£100BN Labour lied to get the students vote.

[Whodoesthis17]

I read the news today and saw that Labour admitted they never costed this out, and don't know where the money will be found, so won't be doing this if elected. Hang on wasn't this the reason the young voted for them.

So Corbyn LIED.

I rest my case.

Well that was handy for you two

twofingerstoEverything

‘Positive campaigning’ by repeating the spending mistakes a party made just several years ago, that gave the UK the worst cash budget deficit in Europe by far – and blaming the Conservatives for their policies trying to fix it – when Labour didn’t have the electoral gonads to even try and fix what they had done?

Or did I miss in their 2010 manifesto any plan, as all I see is ‘rabbits in headlines’ not even acknowledging the spending problems they created.

People should judge a party on what they inherit, and what they leave - especially if money to spend didn’t have to shape their policies – and on that measurement alone, the Conservative record is light years better than Labours on what they left in 1979 and 2010, near national disasters.

The fact is while Labour’s country economic model is to grow the State larger than their hated ‘profit generating’ Private Sector that supports it (using budget deficit and national debt to make up the difference) – they will NEVER leave the country in a better shape than

Maybe you can tell me which decade in the last century, Labour left a UK economy and jobs in better shape than they inherited it?

Oh

On the £1 billion for NI infrastructure for DUP votes Corbyn would have needed to form a government, what was Labour’s ££deal with the SNP, when Labour’s official policy in Scotland was unionist, and a week BEFORE the election, Corbyn pledged to Sturgeon that he would reopen ‘Indy2’ talks AFTER the election – while Labour’s leader in Scotland Ms Dugdale was promising tax raids on the www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-plots-tax-raid-on-london-and-south-east-says-party-chief-a3555371.htmlSouth to spend in Scotland?

I thought on ‘cutting tuition fees for UK and EU students’ in Labour’s manifesto, was an attempt to harmonise tuition fees between Scotland and England, was I wrong, or tell me why a Labour Party campaigning to leave the EU, would include EU students?

And on a Scottish government that spends over £60 billion a year, has Sturgeon yet offered detail on her manifesto promise where £118billion extra Scottish spending would be ‘freed up’ from somewhere?

So the DUP deal was at a far cheaper cost to the UK taxpayer, where a pro Sinn Fein UK Labour leader had to buy their support, or the SNP, when in 2015 Salmond said they wanted ‘billions’ of extra budget spending and well over £100 bil from extra government borrowing.

Up 105% since when? That statement is meaningless without a parameter.
Council tax has not doubled across the country?! Band D is the benchmark band for Council tax, if that had gone up so would the other bands.
And NEWSFLASH council tax funds local services, so unless you don't have a waste collection, never use or want to use the police force then yes - you do use the services that taxes pay for
And many many people owning band D or above properties have had tax relief in one form or another.

Ok I'm back with a little research - take it back they doubled between 1997-2010 (the only timeframe you care about, let's face it) but in real terms that was up between 40% and 68%.
And here's an interesting chart of the local councils that increased the most & the least
Source fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.org/files/styles/large/public/council_tax_highlow.jpg?itok=uZNizfCv

TheCrowFromBelow

I think the following gives a better regional idea;

Council Tax increases Band D from 1997/8 to 2009/10

North East…….........£782 to £1,479 an increase of 89%
North West…...........£798 to £1,441 an increase of 81%
East Midlands…......£705 to £1,454 an increase of 106%
West Midlands….....£701 to £1,388 an increase of 98%
Yorks/Humber……...£710 to £1,380 an increase of 99%
London………….......…£651 to £1,308 an increase of 101%
East of England…...£639 to £1,450 an increase of 127%

But interestingly, on the subject of education, when you overlay the current (pre revision) per pupil schools budgets, those parents paying more Council Tax, get less per child for their schools - your ideological 'redistributed' tax squids at work, folks.

But thats another last Labour administration story.

P.S. If interested;

Scotland…………£783 to £1149 an increase of 47%
Wales...............£495 to£1,220 an increase of 146%

Thea- as ever you've missed the point of my chart because it doesn't fit your narrative.
I wasn't looking regionally, I was looking at who led the councils.

Let me explain my point more simply:
The Labour administration allowed councils to make the increases. The most punishing increases were made at a local level by Tory run councils.

All bands have gone up, not just D. So the people who you think use public services (although we all use the services that council tax pays for) are paying more as well.

Surrey council (Con.) who are planning on a 15% increase next year.

The way education is funded is completely separate from council tax, but yes I agree we do need more funding in education across the board.

However I also feel two is correct and I may as well be shouting all of this into a windsock.

I'm listening crow

I got the point...its very rare i get any points so just felt i should say it

any govt, whatever colour, will be writing off current student debt - the predicted levels of non-payment make it academic whether fees are cancelled.
the advantage of cancelling is that the interest on the debt won't be the unjustifiable, retrospective, 6.1% with nothing stopping even more onerous changes in the future.

TheCrowFromBelow

Please excuse me, I thought my regional Council Tax illustration also carried on the theme to those who feel the need to mention the DUP’s billion on every debate, as the Labour coalition, confidence and supply, whatever deal with the SNP – and Labour Scotlands leader Dugdale assumption from HQ mentioned above, that their ‘bung’ would also include the redistribution of wealth from the soft south - was quite relevant.

On tuition fees, my opinion for what its worth, is that if 40-50% of our youth want to go to uni, possibly twice that of Germany, it is not affordable for all tuition fees to be paid for by the taxpayer, and also expect universities will get the funding their require.

Now due to the UK skills gap, and the need to reduce economic migration to fill those gaps, I would however support those doing maths, engineering, sciences and whatever other degrees needed to grow our economy, being paid for by the state/taxpayers.

To my mind there are too many students who only just scrapped through secondary education, or can’t add up without using their toes, who decides to go to uni for a 3-year larf, so choses some ‘ology course that at the end often means little to the employer (and future prospects, wage increases), but the UK taxpayer gets saddled with funded it.

‘Selective’ tuition funding, OMG, what have I said?

but that wasn't the point I was making Thea.
So yet again you've ignored my point to spout more tenuously linked propaganda.
Council tax rises by Tory councils during the Blair administration has Fuck All to do with the DUPs money, and zero to do with any party's proposals to scrap tuition fees.
But don't let that get in the way of your "intellectual" posts

TheCrowFromBelow

It was poster ‘twofingers’ who had mentioned the DUP at the bottom of the previous page, and LapDance and I was posting about Council Tax that on average in England had gone up 105% for someone on a relatively small Band D property – and was a general comment on the growth of government under Labour, including funding it at the local level.

All that Labour marching about how unfair the Poll Tax was, and STILL mentioned by the SNP at every election, only for Labour to hike up Council Tax over 100% (for double the services?) – without a peep, never mind an organised protest.

Your communications to me began with the following comments;

“And Thesaurass your username is grim and your posts are impossible to read.”

“Everyone receives government help, or do you not drive on our roads, use surgeons who trained at University, or use the UKs infrastructure in anyway? Quite revealing, that comment.”

When talking about the need to for tax cut help during a great recession, from a government that had hiked taxes so much in the good times, how ‘intellectual’ was that?

We got off on the wrong foot, we should probably keep it that way, we could have some fun with you losing it and then getting personal.

Did anyone see the Andrew Marr show on Sunday - as I'm sure I heard him say that paying off Student Tuition fees were more of a Labour 'aspiration' than a manifesto promise - to be looked at when the country could afford it.

With the current UK finances, now with a £47 billion annual government budget deficit/overspend and £1.9 trillion of National Debt, BEFORE McDonnell's other huge manifesto 'aspirations' - I wonder when exactly WHICH future decade, that now might be?

So now Corbyn has had to go on record and say he can't do the Student debt because it would cost too much, just what was said 2 weeks ago.

And if he HAD to go on record and say it wasn't true, doesn't that imply the way he said it lead to the Students thinking he was going to do it. You can't say student are stupid and misunderstood, because they are some of the brightest people in the country on paper.

You've got to wonder why he didn't feel the need to urgently point this out before the election. If he'd got to power there would have been a lot of students who would mistrust labour now as much as the 2010 lot hate the LibDems

Sadly for the Corbynites, this is 100% true.

Corbyn is full of shit, and will stop at nothing to be leader. Though it's never gonna happen!!!

Let's face it, the man is deluded, he still thinks he won the election PMSL!

Except what he said (and you know this) was that they would end tuition fees and it would be an AIM to abolish the existing debt.

He even says in the interview it's just an aim and it would need to be costed.

You know full well that he phrased it in the most misleading possible wording

If it wasn't misleading, and I believe deliberately so, there would be no need to correct it would there.

Now we're after the election and he didn't win, and it is apparent that it was the standard uncosted, unfunded spending commitment, he's worried about credibility so is correcting it.

Just appalling

DSD voted on that pledge. It's a real wake up call for her about the harsh realities of pre election spin.

So, the bill comes for dinner. I said, "I'll deal with it". By which I meant I was going to walk off & leave the other half to pay the lot.

Suckers!

It now comes out on of the Shadow government made a video saying isn't it great we are going to get rid of all the debt, do you think seeing as he is in the know, maybe he was TOLD it was happening.

I agree with babycham

I posted his quote upthread so i cant be bothered to do it again

But if you make a point of stirring up a section of people, by getting them talking about something, and they all go out and vote for you because you did this. and then you say oh you misunderstood what we meant, and have to go on record and tell people oh you go it wrong we were never going to do that, isn't that letting people believe something to further your own aims, and lying by omission.
If you see the pole only about 20% of people believed he wasn't going to "DEAL WITH IT" meaning to cut loads of the cost off it, yet he is now saying he never intended to as it's too expensive?