[News] MPs defecting to The Independent Group in parliament

[Weststander]

You were doing quite well (C+) up to there.

He has a lifetime track record of showing no ambition, and a complete unwillingness to do the first basic thing necessary to climb the ladder of power, that is vote with his own party, while at the same time alligning himself with causes that offenend middle of the road labour supporters (like me).

I said earlier you either advocate anarchy, or you are a liar (making false statements that you think will disillusion labour voters). I have had another think about this and now feel that you are simply a bit of a twit.

JC was a so called conviction politician, trying to disrupt any work by John Smith and Blair. Always true to his anti success beliefs and revelling in the company of the literally murderous Venezualan regime.

Now, at a ripe old old age, he’s abandoned his convictions to try and do absolutely anything to squeeze his way into 10 Downing Street. Lying that he was an unbiased peace campaigner in Ulster ahead of his time and Blair/Mowlem (what an insult to them ... they did it all), and subtly burying his hatred of the EU to try and get Remainers on board the marxist project.

No scrupples

 

[attila]

So you lost then.

Yes, we lost - albeit by such a small margin that at least this whole Brexit bollocks is getting a far better scrutiny than if the Tories had won by the landslide they were expecting. (NB: I don't actually have a coherent position on Brexit myself, so I'm not disappounted that we're not in charge of that festival of smegbuckettry, though I am angry beyond belief about everything else that they've done since the election)
But the idea that we'd have done better with someone like Yvette Cooper in charge is, seriously, really misleading and wrong. The reason we confounded the pollsters is because of the thousands of dedicated canvassers up and down the country arguing on doorsteps, bypassing the Tory media bias. They wouldn't have been involved with a centrist leader: they weren't before. Face -to face contact is the best way to conduct politics, not tabloid editorials or social media smear campaigns, and we now do that very well. If we went back to the old days of snuggling up to Murdoch and kow-towing to the bankers who totally trashed the economy - as Brown did - 90% of us would give up, and there would be few to replace us.....with conviction comes passion, and with passion comes activism.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Any breakaway left-leaning party should recruit Caroline Lucas as their first priority and court the Greens as their second priority. As shown by the current parties in the Brexit debacle, most of these self-serving intellectually-challenged ****s have no place in office.

I assume you mean left of centre not left as in extreme. I find it interesting that we seem to have a growing discussion between a number from the 'right' side of the Labour party speaking with those who are on 'left' side of Tory party. Let's hope it develops into something and yes Caroline Lucas should be part of that new party.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Look, it is very sad that Corbyn had made labour unelectable. I feel your pain, I really do. Or your gloating. Yes, it is probably gloating. But, shhhh now, eh?

Patronising aren't you. Not a good trait in anyone.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

You seem to think that Ernest and I are loony lefty bedfellows. I find that very strange. Lazy minded. Prejudiced, actually. Offensive in fact. As for the other fellah, he's on my 'ignore' list

WTF what I wrote regarding Ernest have to do with you? Not once have I had the urge to mention your name, please reel your ego in.

 

[Bozza]

To be fair to [MENTION=1416]Ernest[/MENTION], he called time on 'the Corbyn experiment" some time ago. I'm not sure who he supports now however.

I wouldn't vote for Corbyn in any further leadership election, there needs to be a leader who has authority and can actually lead. The experiment has failed at great costs to people's lives

 

[Southern Scouse]

psst, that sounds an awful lot like one nation conservatism, and without mention of state control and ownership, redistribution of wealth etc, unlike socialism. its interesting how people identify politically and what they believe in differs from definitions of ideologies.

As I said, Its my type of socialism. In truth what’s in a name?

 

[dingodan]

Because these idiots have been on the verge of leaving for years, most of them are about to be deselected anyway or have been

So it's not fake, and it's not news.

Just to be clear.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

[MENTION=14365]Thunder Bolt[/MENTION], I know you love the EU, and I recall that you love the French people from all your time spent in France (I voted Remain too).

A genuine question, do you realise that Corbyn, McDonnell and several key union leaders are passionately lifelong opponents of the EU? It’s complete myth that the hard left love the EU because it gave the UK employee rights. They oppose the raison d’etre of the EU on two very clear counts:

1. It is a capitalist club that favours big business and business owners, more than any other grouping. The shareholders of BMW and Bosch have gained so much more than the poor.
2. Freedom of labour movement, means a race to the bottom in wages and rates for the self employed in trades. Why employ Brits, where Romanians will gladly accept lower pay? Why get Brits to carry out your home extension, where Poles will do it far cheaper?

I’m amazed by the number of JC and EU lovers, including arrogant young voters/sixth formers, who simply cannot grasp the fact that JC and McDonnell are vehemently anti EU. However, JC’s snide and insincere game of the last 2 years in playing to both Remainers and Brextiteers has deliberately muddied the waters.

I'm not a Labour supporter. I'm very much centre although slightly left of centre. Not all the Labour MPs are proBrexit, and I agree the Labour leadership is playing both sides to try to get elected. They don't care about people imo.
I tend to vote for the candidate rather than any party, & have spoiled my paper in some votes.

 

[Weststander]

As I said, Its my type of socialism. In truth what’s in a name?

You wished for:
“...means having opportunities in life to build futures for yourself, your family as well as making sure that every individual who may not be able to make the most of those opportunities lives in dignity and is trusted with respect.
That means, housing, education, standards of living, health care etc which should be available to one and all. If certain parts of society are able to spend more on their own choices, so be it.”

A fair agenda in most people’s eyes.

How could any one deem that as right leaning, unless they wanted to destroy the successful whilst they were at it, purely out of spite or the old green-eyed monster.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Yes, we lost - albeit by such a small margin that at least this whole Brexit bollocks is getting a far better scrutiny than if the Tories had won by the landslide they were expecting. (NB: I don't actually have a coherent position on Brexit myself, so I'm not disappounted that we're not in charge of that festival of smegbuckettry, though I am angry beyond belief about everything else that they've done since the election)
But the idea that we'd have done better with someone like Yvette Cooper in charge is, seriously, really misleading and wrong. The reason we confounded the pollsters is because of the thousands of dedicated canvassers up and down the country arguing on doorsteps, bypassing the Tory media bias. They wouldn't have been involved with a centrist leader: they weren't before. Face -to face contact is the best way to conduct politics, not tabloid editorials or social media smear campaigns, and we now do that very well. If we went back to the old days of snuggling up to Murdoch and kow-towing to the bankers who totally trashed the economy - as Brown did - 90% of us would give up, and there would be few to replace us.....with conviction comes passion, and with passion comes activism.

Brexit is cross party, it was a free vote, it has nothing to do with Tories or Labour f**king it up. They are both doing a thoroughly good job between them.

Crap victory for the Tories at the last GE, but victory non the less. Trouble is we needed strong leadership to push us through Brexit and nearly ended up with another hung parliament. Disaster before we got underway. However, free vote on Brexit, many Tories won't have the deal, fair enough, however these idiots should be voting for those that elected them and not for themselves. I do find it quite puzzling how many people DON'T ask Corbyn what his EU exit policies are. I think Labour would do better on two fronts. Firstly, get an electable leader, the British people no longer trust a leftie (or a right winger for that matter). Secondly, have a clear and concise manifesto with understandable policies, because I haven't got a scooby what Corbyn's are.

I don't really care who runs our country, so long as they are doing a fair job. If politics were sex I'd be bi.

 

[nwgull]

40 % of those who voted in 2017 election did vote for a Labour Party led by the demonized and derided Jeremy Cornyn, standing on a distinctively left of centre manifesto. Rather than lazy labelling (extreme, far left, loony etc), could anti Labour/Cornyn porters tell us which Labour policies they disagree with?

Putting corporation tax back up to 26%. The last thing we need post-Brexit are more reasons for foreign companies to relocate.

 

[Weststander]

Brexit is cross party, it was a free vote, it has nothing to do with Tories or Labour f**king it up. They are both doing a thoroughly good job between them.

Crap victory for the Tories at the last GE, but victory non the less. Trouble is we needed strong leadership to push us through Brexit and nearly ended up with another hung parliament. Disaster before we got underway. However, free vote on Brexit, many Tories won't have the deal, fair enough, however these idiots should be voting for those that elected them and not for themselves. I do find it quite puzzling how many people DON'T ask Corbyn what his EU exit policies are. I think Labour would do better on two fronts. Firstly, get an electable leader, the British people no longer trust a leftie (or a right winger for that matter). Secondly, have a clear and concise manifesto with understandable policies, because I haven't got a scooby what Corbyn's are.

I don't really care who runs our country, so long as they are doing a fair job. If politics were sex I'd be bi.

Don’t fret. I’ve been reminded that his free rein of negative politics will come to an abrupt end when his sly record on Brexit and Remain, will be taken apart in the 5 week build up to the next GE, as well as his love of the murderous Venezualan regime, and his fairytail economics. He got off lightly on that last point last time, for example, it was fully admitted afterwards that he could not have scraped all student loans. The ploy that worked was to lie about that, thus gaining extra graduate and undergraduate votes.

The gloves will be off.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Don’t fret. I’ve been reminded that his free rein of negative politics will come to an abrupt end when his sly record on Brexit and Remain, will be taken apart in the 5 week build up to the next GE, as well as his love of the murderous Venezualan regime, and his fairytail economics. He got off lightly on that last point last time, for example, it was fully admitted afterwards that he could not have scraped all student loans. The ploy that worked was to lie about that, thus gaining extra graduate and undergraduate votes.

The gloves will be off.

I liked the brother of the one that was labour leader. David Milliband. He was definitely electable.

 

[Weststander]

I liked the brother of the one that was labour leader. David Milliband. He was definitely electable.

That was a shame, electable and he supports British business. Without an agenda of spite taxes.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I repeat - we got 40% of the vote at the last election. The only reason we didn't win was because

Let me stop you there.

1. Nobody can ever prove why a party loses a general election. Proof requires that the experiment be rerun, and it never can be (with all independent sources of variability the same).

2. OK so we can all guess why a party loses an election. You have given your guess (the nefarious libdems and the foolhardy jocks). That's an interesting idea.

3. OK, here is an alternative take on why Corbyn lost and why I think he will lose again (and again). There are several issues (note I am not going to bother listing all the crap about the IRA etc cited by 'used to vote labour when they backed the white man' or 'never voted labour and never will' merchants - they are irrelevant - it is only the vote of those willing to listen and change that counts in a swing).

(i) Corbyn's policy is to renationalise all the industries sold off under Thatcher. Perhaps (I am being ironic here...) people don't fancy going back to the days when it took months to get a phoneline connected, where the only place to buy a gas cooker was the 'gas showroom', and where we were grossly overcharged for shitty services in a world where only one complany had a monopoly of supply in each sector. And the policy has not been costed: 'the enormous tax revenue' from soaking the rich and Industry convinces nobody.

(ii) Corbyn is a tacit Brexit supporter. Or, let's be precise, he is not a remain champion. In this regard, he is like Theresa May (the elected prime minister). However it is not a neutral issue between the rivals here. He wants a Brexit that does not fit the needs of those who want to pull up the immigration drawbridge, and he wants to do the generally impossible - completely renegociate the deal. Those positions don't please leavers or remainers. But worse... there is basically no logic, reason or clarity in his position, and he is at odds with his own MPs over what to do. Why should a remainer vote for that? Or a leaver? I think May has ploughed a particular furrow she chose to inherit. She thinks her hands are tied. Corbyn has no reason to tie himself to the absurd Brexit referendum or its result. Yet he does. He consequently appears foolish, weak, and without credibility. Putting him in charge of Brexit appears to many to be the political equivalent of putting Roy Keane in charge of the Albion (minus the onscenity - nobody ever said Corbyn is a pottymouth).

(ii) Corbyn has made his dotty former mistress a leading cabinet member. I don't really need to expand on that.

(iii) Corbyn has presided over a purge of his party. Allowing the delection of one sitting MP for being insufficiently momentumy, let alone several and goodness knows how many councillors, is stupid. Those of us old enough to recall 'no compromise with the electorate' are cringing. The wider electorate no more want that - MPs they voted for being replaced after an election by some momentumy carpetbagger - than they want a return of the Black and White Minstrel Show.

(iv) Politics is about a lot of things. The rate limiting step at the national level is the ability to win a general election. Without a win then you remain in opposition (or... the garden shed, as we with a nice house might say). Labour should be 20% or more ahead in the polls. It isn't and, under Corbyn, it never will be. Even the fat fraud Boris would beat Corbyn in a general election. I know it, you must know it. What we want to happen, hope will happen, and think will happen are one and the same only if we are content to embrace delusion.

(v) Don't misunderstand. I am enjoying none of this. And Milliband was certainly not 'the future' in my book. Going back to the Social Democrats of the 80s, that was mostly another narcissist (Dr David Owen) getting too big for his pompous boots. The split wasn't a national movement (except for the Liberals, who correctly spotted an opportunity - something to nurture and later to eat). A mate of mine's dad was deputy ambassador somewhere in Europe when Owen was Foreign minister under Labour, He told me Owen was a total joke - disorganized, badly informed and arrogant (and my mate's dad was a lifelong old labour man). It was Tony Blair who sorted out the 'loony left' after some excellent work from Kinnock. The old labour equivalents of Corbyn just sat on the back benches, not compromising with the electorate (or the labour party) when the social democrats formed. The total and utter frauds. Corbyn was one of them. He will do the same again (this time from the front bench). My point here is simply to emphasize that any rebellion in labour now would be a far cry from the gang of four. Last time the party infrastructure was set up so someone (it was Blaire) could get in and change things. That is no longer possible (thanks to Milliband et al) and Corbyn is safe forever. So a split is the only solution. Painful though it may be.

(vi). Back to your post, I wonder how you find it so easy to be so optimistic. You seemed to have lost all interest in party politics when I spoke to you way back when. If it is just a personal thing, sure why not? But you have suggested or implied that all the momentum (sic) is now with Corbyn's Labour, and I don't understand where you get this from.....Hearing a load of your fans going 'yeah!' when you mock May and praise Corbyn at one of your gigs is not the best way to feel the pulse of the nation I suspect. Labour will win a few more showcase seats (like Canterbury - as an ex University of Kent student you must have smiled when you saw that), but they will not win a general election under Corbyn. This is despite the obvious disdain middle of the road types like me have for childish right wing abuse and lies from prancing ninnies and other 'tory till I die' twats who villify Corbyn. He is not a baby-eating Dalek. But...he is.. not very good..

I know you have campaigned for the good throughout your life. I have seen you live several times. I have numerous of your CDs. I bought your autobiography when it came out, and smiled as I read it. However, your analysis is wrong. Labour lost the last election because it had insufficiently convincing policies and leaders. Nothing has changed. I want a decent left of centre party to vote for. Right now labour isn't it. Worse, the cock up engineered by foolish labour MPs has made it impossible to dislodge Corbyn because the party membership (which, though massive in relative terms, is tiny in real terms - less than 1/50th of the electorate) completely holds sway in the college. Thanks to Milliband, and other wet liberals, wanting to patronize the left.....

All very sad. I'm pleased you are jubilant about the future under Corbyn, and I dislike pouring cold water on the embers of socialist hope, but....<sigh>

All the best from windy Faversham. Or is that just me?

 

[clapham_gull]

Let me stop you there.

1. Nobody can ever prove why a party loses a general election. Proof requires that the experiment be rerun, and it never can be (with all independent sources of variability the same).

2. OK so we can all guess why a party loses an election. You have given your guess (the nefarious libdems and the foolhardy jocks). That's an interesting idea.

3. OK, here is an alternative take on why Corbyn lost and why I think he will lose again (and again). There are several issues (note I am not going to bother listing all the crap about the IRA etc cited by 'used to vote labour when they backed the white man' or 'never voted labour and never will' merchants - they are irrelevant - it is only the vote of those willing to listen and change that counts in a swing).

(i) Corbyn's policy is to renationalise all the industries sold off under Thatcher. Perhaps (I am being ironic here...) people don't fancy going back to the days when it took months to get a phoneline connected, where the only place to buy a gas cooker was the 'gas showroom', and where we were grossly overcharged for shitty services in a world where only one complany had a monopoly of supply in each sector. And the policy has not been costed: 'the enormous tax revenue' from soaking the rich and Industry convinces nobody.

(ii) Corbyn is a tacit Brexit supporter. Or, let's be precise, he is not a remain champion. In this regard, he is like Theresa May (the elected prime minister). However it is not a neutral issue between the rivals here. He wants a Brexit that does not fit the needs of those who want to pull up the immigration drawbridge, and he wants to do the generally impossible - completely renegociate the deal. Those positions don't please leavers or remainers. But worse... there is basically no logic, reason or clarity in his position, and he is at odds with his own MPs over what to do. Why should a remainer vote for that? Or a leaver? I think May has ploughed a particular furrow she chose to inherit. She thinks her hands are tied. Corbyn has no reason to tie himself to the absurd Brexit referendum or its result. Yet he does. He consequently appears foolish, weak, and without credibility. Putting him in charge of Brexit appears to many to be the political equivalent of putting Roy Keane in charge of the Albion (minus the onscenity - nobody ever said Corbyn is a pottymouth).

(ii) Corbyn has made his dotty former mistress a leading cabinet member. I don't really need to expand on that.

(iii) Corbyn has presided over a purge of his party. Allowing the delection of one sitting MP for being insufficiently momentumy, let alone several and goodness knows how many councillors, is stupid. Those of us old enough to recall 'no compromise with the electorate' are cringing. The wider electorate no more want that - MPs they voted for being replaced after an election by some momentumy carpetbagger - than they want a return of the Black and White Minstrel Show.

(iv) Politics is about a lot of things. The rate limiting step at the national level is the ability to win a general election. Without a win then you remain in opposition (or... the garden shed, as we with a nice house might say). Labour should be 20% or more ahead in the polls. It isn't and, under Corbyn, it never will be. Even the fat fraud Boris would beat Corbyn in a general election. I know it, you must know it. What we want to happen, hope will happen, and think will happen are one and the same only if we are content to embrace delusion.

(v) Don't misunderstand. I am enjoying none of this. And Milliband was certainly not 'the future' in my book. Going back to the Social Democrats of the 80s, that was mostly another narcissist (Dr David Owen) getting too big for his pompous boots. The split wasn't a national movement (except for the Liberals, who correctly spotted an opportunity - something to nurture and later to eat). A mate of mine's dad was deputy ambassador somewhere in Europe when Owen was Foreign minister under Labour, He told me Owen was a total joke - disorganized, badly informed and arrogant (and my mate's dad was a lifelong old labour man). It was Tony Blair who sorted out the 'loony left' after some excellent work from Kinnock. The old labour equivalents of Corbyn just sat on the back benches, not compromising with the electorate (or the labour party) when the social democrats formed. The total and utter frauds. Corbyn was one of them. He will do the same again (this time from the front bench). My point here is simply to emphasize that any rebellion in labour now would be a far cry from the gang of four. Last time the party infrastructure was set up so someone (it was Blaire) could get in and change things. That is no longer possible (thanks to Milliband et al) and Corbyn is safe forever. So a split is the only solution. Painful though it may be.

(vi). Back to your post, I wonder how you find it so easy to be so optimistic. You seemed to have lost all interest in party politics when I spoke to you way back when. If it is just a personal thing, sure why not? But you have suggested or implied that all the momentum (sic) is now with Corbyn's Labour, and I don't understand where you get this from.....Hearing a load of your fans going 'yeah!' when you mock May and praise Corbyn at one of your gigs is not the best way to feel the pulse of the nation I suspect. Labour will win a few more showcase seats (like Canterbury - as an ex University of Kent student you must have smiled when you saw that), but they will not win a general election under Corbyn. This is despite the obvious disdain middle of the road types like me have for childish right wing abuse and lies from prancing ninnies and other 'tory till I die' twats who villify Corbyn. He is not a baby-eating Dalek. But...he is.. not very good..

I know you have campaigned for the good throughout your life. I have seen you live several times. I have numerous of your CDs. I bought your autobiography when it came out, and smiled as I read it. However, your analysis is wrong. Labour lost the last election because it had insufficiently convincing policies and leaders. Nothing has changed. I want a decent left of centre party to vote for. Right now labour isn't it. Worse, the cock up engineered by foolish labour MPs has made it impossible to dislodge Corbyn because the party membership (which, though massive in relative terms, is tiny in real terms - less than 1/50th of the electorate) completely holds sway in the college. Thanks to Milliband, and other wet liberals, wanting to patronize the left.....

All very sad. I'm pleased you are jubilant about the future under Corbyn, and I dislike pouring cold water on the embers of socialist hope, but....<sigh>

All the best from windy Faversham. Or is that just me?

Not just you, one more here.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[seagulls4ever]

He got off lightly on that last point last time, for example, it was fully admitted afterwards that he could not have scraped all student loans. The ploy that worked was to lie about that, thus gaining extra graduate and undergraduate votes.

You've talked some bollocks in this thread, but I've got to call this one out, because it's pretty easy to do so.

What lie? That was never the policy. Either it's you who's lying, or you're misinformed. 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. It was always an ambition, and it still is. The policy hasn't changed. Where was it fully admitted afterwards that all student loans could not have been be wiped off? This is one of those things where if a lie is repeated often enough, people assume it to be true.

Scraping pre-existing student debt was never a policy (hence why it never appeared in the manifesto). Labour (or Corbyn) NEVER promised to cancel existing student debt. The only thing in their manifesto was to scrap tuition fees. Labour's position was widely misrepresented across the media, particularly after the GE. There is a record of me on NSC saying before the election that there is no policy or commitment to scrap existing student debt:

Incorrect, he isn't writing off debt for those who already owe tuition fees.

Your original post on tuition fees was factually incorrect as well. It isn't a quarter of the budget, which is obviously a great deal more substantial than 4x10bn. It'a 700bn+

It's interesting how we are told individual debt is bad and should be avoided, yet we're willing to start people off in life with 50k of debt, that they start paying massive amounts of interest on from their first year at university.

Further, the government has to pay for it anyway. They've just fiddled the books so it's owed to the Student Loans Company so it appears our deficit is less than it actually is.

Corbyn and John McDonnell did say they would find a way to deal with pre-existing student debt. One of the options being considered even now is wiping off pre-existing student debt, especially as new research after the GE suggested it wouldn't be as expensive as previously reported. This correlates with 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. Something else has happened even more recently, though - it's been ruled that student debt must be counted as part of the deficit, increasing the deficit by £12 billion (when the Tories tripled fees, it was also partly a ploy to make the deficit appear less than it was, as a greater value of student loans was taken out to compensate for reduced direct government funding, which are technically owed to the Student Loans Company, rather than the government - this is now changing).

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 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

A Labour shadow minister did make a error by falsely claiming that JC said something which he didn't actually say. This was often picked up by the media, 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.

For a full explanation, see the C4 Fact Check: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/no-corbyn-did-not-pledge-to-abolish-student-debt

They even detail how the shadow minister 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.

[tweet]1082922720923398145[/tweet]

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

JC was a so called conviction politician, trying to disrupt any work by John Smith and Blair. Always true to his anti success beliefs and revelling in the company of the literally murderous Venezualan regime.

Now, at a ripe old old age, he’s abandoned his convictions to try and do absolutely anything to squeeze his way into 10 Downing Street. Lying that he was an unbiased peace campaigner in Ulster ahead of his time and Blair/Mowlem (what an insult to them ... they did it all), and subtly burying his hatred of the EU to try and get Remainers on board the marxist project.

No scrupples

Don't get me wrong. I don't like him. But I really don't think he's on a Trump-style 'stop at nothing' mission to gain personal power (i.e., as prime minister).

He doesn't try to woo the electorate. He is invisible most of the time. On the job, he seems to make up strategy as he goes along. The only consistent feature seems to be his ability to demand the impossible then disengage. He seems hell bent on forcing a general election (that he will certainly lose) for reasons that are unfathomable.

No leader can be as stupid as to believe he can obtain a majority with his manifesto, or believe that having won he can fix Brexit. Does Corbyn really believe that? I don't think so. I think he likes rallies and shouting, then meeting some doe-eyed South American intern during the post-event drinks, and arranging to meet later for a bit of a 'tutorial and mentoring'. The dirty old *******.

If this is all part of an ego driven cunning plan then my vote goes to Baldrick. I recon he's so disconnected with how real power actually works he has no idea how badly he's doing.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

You've talked some bollocks in this thread, but I've got to call this one out, because it's pretty easy to do so.

What lie? That was never the policy. Either it's you who's lying, or you're misinformed. 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. It was always an ambition, and it still is. The policy hasn't changed. Where was it fully admitted afterwards that all student loans could be wiped off? This is one of those things where if a lie is repeated often enough, people assume it to be true.

Scraping pre-existing student debt was never a policy (hence why it never appeared in the manifesto). Labour (or Corbyn) NEVER promised to cancel existing student debt. The only thing in their manifesto was to scrap tuition fees. Labour's position was widely misrepresented across the media, particularly after the GE. There is a record of me on NSC saying before the election that there is no policy or commitment to scrap existing student debt:



Corbyn and John McDonnell did say they would find a way to deal with pre-existing student debt. One of the options being considered even now is wiping off pre-existing student debt, especially as new research after the GE suggested it wouldn't be as expensive as previously reported. This correlates with 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. Something else has happened even more recently, though - it's been ruled that student debt must be counted as part of the deficit, increasing the deficit by £12 billion (when the Tories tripled fees, it was also partly a ploy to make the deficit appear less than it was, as a greater value of student loans was taken out to compensate for reduced direct government funding, which are technically owed to the Student Loans Company, rather than the government - this is now changing).

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 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

A Labour shadow minister did make a error by falsely claiming that JC said something which he didn't actually say. This was often picked up by the media, 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.

For a full explanation, see the C4 Fact Check: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/no-corbyn-did-not-pledge-to-abolish-student-debt

They even detail how the shadow minister was misrepresented:



[tweet]1082922720923398145[/tweet]

Most boring post ever on NSC