£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'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

He said the above...then he said i will deal with it

So lets use the dinner out analogy

I go out with friends when it comes to the bill my mate says, i think i can look at ways to reduce that, maybe pay it off next month when we get paid

Do i think ooooh cool, they are going to get a discount or see if we can pay later

Or do i think yay!! I dont have to pay

Now i am the former...if anyone here is the latter then I don't think we are ever going to agree

And just make it perfectly clear i do not vote labour, i am not a corbyn fan i dont know much about any of his policies i dont know about his budget i have no idea if any of his Mps said anything else

I just don't know how someone can twist the above statement

I am more than happy to join with the calls of 'twat' if someone could point out where exactly he said it. I haven't made a study of the man, i just dont know how that statement can mean anything different

Why would anyone want to lengthen the period to pay it off when at least 50% won't get anywhere near to paying it off? They could well start paying with a longer loan period. It will be written off later in life. Is that an advantage? Corbyn has made the assumption that all students will pay off the debt. They don't.

The higher earners who he wants to tax to the hilt are the ones who pay the most. They could be even more highly taxed by Corbyn leading to greater resentment. Graduates working in coffee shops won't pay a penny but they may start paying later in life with an extended loan period.

Lelloteddy

So because your step-daughter wasn't intelligent enough to do her own research, that's Corbyn's fault?

He literally said it wasn't a pledge or costed, but he wanted to look at ways they could reduce the burden or make it easier for people, but it would have to be costed properly.

It's only twisted by people who have been misrepresenting what he said.

He didn't lie, because he made no such promise. Ffs

This is why Shadow Justice minister Imran Hussain said in a campaign video during the election:
“Just this morning Jeremy Corbyn has announced that the tuition fees will be abolished straight away from September if there’s a Labour government, and that we will bring back immediately EMA and also that every existing student will have all their debt wiped off. That’s fantastic news, isn’t it guys?”

The tories on this thread seem to be somewhat myopic about history, the economy and how successful Tories are with the economy.

Others have posted some very good comments and research and this is a good read:

www.primeeconomics.org/articles/taq30tk04ljnvpyfos059pp0w7gnpe

A couple of other points I'd mention in relation to "wonderful Tory governments":

VAT - only Tories have increased this since 1979 and substantially.

8% when Labour left office in 1979 and immediately doubled to 15% in 1979
increased to 17.5% by Tories in 1991
increased to 20% buy Tories in 2010.

Indirect taxes are regressive as they hit the poorest in society disproportionately more and VAT and Customs account for about 40% of Treasury income

North Sea Oil revenue - squandered by Tories in 80's and spent on:

• welfare as unemployment spiraled to nearly 4m
• fighting an ideological war against the unions
• giving MASSIVE tax cuts to the super wealthy
• fighting the Falklands War which was only fought to keep Thatcher in power (the UK was in massive recession and it looked like she was going to lose the next election)

I'd also mention the huge interest rates of 15% during the 80's

I've already heard that old chestnut about the joke note when Labour left power and I'm just waiting for somebody to mention Brown's gold sale!!!!

Not only did Gordon Brown sell Gold at the bottom of the market but he then invested the money in the Euro just as it was launched which lost us even more money.

You can not trust labour with the economy.

DappleGrey2

Shadow minister isn't Corbyn though, is he?

SoloD

Gordon Brown also would've lifted us out of the recession quicker than "austerity". Every other country that used a stimulus package like Brown's came out of the recession quicker and in a better position.

He also introduced tax credits, which meant many more women could afford to be in work and still raise a family.

Most economists agree now that Labour didn't overspend in govt - the recession was global, mainly started by the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US and the banks here lending to the wrong type of people. It wasn't Labour's fault - you sound really thick when you suggest it is!

As for the gold - yeah, if he'd have waited he could have got more. If I'd have bet on Red Rum in the national I'd have been better off. The point is, it's a gamble. Nobody knew gold was going to shoot up in price, and most governments were getting rid of a lot of their reserves before and after Brown did.

dapple

While I appreciate your point

The whole thread is about how Corbyn said X

He didnt

(I do think some of the MPS on all sides are a bit strange...when you hear what they say, honestly very strange)

Blandings

You appear to forget that both in 1979 and 2010, the Conservative’s inherited from Labour a national emergency, and their early policies trying to get the UK back on its feet, were a direct result of Labour’s ideological mistake, that the UK state can be larger than the private sector supporting it.

You mention oil, that came ashore from the North Sea in 1976, around the time Labour had to call in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to financially bail us out with their now better known strict repayment plans, forcing a government to cut spending.

So as the UK went into 1979, there was the ‘Winter of Discontent’ when the militant UK trade unions took on the Labour government, with pictorial evidence in the link below.

“Before Thatcher Came To Power (1979), The UK Was Literally Covered In Gigantic Piles Of Garbage”

Yet people talk as if the 1970’s pre Thatcher was our FINEST decade;

When UK manufacturing fell from around 30% of our economy to around 20% (when little else to compete with it), as mass strikes were killing UK industry, inflation/interests rates/pay rises around 15% plus, the basic rate of income tax over 32%, the highest income tax rate up to the 80%s, the tax on unearned income e.g. investments, around 96% - and if a company dared made a profit, they paid 50% Corporate Tax.

And so yes as Thatcher attempted policies to solve all the above problems Labour were unable to pre 1979 - our international competitors like Germany and Japan never had - things did get worse for a few years, but the economy/employment grew from the early 1980’s and oil receipts (probably still paying of the IMF) were a small part of the economy back then.

As for VAT rises, as opposed to other taxes killing the growth and incentives to work in the economy, there was a part of the huge Budget Deficit Labour left, called the ‘Structural Deficit’;

UK [[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653 Structural Deficit’

”The structural deficit is basically the current budget deficit, adjusted to strip out the cyclical nature of the economy. You would expect, for example, the budget deficit to narrow when the economy grows after a sluggish period. The structural deficit attempts to exclude the effect of this recovery.”

”In other words, the structural deficit is the bit of the deficit that remains even when the economy is operating at full tilt. Or put another way, it's the underlying deficit that is not directly affected by economic performance.”

BabychamSocialist

In 2001 the UK government had been spending over £400 billion a year for years and the UK annual Budget of tax receipts vs spending was in a SURPLUS, but that spending then grew annually with £30-£40 billion of extra borrowing and so by 2007/8 the spending rose to over £618 billion a year (which may not of included the £220 billion of Private Finance Imitative (PFI) spending debt as went directly onto the balance sheets of school, hospitals etc) – mainly supported by both the tax rises on the masses, plus the ‘windfall’ tax proceeds of increased bank lending and speculation, from a 1997 onward deregulated UK banking system encouraging it.

And when in 2008 that financial bubble burst and those taxes receipts based on increased lending/borrowing disappeared as fast as they arrived, with the reduced tax effects of the severe recession but all the NEW ‘fixed costs’ of the State baked into government spending, all of a sudden in 2010 the then Labour Chancellor Darling was forecasting to spend over £167 billion more than we earned as a country (when in 2001 we were in surplus), with tax rises (and spending cuts) to be announced after the 2010 General Election.

The UK by then had by far the largest annual Budget Deficit in Europe, as a direct result of the UK governments policies from 2001 to 2008, that put us in a very bad fiscal position when the western financial recession LED to an economic recession – so any economist saying that deficit was NOT an overspending Labour governments fault are the “thick” ones.

Re gold, it was at a 20-year low price (on average around $270 an ounce), the UK already had low gold reserves relative to any similar sized economy, and Brown was told by the BoE, every other central bank, and the City, his timing sucked, but he sold and rose to around $1.900 an ounce – and that 20-year gold price low become known as ‘the Brown Bottom’.

Fast forward to today: Corbyn is offering the SAME Labour economic mistakes of the heavily unionised 1970s, and the large State spending, supported by a shrinking private sector mistakes of the 2000s – a lose/lose record for two (periods) in power.

The man got carried away in his spending promises of all things to all men, women and children - and if he and his minions can't admit when he is wrong now, it does not bode well if he gets to be P.M.

Almost beyond belief that people try to defend Labour's record in power as anything other than an utter shambles

And back on topic. I read the NME interview and saw JC on TV. I was left thinking that he had very much given the impression that existing student debt would be reduced. I have a degree in politics so am reasonably competent. I can see why others got this impression too. Even reading it back now gives me the same impression though I know it was a lie. What does 'looling at something' mean then? Utterly disingenuous.

I find it amusing that people tie themselves in knots to defend Corbyn. All politicians lie to get into power - although I genuinely believe Labours tactics are to create huge ground swells of popular support then throw a curve ball that stops them actually getting into power - they don't want to deal with Brexit and they know they can't actually make a lot of their manifesto work). They like throwing bottles from the back. They are a good opposition at the moment, they'd be a shambles in power.

baalam

Im not defending the man, just what was said

If someone had said the labour party had said X then i would have no idea. But in my opinion that sentence cant be misconstrued

Again if someone said corbyn said it in an interview...again woukdnt have a clue

Of course it wasn't never going to happen, only the enthusiasm of youth could believe that.

TheaSaurass well done. You've completed the trio - we've had the note, GB's gold sale and now the IMF point. Every Tory stalwarts bullshxt bingo!

I've commented about the IMF point before on a previous thread in some detail but I'll give a quick summary on this.

• when Labour came to power in 1974, the Conservative government led by Heath had lost complete control of the money supply and industrial relations were at a real low point (I'm sure you'll blame Labour for this even though not all union members are Labour supporters - they weren't then and they certainly aren't now)

• there was a global oil crisis which impacted the UK quite heavily and resulted in a recession starting in 1973. This also led to double digit inflation

• when Labour took power in 1974, Healey tackled the oil crisis in a slightly different way to some other major economies

• relations between the Treasury and the Labour Government were terrible with the Treasury actively working against the Government.

• Healey was misled by the Treasury on how bad the country finances were. He was given inaccurate and misleading data consistently by the Treasury and this was used for the basis of the need to go to the IMF for the 3.9bn loan. The Treasury over-estimated the PSBR requirements as £10.5bn when in face, they were only $8.5bn. With the exchange rate in 1976, this is an error of £5.2bn - a massive 100% error rate!!! And way more than the $3.9bn IMF loan requested.

• In the end Healey didnt use anywhere near the requested loan and by 1978 the economy had turned around (even though Thatcher was credited with the recovery - she inherited very healthy public finances in 1979 but still massively increased unemployment and took us into another recession).

• Healey as Chancellor is the one who turned the country round - not Thatcher. He found more savings in 1 year than George Osborne found in 9 years.

PS Read some of the data around economics and successive governments and try and put your staunch tory views to one side and look objectively at the data.

PPS No mention of Black Wednesday there?

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/finally-the-overspending-_b_7591088.html

I guess the IMF, IFS and OECD don't know what they're talking about then?

Blandings

Firstly we both agree that the 1970’s were a disaster pre 1979 before Thatcher came to power, and much of the problems were caused by the previous governments, Treasury, (whoever) belief that throwing money as a weak economy and the resulting inflation was a price worth taking - but I would suggest the history books wasn’t aware the that Labour’s Healy passed to Thatcher a low inflation, subdued militant trade unions no longer pushing up wages/inflation (or losing millions of working days lost contributing to stagnant growth), non penal taxes, propping up inefficient State industries had stopped, some form of Supply Side economic was in place etc etc etc.

The UK was all economically peachy before those Neo Liberal buggers got hold of it, right?

No doubt Thatcher made mistakes in those early years trying to bring prices/inflation down so the UK could again start to compete with the likes of Germany and Japan, but similar to 2010, there was no text book to both get the dire finances under control AND reflate the UK economy at the same time – especially when the economy had seen rises in taxes, and needed to come down (over time).

As to Black Wednesday around 1992, caused during a Conservative administration, when the Pound, together with the Italian Lire crashed out of the European Rate Mechanism that we had JOINED to try bring down inflation - when German unification increased their rates and the Pound the Pound had been set at a too high of a rate to the German Deutsche Mark - I don’t see your point unless a currency fall, especially if as memory serves under Brown the fall in our currency e.g. from up around $2.10 pre crash to around a $1.37 level after, was far greater than in 1992.

Oh and was it the UK Treasury again up to early 2010 giving the then dodgy economic/debt predictions, as Osborne founded the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) in 2010 to make sure it doesn't happen again - and a pound to a penny it will be one of the FIRST up against the wall, when Labour get back in.

BabychamSocialist

Re your ”I guess the IMF, IFS and OECD don't know what they're talking about then?”

A sweeping statement, and I did not say that, but the question is how is the author of that article USING the data – as isn’t it rather strange that there isn’t a single £ sign in the article when talking about overspending – or in the context for the other to party to build upon, any mention of the state and structure of the economy Labour inherited, and then what they left?

I am no economist, but can I hazard a guess that all those decimals in the article are say percentages of GDP, so lets have a quick look at what GDP consists of;

Gross Domestic Product – Basic Definition.
”Private Consumption/Spending + Government Spending + Business capital Spending + Net Exports (Exports – Imports).”

From what I said earlier, regarding a 2001 to 2008/10 huge jump in both deregulated Bank Lending and Government Spending (in annual cash terms) – and easy, cheap money for citizens & businesses, while the UK lost 2 million manufacturing jobs and gained 1 million Public Sector jobs still consuming – so how can anyone realistically MEASURE the extend of Labour’s spending using GDP as a yard stick, when Labour’s policies were ‘creating’ their own (unsustainable) GDP growth?

Hence when the credit ‘bubble’ burst in 2008, and the UK had one of the worst recessions in Europe, our GDP/output fell close to 6% in

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but surely a Chancellor justifying the £30-£40 billion a year increases of annual UK government borrowing in cash terms from 2001 (when the UK had been in a cash annual Budget Surplus) based on a GDP being ‘created’ by government policies, were almost the accounting practices of some South American Banana Republic?