And do you understand the difference between saying things like this in an election campaign to con young, first time voters into voting for you - knowing full well it was something you could weasel your way out of if you were ever pressed on it - and being honest during the campaign and explaining clearly during the campaign what you 'actually' meant and more importantly didn't mean? Corbyn knew what people would think. He played the media and played the young voters like a three-stringed banjo. The tune was crap but it got people dancing. Sorry, but he's a con-artist, and as much a political liar as the rest of them. Putting words in bold doesn't change that.
Sigh...... I'm going to have one last go on this, Willy. Did you read what he said? Did you read what was in the manifesto? Were you not capable of understanding that there was a commitment to scrapping tuition fees going forward and an expressed desire - not promised or committed to - to ameliorate in some unspecified way the situation regarding existing student debts? Contrast this with May's campaign promise and manifesto commitment to introduce a cap on energy prices, which was conveniently dropped when it came to writing the Queen's Speech. Had she really wanted to act on this, she would have had support from opposition parties. Might it be possible that she envisaged more difficulty with her own back-benches? Consider also the Tory manifesto commitment (initially under Cameron and retained by May) to reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands. A cynical promise that they knew they had no hope of making good on. You, and others on here, have accused me of being politically one-eyed, refusing to see anything negative in Corbyn. It's true, of course, that I have my biases, as do all of us. I do not, however, grant Corbyn a free pass and have been - and remain - critical of his stance on Europe. I find it galling, however, to be accused of a lack of even-handedness, when the mainstream media and several on here view Corbyn with a blindly critical eye, whilst ignoring more real, and more serious, deceptions from May and the Tories.
Please don't talk down to me - I understand the political world very well - more so, apparently, than you. Corbyn knew exactly what his words would do during the election campaign - drive a distinct wedge between Labour and the Tories on an issue he knew was a vote grabber amongst the naive first time voters. He did it cynically, just as everything he does (Glastonbury, Grenfell Tower hugging, sitting on a train floor, etc.) is designed to big him up politically at the expense of others. He knew he'd win votes, knowing full well that he could rely on the media to do the dirty work and then he's simply say - as you are - that it wasn't in the manifesto. Why is he saying it in such clear words if he didn't ever intend to do it? Why bring up historic student debt if he knew (and yes, he clearly knew) that there would never be anything done about it? It was a cynical vote grab - nothing more, nothing less. You can pretend otherwise all you like, but that's exactly what it was.
Corbyn snubs war dead: Labour leader turns down Passchendaele memorial to go on holiday JEREMY CORBYN snubbed an event to mark the 100th anniversary of the battle of Passchendaele - to go on holiday instead. By Rebecca Perring 209 please log in to view this image GETTY Jeremy Corbyn declined an invite to go to a ceremony to commemorate the battle of Passchendaele Prime Minister Theresa May cut her holiday to Italy’s Lake Garda short to attend the ceremony to pay tribute to the 500,000 fallen World War One soldiers. The opposition leader was also invited by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, but decided to send shadow defence secretary Nia Griffith to the Belgium event in his place. A Labour source told The Sun Mr Corbyn had instead “marked the event on social media”.
Can someone put up the video of Corbyns announcement on student debt Might help make things clearer Maybe he should have just said he was using figures supplied to him by Diane abbott
I'll leave WLW or Goldie or Col to come up with the statement from Corbyn saying he will write off historic debt. Don't hold your breath.
I agree with this entirely, including your criticism of Corbyn stance on Europe, and you have my full respect for your continueing factual rebuffs of all the bull**** put out on here. Amazing you find the time!
So far as Corbyn is concerned, while he did not expressly make paying off student debt a cast iron commitment, he said he would "deal with it." This gave the impression that it was an assurance to ex-students, more than just a wish. As I've said in an earlier post, noises coming from his shadow ministers too supported the impression that Corbyn would deal with this debt and pay it off. What is more, it was clear that people believed this. If Corbyn wants the electorate (or those that might vote for him) to trust him, it's not a good idea post-election for him to say - ah, but I was careful not to put that assurance in writing - you may have misunderstood me, and I was far too busy to correct any impression I might have given. It's a dangerous game for him. On Theresa May, she should step in to stop energy companies ripping off consumers. In the first instance, she's expecting Offgem to take action, but if the regulator fails, it's reasonable for the electorate to expect the government to step in, and they should.
Even though i was a pro corbyn (inc. un-naturally a post about about politics on FB which i never really get involved in), i don't usually vote and i didn't . I have to agree with goldie and willy and col. Corbyn made it sound like he was going to act on historical student loans, his ministers they would and there was no rebuff to the media when they all wrote that he would. Ex-students thoroughly believed that and it's akin to the brexit battle bus with the 350m going to the NHS when it wasn't explicit that it would go on there. The only mitigating factor i would give is that he had to put together a plan in a very short space of time, but he shouldn't have been as boisterous in "dealing" with historic student debt.
Good. We all know that politicians are generally cynical and that the things politicians say in a manifesto or an election campaign are rarely implemented in full or at all due to a combination of reasons varying from downright lies, political circumstances at the time, degrees of priority on the government's time and a host of other reasons why a political party's wish does not translate into legislation. However are you not doing the one who is talking down and lecturing? Stroller's point is that he has read the speech and it simply does not bear the interpretation that our unbiased free Press which the less than naïve experienced voters of this country apparently take as gospel because they read it in the Sun, The Times, The Telegraph or the Mail. Have you? You don't say perhaps conveniently choosing to gloss over that and deflect the argument in a rather patronising way. When any of you actually provide the article in which Corbyn lied as has been asked of you then I'm sure Stroller will review your evidence and either acknowledge you were right or explain his position better. Do that please. I am more than happy to entertain the notion that Corbyn is also a liar although he would have to go a long way down that road to be as bad as the liars who promised £350 million a week, to the NHS if we left the EU. If we're left in the Ellers position that all politicians are liars, I'm sure I can accept that.
As I tried to explain to Stroll earlier, it's not the words said but the intention that was perceived by students and others. Trump does the same thing over here to fool people then goes to the exact words spoken when he's called out. Like Stroller people who support always use this as an excuse when people point this out.
Was it really perceived that way at the time or has it just been hyped up since? I don't remember thinking that a Labour win = no more student debt. I'd have voted for them if that was the case I'm sure.
I read the speech, listened to it, and saw the effect it had. You only need to review vox pop by young voters to know just how completely they were taken in. Strolls is trying to say that Corbyn, unlike every other politician, can be trusted to mean exactly what he said. I cannot agree with him on that. Corbyn is as cynical as the rest of them, and knew just what he was doing.
I genuinely don't think he is but he'd have been coming to a gunfight with a potato peeler if he didn't play dirty a little bit.
He's just like the rest. Actually, I think he's worse because he does it whilst pretending to be everybody's friend.
I really don't see it that way. The connection he has with his constituents seems genuine to me and I do think he's well-intentioned. Whether you agree with those intentions or they'd benefit you or I is another matter.
Agree. I'm not a fan of Corbyn (as may be evident from some of the things I've written about him on here) but one thing he is, it seems to me, is more than averagely sincere for a politician. An inflexible, old fashioned ideologue who is not particularly bright, but pretty sincere. I'm almost sure when he said that stuff about writing off student debt he meant it (whether as a quick promise or an aspiration I don't know), and only after was told that it wasn't on. His sincerity gets him trapped into stupid positions and he lacks the guile to get out of them - he can't square off being a unilateralist, he won't condemn Maduro, he struggles with his IRA and Hamas support, because he won't outright deny it, because that would be dishonest - most politicians trying to get ahead would have found a way round these things. He actually believes this crap, thats what I find scary about him. He's a soapbox/street politician, most at home in front of crowds of people who agree with him. Which is why he turns up a festivals and demos all the time. Whereas May is the walking dead. From the other side of the world I can hear the echoes of her cabinet contradicting each other then furiously denying that they disagree as we drift aimlessly to nowhere, lying, useless scumbags that they are. Not much of a choice is it? Never mind, Vince will tell us where we've all gone wrong, but it will be just too late to make a difference, as usual.
Conservative governments should not be interfering in the free market. If consumers cant be bothered to source the best energy deal available to them that it not the governments concern. Of course we don't really have a Conservative government, the majority of the present cabinet are to the left of Blair's new labour.
