How will you vote?

[baldrick]

Not really, first your link doesn't work. Second you are not quoting Corbyn, but Marr. And third McDonnell saying 'Yeah, yeah' isn't proof that Corbyn made a promise to cancel £100 bn of student debt.

[baldrick]

If you have found many links to anywhere else he has promised to cancel £100 bn of student debt please do post them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... w-16072017

Fast forward to 25: 30 secs
Marr says Corbyn made the promise (to cancel all student debt) way back before the election, and MacDonnell nods his head and says "yeah...yeah".

Clear enough for you now?

OK Tman, I've found the clip from that interview on today's Andrew Marr show, in an article in the Guardian. It is just another reference to Corbyn's interview in the NME, not a different statement. And again, McDonnell makes it clear it is an ambition not a promise.

McDonnell: wiping out student loans is 'an ambition' for Labour
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... emy-corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's rather different to what you claimed was said. Give it up, admit you have got this wrong.

[Tman]

again, McDonnell makes it clear it is an ambition not a promise.

If you're now arguing it was "an ambition not a promise" then clearly your earlier collective stance of "He never said it" is a nonsense.
All you're now arguing is about the strength of the intent rather than whether it did or didn't happen, an entirely different scenario.
Corbyn and his supporters seem to thrive on "he never said that...he didn't mean that.......he wasn't there for that....etc etc"history-twisting; all clear indications of the falsities at the very heart of the current Lbour Party.
Thought of standing as a councillor somewhere?

[baldrick]

again, McDonnell makes it clear it is an ambition not a promise.

If you're now arguing it was "an ambition not a promise" then clearly your earlier collective stance of "He never said it" is a nonsense.
All you're now arguing is about the strength of the intent rather than whether it did or didn't happen, an entirely different scenario.
Corbyn and his supporters seem to thrive on "he never said that...he didn't mean that.......he wasn't there for that....etc etc"history-twisting; all clear indications of the falsities at the very heart of the current Lbour Party.
Thought of standing as a councillor somewhere?

No I've never had any ambitions to be a councillor. I have enough problems of my own without trying to sort out other people's problems.

It was never said that Corbyn hadn't expressed a view that he would like to ameliorate the problems caused by student debt, perhaps by lengthening the period of repayment. He makes that clear in the NME interview which I linked to, and it is a laudable ambition.
But it is not a promise to cancel £100 bn of student debt as you and sob have claimed.

[fishtank]

If you're now arguing it was "an ambition not a promise" then clearly your earlier collective stance of "He never said it" is a nonsense.
All you're now arguing is about the strength of the intent rather than whether it did or didn't happen, an entirely different scenario.

That's not cutting it either Tman, A promise and an ambition are entirely different things not two different levels or strengths of the same thing and even giving you the huge benefit of the doubt on this where exactly does Corbyn say it's even his ambition to "wipe out £100 billion of debt".

[fishtank]

The truth is Corbyn said Labour would look 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”. Not an unreasonable comment given that the student loan system is close to collapse already with approximately 45% already being written off and the cost to the tax payer reaching tipping point between red and black.

McDonnell said that was an ambition not a promise because it would obviously need to be properly researched and costed. Again not an unreasonable comment.

Every header, by line or statement that contains the words Corbyn or Labour promises to wipe out student debt is basically clickbait by the media to sex up the story a bit because to be honest "Labour looks at the possibility of maybe costing the idea of slightly alleviating the debt burden of students" shouldn't really even make page 17 of a newspaper.

There are always those that fall for the clickbait headline without properly reading the article, you can read their shite below the line in the comments section of every news site.

[stan_lers]

Corbyn said that he would like to look at ways to reduce graduate debt. Reducing could mean 5%, it could mean 100%, it doesn't mean he would definitely write off all student debt the day he becomes PM. There's a massive difference between an ambition and a promise or policy - for a start, an ambition wont be costed, there'll be no real work done to look into whether it's feasible, it's just something Corbyn would like to do, if it's affordable.

Total student debt in the UK is currently £100bn, and is currently about £15bn per year which is just an insane amount. What's more, a lot of people will never pay off their student loans, which leaves the government to pay off that debt. So the government has a choice: pay off an unpaid debt that's had interest added for decades, or pay the tuition fees at the start with zero interest added. Free university fees not only pays for itself through a more educated workforce, it also saves tens of billions in the long run through unpaid loans that the government becomes accountable for.

[SierraOscarBravo]

Corbyn said that he would like to look at ways to reduce graduate debt. Reducing could mean 5%, it could mean 100%, it doesn't mean he would definitely write off all student debt the day he becomes PM. There's a massive difference between an ambition and a promise or policy - for a start, an ambition wont be costed, there'll be no real work done to look into whether it's feasible, it's just something Corbyn would like to do, if it's affordable.

Total student debt in the UK is currently £100bn, and is currently about £15bn per year which is just an insane amount. What's more, a lot of people will never pay off their student loans, which leaves the government to pay off that debt. So the government has a choice: pay off an unpaid debt that's had interest added for decades, or pay the tuition fees at the start with zero interest added. Free university fees not only pays for itself through a more educated workforce, it also saves tens of billions in the long run through unpaid loans that the government becomes accountable for.

Like every promise Corbyn makes it is all to be funded from his magic money tree. You can argue ad nauseum what specifically was promised by whom and over what timescale, but the fact remains Corbyn has at no point rebuffed the policy.

Corbyn would bankrupt the country within a year and we'd be headed down the same path as Greece. I will never vote Labour while he is leader.

[Tman]

If you're now arguing it was "an ambition not a promise" then clearly your earlier collective stance of "He never said it" is a nonsense.

All you're now arguing is about the strength of the intent rather than whether it did or didn't happen, an entirely different scenario.

That's not cutting it either Tman, A promise and an ambition are entirely different things not two different levels or strengths of the same thing

And so as ever, we come back to semantics as some form of rebuttal.
Today, on the Andrew Marr show, it was MacDonnell who happily went along with the idea that prior to the election the Labour Party had tentative plans to cancel all student debt. Marr said it in the preamble to his interview with MacDonnell, and Macdonnell went along with it.
Macdonnell, not known for his weak interview approach,could have corrected Marr, but he didn't.
Are you really trying to suggest that Corbyn is so out of touch with his front bench that he was unaware that his colleague last week and his trusted lieutenant this week have suggested that cancelling student debt would have been a possibility, and that it was first mooted months ago?

But "he never said it" according to you three on several occasions. And I suppose he was never there when it discussed, or he never received any emails of the minutes of the meetings when these things were discussed either? In fact, he was kept totally in the dark over the whole thing.

None so blind.. as those who won't admit bald statements about "he never said it" are idiotic and plainly ludicrous ....as the old gran might have said.

[Lounge Lizard]

Corbyn said that he would like to look at ways to reduce graduate debt. Reducing could mean 5%, it could mean 100%, it doesn't mean he would definitely write off all student debt the day he becomes PM. There's a massive difference between an ambition and a promise or policy - for a start, an ambition wont be costed, there'll be no real work done to look into whether it's feasible, it's just something Corbyn would like to do, if it's affordable.

Total student debt in the UK is currently £100bn, and is currently about £15bn per year which is just an insane amount. What's more, a lot of people will never pay off their student loans, which leaves the government to pay off that debt. So the government has a choice: pay off an unpaid debt that's had interest added for decades, or pay the tuition fees at the start with zero interest added. Free university fees not only pays for itself through a more educated workforce, it also saves tens of billions in the long run through unpaid loans that the government becomes accountable for.

Like every promise Corbyn makes it is all to be funded from his magic money tree. You can argue ad nauseum what specifically was promised by whom and over what timescale, but the fact remains Corbyn has at no point rebuffed the policy.

Corbyn would bankrupt the country within a year and we'd be headed down the same path as Greece. I will never vote Labour while he is leader.

S O B
You might believe what you read in the tabloids about Jeremy's "magic money tree" but I take more notice of his plans that were actually announced before the election, Spending Commitments of £48.6 billion balanced by Tax Measures of £48.6 billion ;

SPENDING COMMITMENTS
- National Education Service and Early Years
Schools: increasing funding, including protection against losses from the new funding formula, free school meals and arts pupil premium 6.3
Skills: introducing free FE tuition, equalising 16-19 funding and restoring EMA 2.5
Childcare and early years including more money for Sure Start 5.3
Removing university tuition fees and restoring maintenance grants 11.2
- Health and Social Care
Healthcare including free car parking but excluding higher pay and capital expenditure 5.0
Social care 2.1
Restore nurses’ bursaries 0.6
- Work & Pensions
Social security: increase ESA by £30pw for those in the work-related activity group, scrap bedroom tax, implement the PiP legal ruling, restore Housing Benefit for under 21s, scrap Bereavement Support Payment reforms, £2 billion of additional funding for Universal Credit for review of cuts and how best to reverse them, uprate Carers’ Allowance to the level of JSA 4.0
Double paternity pay and paternity leave 0.3
State pensions: uprate state pensions for British pensioners overseas, extending Pension Credit to those affected by changes to their state pension age since the 1995 Pensions Act 0.3
- Other departments and items not included above
Lift public sector pay cap 4.0
Introduce a Real Living Wage of at least £10 by 2020 with net fiscal benefits ringfenced to provide support to small businesses 0.0
Recruit an additional 10,000 police officers to work on community beats 0.3
Other current spend items: including abolition of employment tribunal fees, additional border guards, firefighters and HMRC tax collection staff 0.6
Barnett consequentials (Scotland, Wales, NI) 6.1
TOTAL 48.6

TAX MEASURES Yield (£bn)
Corporation tax (see below) 19.4
Income tax increases for Top 5 per cent (see below) 6.4
Excessive Pay Levy 1.3
Offshore Company Property Levy 1.6
Labour’s Tax Avoidance programme 6.5
Extension of Stamp Duty Reserve Tax to derivatives and removal of exemption 5.6
Efficiency review of corporate tax reliefs 3.8
Reversing tax giveaways on Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, bank levy and scrap- ping the married persons’ tax allowance 3.7
VAT on private school fees 1.6
Other: savings on Discretionary Housing Payments from scrapping bedroom tax, Soft Drinks Industry Levy spend redirected from capital to revenue, higher rate IPT on medical insurance, reform Controlled Foreign Companies corporation tax regime 2.6
Allowance made for additional behavioural change and uncertainty, reducing total tax take -3.9
TOTAL 48.6

[baldrick]

the fact remains Corbyn has at no point rebuffed the policy.

How can he 'rebuff a policy' when it is not a policy?
Labour's policies were set out in their Election Manifesto. There is a commitment to abolishing student tuition fees in there, nothing about cancelling £100 bn of existing student debt. You can find the Labour Election Manifesto online.

[Lounge Lizard]

Baldrick,
Yes, indeed in Labour's Election Manifesto there is no commitment to abolishing student tuition fees and, with all the carefully thought out costings, no need for any mention of SOB's "magic money tree".

[jetblack]

... it is all to be funded from his magic money tree.

The Bank of England and the commercial banks are the ones that have access to the magic money tree. The BofE has created almost half a trillion £'s since 2009 - whilst the private banks have created the vast majority of the money in circulation in the UK ( created out of thin air that is) - physical notes and coins aside.

When people talk about the potential loss to the taxpayer from unpaid student loans they aren't really describing a situation whereby the taxpayer has advanced the students money out of their own pockets and then the students have subsequently defaulted leaving the taxpayer out of pocket - whats really happening is that the money was created at the point that the students application for the loan was accepted, and then advanced to them as a credit balance on their accounts. The (potential) loss to the taxpayer comes when they don't receive interest/capital payments - the loss is one of unrealised gains. It'd be a loss in the same way that I'm making a loss by not renting out a room to a lodger.

This discussion has been sidetracked re. wether Corbyn said this or that (he clearly didn't BTW) - but the fact re. outstanding student debt is that it should be wiped out. The loss to the taxpayer would not be £100 billion - that £100 billion only exists on a balance sheet - it would be the loss of unrealised gain from the interest payments.

As it is it looks like the Tory Govt is going to sell off the debt to the private sector - thereby screwing the ordinary citizen over in about 4 or 5 different ways.

[jetblack]

I believe that student loans are currently financed from Govt. borrowing and not QE as my last post suggests. It doesn't really make much difference - the Govt borrows from private banks (from the money created out of thin air by private banks, or from the QE money created out of thin air by the Govt. that the private banks have had placed on their balance sheets by the Govt.(that it might stimulate demand etc)) at 0.5% and then lends it out at 0.9% (RPI) + 2.2% to the students. (The Govt. borrow so that it doesn't create inflation - which the willy nilly printing of money has historically been seen to bring about - a lot of smoke and mirrors here)

Anyhow, that aside, just read a good article from the FT, which is spot on in my book. The mad part of it is that it was written by a Tory, Ros Altmann. I would post a link but I don't think links work for the FT - so I'll copy a chunk of it here. Its a good article worth searching out and reading in full - it explains our pension deficit - but also explains why all this talk of Corbyn having a magic money tree is a load of rubbish. The country produces wealth at a given rate over a period of time - money, at present, does not reflect that rate of production, and it hasn't for a long while.
The only question is how the wealth that the nation produces is shared out - and how the monetary system faciltates the inequality of wealth distribution that currently exists. Which it does - big time.



"There is a magic money tree — it’s called QE.



.......Now we come to the really big question — whether QE can be unwound. Would the market dislocation of selling trillions of dollars of bonds be too severe to withstand?

Ultimately, could central banks decide never to sell the assets they have purchased? Maybe they will just allow the bonds they hold to mature without demanding Treasury repayment. This would amount to monetising fiscal deficits — but who would object? Governments, banks, taxpayers and borrowers would all be winners, so a monumental debt forgiveness, which would rebase currencies and markets, might provoke little fuss.

Printing money to fund fiscal deficits is usually the mark of a ‘banana republic’, heralding significant currency devaluation, but QE has been considered differently — and most major world economies are involved.

Another possibility to consider is whether the rise of populism could force QE to morph into helicopter money. For example, could a future government use QE to finance social care, or public sector pensions? Or establish a major housebuilding programme for social housing, or finance infrastructure investment — creating thousands of jobs in the process? Just print the money, buy the bonds issued to finance such spending, hold them in the central bank and hey presto, the financing is done.

Using QE to fund such projects could have lasting social benefits — and go some way to redress the redistribution of income and wealth away from younger or poorer groups that has resulted from monetary policy, rather than fiscal measures."



Wiping out the £100 billion student debt might not be so difficult as all that after all.

It all depends on your priorities - and how you want to carve up the Sunday joint.

[Tman]

"jetblackThis discussion has been sidetracked re. wether Corbyn said this or that (he clearly didn't BTW) -

Dear old jet thinks he knows more of what was said in preparation for the GE than MacDonnell does.
The rest is waffle of the first order.