I just cannot fathom how people have alliegences. Doesnt that defeat the whole point? Surely you should start neutral each time and let a party convince you to vote for them, otherwise you are voting for the same party no matter what they do?

And then, the same people who have 'a party' argue between each other despite neither person ever being willing to change 'their party'. Odd.

Sadly, there are not enough people with voting rights that think like this.
You only have to read many of the posts on here to know that a lot of people will never vote Tory and a lot will never vote Labour.

 

[portslade seagull]

Just so you know, deliberately misrepresenting JC/Labour's position only serves to further motivate those who want to see JC/Labour in power to fight harder. As JC has said, smear tactics actually benefited his campaign.

Or maybe you have just been misinformed, by others, including the media, who have misrepresented the position on tuition fees.

I assume you are talking about the false allegation that Labour backtracked on wiping student debt completely for all new, existing and past students. This is completely incorrect. Labour never had a policy to wipe pre-existing student debt.

Indeed, here's a post I made BEFORE the GE (2nd June) in response to someone who at the time was misrepresenting Labour's position:

Blimey I'm sure Corbyn and the rest promises to scrap tuition fees as a bribe to get votesbefore the GE. They quickly back tracked somewhat like yourself when figures of 60B were being bandied about. They then denied having ever promising it in the 1st place. This is just one promise gone South, there will be plenty of others.

 

[ManOfSussex]

He wants talks with Argentina about them. That's a betrayal of the Islanders and our forces that went there in 82. The Falklands have been the Falklands longer than Argentina has been a country. 99.9% of the Islanders want to stay British.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...power-sharing-deal-falkland-islands-argentina

We'll see if he does - personally I doubt it. Ultimately they'd be part of Tierra del Fuego now if they hadn't invaded in 1982 - Thatcher sold out on far more people - Rhodesia, The Anglo-Irish Agreement etc.

I agree it would be a betrayal of our forces and the islanders though and I agree Argentina's claims are void. We do seem to spend and divert a lot of money down there when our other overseas territories in The Caribbean have been so cruelly exposed by Hurricane Irma recently though. Perhaps he'll talk about that too.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

He was clearly incorrect. What he states that JC said - he never actually said. Either he hasn't read the article and has simply heard the false information second hand from someone else, or he actually read the article and is inept. There are loads of examples of politicians getting policy details wrong, on all sides. Boris is quite good at it. Here's what JC actually said:



http://www.nme.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-will-deal-already-burdened-student-debt-2082478

Although the tweet you have posted is a bit misleading, no where does it state it's a policy.

See my post #164 for more.

I agree probably ineptitude and misleading.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

We'll see if he does - personally I doubt it. Ultimately they'd be part of Tierra del Fuego now if they hadn't invaded in 1982 - Thatcher sold out on far more people - Rhodesia, The Anglo-Irish Agreement etc.

I agree it would be a betrayal of our forces and the islanders though and I agree Argentina's claims are void. We do seem to spend and divert a lot of money down there when our other overseas territories in The Caribbean have been so cruelly exposed by Hurricane Irma recently though. Perhaps he'll talk about that too.

Have you read what our forces are doing in the Caribbean? They had started after Hurrican Irma, but then had to wait until after Hurricane Maria had passed.
http://www.forces.net/news/hurricane-irma-what-uk-military-has-done-so-far

 

[seagulls4ever]

Blimey I'm sure Corbyn and the rest promises to scrap tuition fees as a bribe to get votesbefore the GE. They quickly back tracked somewhat like yourself when figures of 60B were being bandied about. They then denied having ever promising it in the 1st place. This is just one promise gone South, there will be plenty of others.

FFS.

First, we are not talking about the scrapping of tuition fees. That was promised and remains a pledge. It was in the manifesto - it was and is an official policy. That manifesto pledge has shifted the debate massively on tuition fees, such that even the Conservatives are now looking at ways of reducing the burden on students. No one is even claiming that this particular policy has been backtracked on.

However, you appear confused between the scrapping of tuition fees and wiping off pre-existing student debt. There have been a number of different figures bandied around for the cost of wiping off pre-existing debt. The Institute for Fiscal Studies recently published a report that it would cost a lot less than has been reported, especially if implemented sooner rather than later:

It has more recently been suggested that debt accumulated by graduates under the £9k a year tuition fee regime should be written off. If that policy were implemented immediately it would have almost no effect on government debt in the short run, but due to reduced future repayments from graduates, would increase debt by around £20 billion by 2050. If implemented after an election in 2022 the cost would be much higher, adding around £60 billion to debt in the long run. Suggestions that debt would rise by £100 billion are wrong. £100 billion is the outstanding value of all tuition fee and maintenance debt since 1998 – it is not the answer to the question: what would be the impact on public debt of writing off fee loans accumulated under the £9,000 tuition fee regime?

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9738

So are you referring to the incorrect statement that JC promised before the GE to wipe all pre-existing student debt? I've pretty much PROVEN in subsequent posts that this is false and that it was never an official policy - obviously since it wasn't in the manifesto. Here's what Corbyn actually said:

“First of all, we want to get rid of student fees altogether,” Corbyn told NME. “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,” said Corbyn. “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.”

http://www.nme.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-will-deal-already-burdened-student-debt-2082478

However, I'm sure you'll just ignore this and carry on spreading false information.

 

[seagulls4ever]

For a more detailed explanation, see this Fact Check by Channel 4 which I have just come across: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/no-corbyn-did-not-pledge-to-abolish-student-debt

Pretty much backs up everything that I have said. They even detail how that YouTube clip was misrepresented:

First is a video of shadow justice minister Imran Hussain, filmed during the election campaign. In it, he comments on the fact that Jeremy Corbyn had announced that “every existing student will have all their debt wiped off”.

Some have claimed that Hussain’s comment appears “at odds with Jeremy Corbyn’s insistence that the party never made that specific pledge”.

But it’s a bit more complicated than that.

The key phrase here is “every existing student“. But it seems that some critics have conflated this with all existing student debt, which would include that held by thousands of graduates. Clearly, however, these are two very different things.

The actual policy announcement Hussain was referring to appears to have been pretty close to what he said it was – a promise to scrap debts for existing students only, rather than historic debts held by graduates.

And this was not a secret pledge consigned to a single YouTube video. It was a major policy announcement that was widely reported in the press.

Labour’s press release explained the proposal in full:

“To discourage students who are planning to start university this September from deferring until after tuition fees are removed, we will guarantee to immediately write off their first year of fees.

“Students part way through their degree will not have to pay fees for the remainder of their course. Part-time students will be covered for the cost of their first undergraduate degree.”

Regarding the debts of people who have already graduated, Labour did not promise to write these off. Echoing Corbyn’s comments, the party simply said they would consider ways to improve the situation for those concerned.

The only aspect of the policy that Hussain appears to have exaggerated or misunderstood concerns debt already racked up by existing students. The official pledge was to only wipe the debt “for the remainder of their course”, whereas Hussain said existing students would have “all their debt wiped off”.

This was clearly wrong and misleading. But Hussain made no comment about the far more costly issue of wiping all debt for all graduates.

Interesting how comments for that YouTube video are turned off. Wouldn't want the truth getting out...

 

[seagulls4ever]

...

 

[ManOfSussex]

Have you read what our forces are doing in the Caribbean? They had started after Hurrican Irma, but then had to wait until after Hurricane Maria had passed.
http://www.forces.net/news/hurricane-irma-what-uk-military-has-done-so-far

I had. We haven't got bases there though like The Dutch and The French, 'Overseas Territories' are reactive as has been proven, compared to their 'departments' system etc. Saint Martin v Falkland Islands - hmmmmmm. They sent their King and President, we sent Johnson........................ We spend £x on The Falkland Islands when we can't seem to react to the damage of the magic money tree devastation of Irma in The Caribbean.