Astute
Well-Known Member
You said the opposite to him though. Then agreed with him :wacky:
Oh Jeremy Corbyn (47 Viewers)
- Thread starter torchomatic
- Start date
He is a tosser though, and he does that very well. Singing in front of people giving Hitler salutes is a bit strange. Hitler's government were not exactly fans of free speech. PC those days was being anti communist and anti semitic.
Hurting Europe shouldn't be the aim of Brexit. Neither should hurting ourselves be an option. What is the opportunity? Is that worth the stress and damage to ourselves and Europe?
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Not my memory. I recall him saying that he would 'deal with it'. Not that I'm too worried by this; in fact I'm glad that when he saw the numbers he reversed his position - shows that there is at least some sense of realism there.
skybluegod
Well-Known Member
Where did I say it should be the aim? What are you on?
There are benefits to leaving the EU. But they are never spoken about. Is what HE as In the MP is what I was saying.
Well 52% voted yes that it was worth it which is why it is happening.
skybluegod
Well-Known Member
Again I have already said he is a c**t. Didn’t mean he’s not very good at his job, and that he isn’t very well informed.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
'Deal with it' could mean a number of things. One simple way would be to eliminate all future interest on historical student debt. That would have an impact, but as already alluded to he did not commit to wipe it out.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
No he didn't commit. However he implied, inasmuch that someone might easily have believed from what he said that he would wipe the debt. I don't get the attention this is attracting. Even if he intended to deceive (and I don't believe that he did) he won't be the first or last politician to do so. What has actually happened, Imo, is that he has changed his mind. And as I wrote before, that's good. I still believe he would be a disaster for the country but this shows he's not completely mad. Just 99% mad
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
For reference this is what Corbyn actually said:
“First of all, we want to get rid of student fees altogether, 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.”
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Oopsy, you missed off the end:
“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.”
And you missed off the Imran Hussein video:
And the Sharon Hodgson tweet:
"“Jeremy Corbyn: Labour could write off historic student debts| All those in early 20’s with student debt #VoteLabour”"
So it wasn't just me that though that he was implying that he would - his own MPs too.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
but when the final draft of the manifesto came out it wasn't in there. When deciding who to vote for surely the manifesto is what you go on? Even if most of it never gets delivered.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Here's a link to McDonnell's Wealth Tax ideas (video within the article):
Revealed: Labour would grab 20 per cent of assets from Britain's richest people if elected
20% from the savings of the 10% most wealthy in the country. That would hit people with wealth of just over £1m.
Article: Main results from the Wealth and Assets Survey: July 2012 to June 2014 - ONS
In other words, most pensioners in London who own their house outright. Anyone who saved for their old age instead of spending (there have been news stories in the past of people on moderate incomes that saved large sums by living frugally). A £1m pension saving brings an income of £30k per year at age 65. If he takes £200k from them all it will reduce their pension incomes to £24k. It will hit older people very hard; people who have saved and accumulated wealth over their lives.
And what's to say that he doesn't come back for another 20% later?
Revealed: Labour would grab 20 per cent of assets from Britain's richest people if elected
20% from the savings of the 10% most wealthy in the country. That would hit people with wealth of just over £1m.
Article: Main results from the Wealth and Assets Survey: July 2012 to June 2014 - ONS
In other words, most pensioners in London who own their house outright. Anyone who saved for their old age instead of spending (there have been news stories in the past of people on moderate incomes that saved large sums by living frugally). A £1m pension saving brings an income of £30k per year at age 65. If he takes £200k from them all it will reduce their pension incomes to £24k. It will hit older people very hard; people who have saved and accumulated wealth over their lives.
And what's to say that he doesn't come back for another 20% later?
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
He said this after the manifesto had been published.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
but he didn't say it was going to be implemented. Still, if you have a disregard for manifestos that probably explains why you give the tories a pass for delivering so little of theirs from 2010.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
I'm not discussing things with you if you are going to be disingenuous.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I'm not being disingenuous, I'm actually staggered by the free ride the sitting government get while a party not in power come under massive scrutiny.
skybluegod
Well-Known Member
Are you nuts? The Conservatives are getting absolutely hammered from all angles at the moment, by everyone. Hammond, had a shocker over the weekend which has been absolutely plastered over the news. The second someone says something bad about labour you moan?
Both parties are fucking shit tbh.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
while I wouldn't 100% agree with the bit in bold they should be under that sort of scrutiny, they're the current Government seeing us through one of the biggest political upheavals for decades.
Labour shouldn't be under the same level of scrutiny they are because they're not in power, if they were different story. What they do currently is of little consequence.
skybluegod
Well-Known Member
WTF is that guy on?
So people have earnt their money which has already been taxed, and now they are going to take even more of them? That isn't a fair society. All this striving to be 'equal' it shouldn't be by making people poorer, it should be by making the poorest more wealthy. It's a load of shit, taxing the highest earners because they are doing well.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Better than taxing the lowest earners...
skybluegod
Well-Known Member
Aren't they getting hammered? I haven't seen a positive article or interview about them in months, except pro tory papers. The BBC has hammered them, everyone has jumped on May for being ill, everyone is jumping on the ' boris' wants power bandwagon, nobody is happy about Brexit no matter what approach the government tries to take.
Labour aren't under any scrutiny except for from some people on a forum? Not really gonna effect them?
Astute
Well-Known Member
As had been said when he found out how much it would cost he changed his mind.
It would take 100 billions to wipe out the debt. So for each 1% it would have cost a billion. So only wiping out 10% would have cost about 10 billion. And not much of a headline grabber either.
skybluegod
Well-Known Member
Did i say to take 20% off the lowest earners? It shouldn't happen to anyone.
Or make it so that if they are paying more tax, then the NHS push all the higher paying taxpayers up the waiting lists? And the police respond to rich people first? I mean they are paying more so they should get the benefits of it right? (of course, that isn't my opinion) but it's not right.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Then you'd best fix first the fact that thanks to VAT and other regressive taxes, this impacts on lower earners more...
skybluegod
Well-Known Member
We've had this discussion earlier in the thread, bored of it now.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
...also caused by them and their self interest.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Grendel
Well-Known Member
This government is s coalition so the manifesto issue cannot be lodged at them
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
No it isn't, it's confidence and supply, which is not a coalition.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I was thinking back to 2010. To be honest I wouldn't expect a manifesto to be implemented with 4 or 5 months anyway.
skybluegod
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Nice attempt at diverting away from your own lies to something that was claimed in the media before the confidence and supply deal was announced.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
My own lies? This is a monitory government and therefore cannot put through its own manifesto without the approval of the other party it relies on.
So if it's not a coalition you I guess have no issue with it do you?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Which is convienient for them because they don't know what the fuck they're doing...