Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Make your own judgement: http://www.nme.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-will-deal-already-burdened-student-debt-2082478
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Make your own judgement: http://www.nme.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-will-deal-already-burdened-student-debt-2082478
I read it and as far as I can see the relevant quotes are
"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.”
This is in the same interview / discussion so its reasonable to say that "I will deal with it" is "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"
reporting at the time - still saying he will look into it:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...n/news/86362/jeremy-corbyn-labour-could-write
This then became Corbyn's promises to wipe out Student debt is unaffordable.
"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.”
This is in the same interview / discussion so its reasonable to say that "I will deal with it" is "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"
reporting at the time - still saying he will look into it:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...n/news/86362/jeremy-corbyn-labour-could-write
This then became Corbyn's promises to wipe out Student debt is unaffordable.
milo
Jack L. Jones
That's all show and no substance at this stage.
The Australians have made it clear that concluding a trade deal with the EU is their priority and must come first. They have also warned us against further controls on immigration, this is something that we will see come up repeatedly in trade negotiations.
We have also got a taster of the regulatory differences between us and the US this week, that is the tip of the iceberg and all of these are a barrier to a deal. Here's a list of EU regs that the US wanted us to get rid of us part of the TTIP. Good luck working through those quickly and getting to the other side without wiping out British agriculture
The crux of the matter is that in international trade there are regulatory leaders and followers. On our own, we are too small to set the agenda. There are three players here the EU, US and China. We effectively have a choice between the EU and US. Not choosing the one that we are already aligned with, is by far our largest trading partner, we share a land border with and is the largest free trading block in the world would be madness.
No significant progress is going to be made on any trade deals until we have made this decision and our position is settled. This makes them at least ten years away.
milo
Jack L. Jones
This is a bit of (terrifying) fun
An Insider's Guide to Tory In-Fighting
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/wj83zz/an-insiders-guide-to-tory-in-fighting
An Insider's Guide to Tory In-Fighting
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/wj83zz/an-insiders-guide-to-tory-in-fighting
Nice to know it's not just us in the UK that think REACH is ridiculous.
And I don't see why the US shouldn't be allowed to call brick whisky "whisky" - the Irish have been doing it for years and all they ever did was stick an "e" in the name. If whisky is as young as three years does less make a difference?
What that list really shows is what a protectionist state the EU really is. When the curtain finally falls, the EU will be in a terrible position with regard to international trade and we'll be far better off out of it when it does.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Perhaps it would hold more gravitas if the government had held a study looking into the impact of mass immigration, but as they were chasing quick votes they did not care.(for every 1000 immigrants 100 will vote and 95 will vote Labour) that is why we have ended up where we are.
milo
Jack L. Jones
They'd be no barrier for them selling it in the UK as alcohol spirit with artificial flavours and colouring.
The truth is, what you are proposing is not going to happen. We cannot afford to cut ourselves off from trading with the EU which means aligning ourselves with them going forward.
Hard Brexiteers have had a year to make the case for us becoming a buccaneering free trader on the International waves but we've had nothing but rhetoric and sound bites. I think that they had a window and missed it.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I agree. We know that the report will show that migrants make a net contribution to the economy, are better educated and skilled than UK employees, are needed by countless sectors, have no impact on unemployment and minimal impact on wages.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Could not agree more and the are absolutely no down sides and all those that are are knuckle dragging racist scum who we should get rid of from our utopia.
Now care to hold hands with me as we skip through a meadow of wild flowers, you can even wear a white dress if you want.
* This post may or may not be interpreted as sarcastic.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
I agree with the first half, but not the second
Just about every European I've met here has been pleasant, hard working and a real contributor to society.
However big influxes of unskilled workers do undercut the native workforce, or at the very least give an excuse for governments to not invest in skills development in deindustrialised areas. The numbers do also have social consequences too - go an see the tensions in non-metropolitan areas like Lincolnshire or Nottinghamshire.
Also continuously increasing the population to fatten the pensions of the baby boomers is just an irresponsible ponzi scheme. The immigration level should be set at that which gives us a slight annual reduction in overall population.
I'm not suggesting we shut off trade with the EU, only that we restrict our compliance with their rules to the products and services we want to sell to them - just like we do with any other nation or market we sell to.
For example, why should the NHS conform to the Working Time Directive? Or to the rules on agency employment? Why should products painted in the UK to become a part of a building in the UK conform to the Solvent Emissions Directive?
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...onfirms-uk-will-seek-brexit-transitional-deal
Britain’s relationship with the EU may look similar to its current one for up to three years after Brexit, with free movement, access to the single market and an inability to strike trade deals with other countries, Philip Hammond has said.
The chancellor confirmed multiple reports over the past week that the cabinet had agreed to seek a transitional period of about three years, ending before the next election, which is due in 2022.
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...growth-forecasts-uk-us-economy-trump-tax-cuts
The International Monetary Fund has cut its growth forecast for the UK economy this year after a weak performance in the first three months of 2017.
In its first downgrade for the UK since the EU referendum in June last year, the IMF said it expected the British economy to expand by 1.7% this year, 0.3 points lower than when it last made predictions in April.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I'm talking about what the report will find, not proposing some utopia.
That is not to say that immigration hasn't caused problems in some areas but I think that is largely down to government policy and could be addressed without leaving the EU.
milo
Jack L. Jones
It seems ridiculous to me to blame immigrants for the poor standard of British education. I absolutely agree that the government should put more money into education and look to adopt approaches taken in better educated countries. This is a long term policy though and would take 20 years to see through.
I agree also that the impact in some areas has been greater than others. This is in part again down to how government has chosen to spend money. I have spent a fair amount of time in Lincolnshire. Agriculture there is heavily reliant on seasonal migrant labour, it is hard to see a different solution to that in the short term but communities should be funded appropriately to support this.
I disagree that there should be a policy to reduce population size. That sounds a little Maoist to me. I think that people should be free to move where there are jobs, that was the position within the EU but Britain didn't implement the rules properly.
A lot of the problems that we see here are down to the inequality of British society. I want a government that seeks to grow the economy and share the proceeds of that growth more evenly. If the whole country had felt the benefit of past growth (and the growth that came as a result of EU migration) I do not believe that we'd be where we are now.
milo
Jack L. Jones
milo
Jack L. Jones
I understand that. It would make maintaining current levels of access to the single market impossible.
The economy would take a hit, people's lives would be worse and their incomes less secure. I do not think that is what people voted Brexit for.
I get that you favour unfettered capitalism and think that the market will find a level given time but you have to acknowledge that this is a minority view and is not a position that could win a popular vote in this country at the moment.
milo
Jack L. Jones
This one of the best articles that I have read on Brexit
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/opinion/dunkirk-christopher-nolan-brexit.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/opinion/dunkirk-christopher-nolan-brexit.html
Any increased selling costs could be comfortably mitigated with savings from EU contributions.
This is a bit old but sums things up fairly well. It's also commissioned and published by the Woodford Fund, an organisation I currently trust with more money than I could ever hope to gain or lose from Brexit, so I put a lot of trust in anything they consider sound:
https://woodfordfunds.com/economic-impact-brexit-report/