Politics, politics, politics

[Parklaner81]

We believe in free education, we believe we can fund it, we believe it is beneficial for the economy / society - lets make it a policy.

I'd have a far easier time accepting that if it were presented in a halfway sensible and forward looking manner, rather than promising massive retrospective debt write offs going back years, in a situation where a prudent government is already struggling/failing to control it's deficit, and the national debt continues to rise.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I'd have a far easier time accepting that if it were presented in a halfway sensible and forward looking manner, rather than promising massive retrospective debt write offs going back years, in a situation where a prudent government is already struggling/failing to control it's deficit, and the national debt continues to rise.

you mean like here http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017/towards-a-national-education-service?

and the NME article Gutter boy quotes says

"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.”

Read more at http://www.nme.com/news/jeremy-corb...ened-student-debt-2082478#x5kL0Pj9WkT78BQX.99


I do not see "promising massive retrospective debt write offs going back years" is there any other source?

 

[Parklaner81]

"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 will deal with it.”


I do not see "promising massive retrospective debt write offs going back years" is there any other source?

I guess that comes down to how you interpret Corbyn's stated intentions.

Do you seriously believe, for example, that his 'solution' will involve extending the repayment period, given that (I think I'm right in saying) there's currently a system in place where the debt is written off in full at the end of the current repayment period?

 

[r-u-s-x]

I guess that comes down to how you interpret Corbyn's stated intentions. Do you seriously believe, for example, that his 'solution' will involve extending the repayment period, given that (I think I'm right in saying) there's currently a system in place where the debt is written off in full at the end of the current repayment period? In other words, that he intends to 'ameliorate' the burden by extending it's life?

I am not interpreting his throw away comment in an interview with a Music magazine to mean any concrete policy detail and I think its a little one eyed to do this. He has not said he will write off the previous debt - there is plenty to go after him on no need to make the stretch. GB was even quoting the 70bn writing off cost where he has only suggested reducing the burden.

If he has firmed this up at a later point then fair enough but I have not seen this.

 

[the dza]

A £350m a week for the NHS on the side of the bus commitment. Vote for me, lets wipe all your debts

Right. But that doesn't mean your figures add up to a hill of beans. Your opinions on Labour's spending plans are wrong.

Are Labour now the 3rd party in opposition? Wrong again.

Oh you revised that down, it was just going to be a 150/170 seat majority for the Tories wasn't it? Wrong again.

Stop being so matter of fact when you are just putting out an opinion that is likely wide of the mark. Everyone on this thread has been wrong about things, but I don't think anyone else writes in such absolute certainty as you do, considering how often you are completely wrong.

 

[Parklaner81]

I am not interpreting his throw away comment in an interview with a Music magazine to mean any concrete policy detail and I think its a little one eyed to do this. He has not said he will write off the previous debt - there is plenty to go after him on no need to make the stretch. GB was even quoting the 70bn writing off cost where he has only suggested reducing the burden.

If he has firmed this up at a later point then fair enough but I have not seen this.

Obviously people, including you & I, will take away different interpretations.

Mine is that even if he hasn't explicitly stated it, what he has done is hinted at some kind of retrospective write-off which to me a) fits with his idealogical beliefs and b) would be difficult to row back from (even assuming he wanted to) should he find himself in a position of power. We've seen how students react to politicians not following through in this area. Ask Nick Clegg about it.

Therefore I personally think it's an entirely reasonable concern to hold.

 

[Gutter Boy]

We believe in free education, we believe we can fund it, we believe it is beneficial for the economy / society - lets make it a policy.

The bigger issue is that it is the de facto nationalisation of universities (financial control by the state, rather than self-sustaining). Universities are one of the greatest success stories of our economy/society on the global picture - they are pretty much the best in the world. Putting them under government control, instead of their current independence, would be a big mistake.

Mind you the Tories are equally trying to marketise them too much (introducing private sector providers and allowing for variation in annual fee increases, not universally by inflation).

The current balance is working well.

 

[r-u-s-x]

The bigger issue is that it is the de facto nationalisation of universities (financial control by the state, rather than self-sustaining). Universities are one of the greatest success stories of our economy/society on the global picture - they are pretty much the best in the world. Putting them under government control, instead of their current independence, would be a big mistake.

Mind you the Tories are equally trying to marketise them too much (introducing private sector providers and allowing for variation in annual fee increases, not universally by inflation).

The current balance is working well.

OK thats an interesting outlook not sure I agree with it.

Do you agree that he never said he would write off all debt in the NME article and the £70bn upfront cost is not Labour policy and is a bit misleading when talking about the cost of Free tuition?

 

[r-u-s-x]

Obviously people, including you & I, will take away different interpretations.

Mine is that even if he hasn't explicitly stated it, what he has done is hinted at some kind of retrospective write-off which to me a) fits with his idealogical beliefs and b) would be difficult to row back from (even assuming he wanted to) should he find himself in a position of power. We've seen how students react to politicians not following through in this area. Ask Nick Clegg about it.

Therefore I personally think it's a perfectly reasonable concern to hold.

Sure you are allowed your view and I am not trying to change your interpretation of that, do you hold all other MPs up to the same standards?

https://fullfact.org/economy/did-george-osborne-promise-eliminate-deficit-year/

 

[Parklaner81]

Sure you are allowed your view and I am not trying to change your interpretation of that, do you hold all other MPs up to the same standards?

I'd certainly like to think I do.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

So there IS a "magic money tree" when it comes to bribes for votes in Parliament. £1Billion for ten MPs, bargain.

The double think of the 'born to rule party' knows no bounds. If it comes to handing out buckets of money to their spiv business mates, or a handout to NI, to stay in power, yep they will shake that tree. However, if it's to provide decent housing for the poor, or decent schools or healthcare than...computer says no

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

that's not a bribe but a policy - its like saying £258bn spent on pensions is a bribe to older people or the NHS spend is a bribe to ill people.

More Tory double think. They regurgitate Daily Mail speaking points subconsciously.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

We believe in free education, we believe we can fund it, we believe it is beneficial for the economy / society - lets make it a policy.

This is typical Tory agitprop. Keep telling the public that decent public education cannot be delivered, tell them that the NHS is inefficient and cannot meet its remit. Keep saying it, keep telling the people that there is no alternative to the Borg, resistance is futile, take the gas, gulp the Kool Aid, believe in neo-liberalism

 

[r-u-s-x]

I'd certainly like to think I do.

Good I know I try to and its at a lower standard than you do, I wont believe a word they promise unless its explicit and written, even then I still take it with a pinch of salt until its in practice ( even the still not convinced). Look at all the manifesto pledges Tories have had to drop etc.

 

[Parklaner81]

Good I know I try to and its at a lower standard than you do, I wont believe a word they promise unless its explicit and written, even then I still take it with a pinch of salt until its in practice ( even the still not convinced). Look at all the manifesto pledges Tories have had to drop etc.

I might have slightly misinterpreted your question - what I meant was, that I like to think that I treat politicians fairly across the board, and judge them all by the same standards. Not so much that I would hold every MP to everything that they ever hinted at. Despite what my posts might suggest, I don't consider myself especially partisan in my politics.

On this matter, though, I quite strongly believe that Corbyn has indicated his intent fairly clearly even if not explicitly, and it's one that he would find very difficult to retract even if he wanted to...which he probably wouldn't.

 

[r-u-s-x]

OK then - I think the fact that he explicitly states he would look to help to reduce the debt burden in one conversation of record means there is loads of wiggle room.

going back to the original statement I would say the manifesto presented free education in a halfway sensible, forward looking manner and there was no promise to massive retrospective debt write offs.

 

[Parklaner81]

OK then - I think the fact that he explicitly states he would look to help to reduce the debt burden in one conversation of record means there is loads of wiggle room.

going back to the original statement I would say the manifesto presented free education in a halfway sensible, forward looking manner and there was no promise to massive retrospective debt write offs.

Undoubtedly there is plenty of wiggle room. But Corbyn strikes me as much more the idealogue than the practical, compromising politician. And that's where a big part of my concern comes in. I'm not accusing him of having made explicit guarantees. But he has, at least in my interpretation (and we're somewhat going round in circles here...) signalled an intent to take fairly drastic action that concerns me.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Undoubtedly there is plenty of wiggle room. But Corbyn strikes me as much more the idealogue than the practical, compromising politician. And that's where a big part of my concern comes in. I'm not accusing him of having made explicit guarantees. But he has, at least in my interpretation (and we're somewhat going round in circles here...) signalled an intent to take fairly drastic action that concerns me.

Can we agree that the manifesto pledge was forward looking and halfway sensible with regards to free education?

 

[Parklaner81]

Can we agree that the manifesto pledge was forward looking and halfway sensible with regards to free education?

I always had far more of an issue with hints at retrospective action, than promises going forward. So in that sense, I find the manifesto pledge the less disagreeable of the two.

I don't agree with the pledge itself though - I find it very far from sensible given the state of the nation's finances. I'd have been far more respectful of a pledge of some kind of measured reduction, or targetted subsidies rather than this typically-Corbyn across the board free-for-all.

 

[r-u-s-x]

you would hope it would go hand in hand with the productivity issue - we have low unemployment (relatively) when comparing with Europe but also low productivity. The second part would be what I would be focusing on but that involves a lot of investment in both infrastructure and training.