Astute
Well-Known Member
You said the opposite to him though. Then agreed with him :wacky:
You said the opposite to him though. Then agreed with him :wacky:I don't think he is talking about me for some reason.
I don't know if you have seen Milo Yiannopoulos? He's a bit odd, and has some extreme views, but he often writes a lot of articles to spark debate on sensitive topics which, is always interesting, as he often makes extreme points, which gets a reaction, which is what we need more of, i often don;t agree with him, but he does what he does very well, as a provocateur, and going against what people see as politically correct!
Yeah, he said that, the media put all the negative stuff about brexit under the microscope, but never talk about the opportunity it could provide us, and the positives steps that have been taken forward.
He even said no deal is an option still, and that it would hurt europe just as bad, and that they expected these first few months of hard ball.
Corbyn was asked would he liked to wipe out student debt, he said yes if he could find a way.
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?
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.
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.
'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.
For reference this is what Corbyn actually said: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.
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.”
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.
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.
He said this after the manifesto had been published.
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.
I'm not discussing things with you if you are going to be disingenuous.
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.
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.
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?
Better than taxing the lowest earners...It's a load of shit, taxing the highest earners because they are doing well.
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.
As had been said when he found out how much it would cost he changed his mind.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.
Better than taxing the lowest earners...
Then you'd best fix first the fact that thanks to VAT and other regressive taxes, this impacts on lower earners more...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.
Then you'd best fix first the fact that thanks to VAT and other regressive taxes, this impacts on lower earners more...
...also caused by them and their self interest.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.
We've had this discussion earlier in the thread, bored of it now.
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.
This government is s coalition so the manifesto issue cannot be lodged at them
This government is s coalition so the manifesto issue cannot be lodged at them
I wouldn't enter the Brexit thread then.
No it isn't, it's confidence and supply, which is not a coalition.
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.
Which is convienient for them because they don't know what the fuck they're doing...This government is s coalition so the manifesto issue cannot be lodged at them
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?