Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[Tangled up in Blue]

Ask the last Labour Goverment

See comment in post 3740.While it's certainly true that Blair's Labour government introduced tuition fes for Higher Education,it was the Tories who tripled them and abolished the maintenance grant too.

This situation needs to be sorted urgently ,which is presumably one reason why so many young people voted Labour in June.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

See comment in post 3740.While it's certainly true that Blair's Labour government introduced tuition fes for Higher Education,it was the Tories who tripled them and abolished the maintenance grant too.

This situation needs to be sorted urgently ,which is presumably one reason why so many young people voted Labour in June.

Would that also be the reason so many voted LibDem by any chance? We all know what happened to them as soon as they had to play grown ups and try balancing the books. You can say any old rubbish in opposition, plenty of mugs will fall for it, different game when you're at the wheel. Pretty sums up why the Labour party don't take power for too long, oh except Blair's government of course who won three elections in a row and who so many "real labour" supporters on here appear to despise.
Funny old game politics especially when your hundreds of miles away in a different country watching Newsnight.

 

[Gremlin]

My mate's lad is in the second year of his degree and is already on £40K's worth of debt. How the **** this was allowed to happen?

Presumably because neither your mate nor the lad thought twice about opting to do something they couldn't afford.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Presumably because neither your mate nor the lad thought twice about opting to do something they couldn't afford.

Like virtually every student out there. Do you suggest that our children forego an education and import our skilled staff from abroad? Didn't you vote against that kind of thing on the 23rd June 2016?

Or is it just the already wealthy that are allowed a further education?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Would that also be the reason so many voted LibDem by any chance? We all know what happened to them as soon as they had to play grown ups and try balancing the books. You can say any old rubbish in opposition, plenty of mugs will fall for it, different game when you're at the wheel. Pretty sums up why the Labour party don't take power for too long, oh except Blair's government of course who won three elections in a row and who so many "real labour" supporters on here appear to despise.
Funny old game politics especially when your hundreds of miles away in a different country watching Newsnight.

The difference between Labour and the LibDems is that Labour will honour its 2017 manifesto pledges regarding education when Jeremy Corbyn wins the next general election.

The reason why so many "real Labour" supporters "despised" Tony Blair is that he made no attempt to lead Labour from the left.Corybn has done this and proved it''s possible to win votes,seats and enthuse young (and old) Labour voters while doing so.Watch out the Maybot is living on borrowed time.

Btw,I also watch C4 news and the Daily Politics when I can.:raspberry:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Presumably because neither your mate nor the lad thought twice about opting to do something they couldn't afford.

Like virtually every student out there. Do you suggest that our children forego an education and import our skilled staff from abroad? Didn't you vote against that kind of thing on the 23rd June 2016?

Or is it just the already wealthy that are allowed a further education?

I can confirm from my own personal experience, as a builder's son from a working class family,whose mother was a widow,that neither I, nor my two brothers (we're talking about an EFL Teacher,a Venture Capitalist and a Social Worker here), would have been able to leave higher education with a degree, had not tuition fees been entirely free and there also been reasonably generous maintenance grants back in the 70's and 80's.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Ask the last Labour Goverment

that was £9k of debt, the additional £18k is down to the Tories and LibDems plus the various bursaries / living expenses allowances converted to loans, plus this year's increases

 

[londonblue]

The thing about student loans is that they don't work in the same way as normal loans.

If you earn £22,000 in a year you repay £90, as £22,000 is £1,000 above the threshold and 9% of £1,000 is £90. If you're earning £22,000 pa you can afford £90 pa.

If you earn £31,000 you repay £900. £31,000 is £10,000 above the threshold and 9% of that is £900. If you're earning £31000 pa you can afford to pay £900 pa.

The amount you pay back is capped based on your earnings, not on how much you owe. Also, your debt is wiped clean after 30 years regardless of how much you earn or still owe.

The sneaky bit isn't the amount of debt, it is the fact that the government have frozen the £21,000 threshold instead of raising it in line with inflation.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

that was £9k of debt, the additional £18k is down to the Tories and LibDems plus the various bursaries / living expenses allowances converted to loans, plus this year's increases

The irony is of course that one third of these student loans will never be repaid.This figure is eventually expected to rise eventually to 50%.

It's high time that the UK had adult debate about the funding of higher education.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

The thing about student loans is that they don't work in the same way as normal loans.

If you earn £22,000 in a year you repay £90, as £22,000 is £1,000 above the threshold and 9% of £1,000 is £90. If you're earning £22,000 pa you can afford £90 pa.

If you earn £31,000 you repay £900. £31,000 is £10,000 above the threshold and 9% of that is £900. If you're earning £31000 pa you can afford to pay £900 pa.

The amount you pay back is capped based on your earnings, not on how much you owe. Also, your debt is wiped clean after 30 years regardless of how much you earn or still owe.

The sneaky bit isn't the amount of debt, it is the fact that the government have frozen the £21,000 threshold instead of raising it in line with inflation.

Don't forget that student loans are now liable to 6% interest.That's not just sneaky, it's a criminal rate of interest and obviously far in excess of inflation (currently 1.5%).

 

[southendkid]

Don't forget that student loans are now liable to 6% interest.That's not just sneaky, it's a criminal rate of interest and obviously far in excess of inflation (currently 1.5%).

As someone currently paying back one of these loans I really don't care about the interest rate, the only way I'll ever be able to pay everything back is if I'm earning a massive wage anyway, in which case I'm rich and not going to be too concerned about paying 9% extra, otherwise it's going to be wiped off before I've paid it all back even at the current interest rate.

What I'm more worried about (aside from the £21000 not going up with inflation, which is going to cause major problems for anyone that's not progressing up the career ladder in the future if that doesn't change) is if the SLC move the goalposts and decide they want, for example, 10% of anything over £21000 instead of 9%, because as far as I'm aware they could legally do that.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Don't forget that student loans are now liable to 6% interest.That's not just sneaky, it's a criminal rate of interest and obviously far in excess of inflation (currently 1.5%).

as many people keep stating much of the debt will not be paid back by the student so will be added to the national debt - and the 6% interest rate is paid to banks, so that will be 6% of tax payer money going to banks, but its 6% because interest rates are low - the 6% will rise. So the current set up is a debt timebomb not just for students but for all of us.

 

[Bearded Shrimper]

what are everyone's thoughts on Labour now saying that we won't get rid of fees and saying that we never in fact said that we would get rid of fees or the debt?

It's true that we never committed to it, but an awful lot of people seem to have got the impression that we did

 

[Pubey]

what are everyone's thoughts on Labour now saying that we won't get rid of fees and saying that we never in fact said that we would get rid of fees or the debt?

It's true that we never committed to it, but an awful lot of people seem to have got the impression that we did

and who's fault is that? From what I've followed, labour/Corbyn never claimed it, no voter ever thought it, the tories/media then claimed it was promised and everyone ended up confused.

You could say it's good work by the tories to make something out of nothing, but then again you'd like to think that at least labour put out a pretty clear manifesto and actually promoted their policies - unlike May and the tories.

Also, good to see May back tracking on one of her few promises - to cap energy prices.

 

[londonblue]

what are everyone's thoughts on Labour now saying that we won't get rid of fees and saying that we never in fact said that we would get rid of fees or the debt?

It's true that we never committed to it, but an awful lot of people seem to have got the impression that we did

I can't remember who said it, but some shadow cabinet member admitted ********* was deliberately ambiguous in his statements.

So much for his honesty.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

what are everyone's thoughts on Labour now saying that we won't get rid of fees and saying that we never in fact said that we would get rid of fees or the debt?

It's true that we never committed to it, but an awful lot of people seem to have got the impression that we did

I'm disappointed that you have written this TBH as I respect your thoughts and this shows just how far a lie will travel.





The Labour manifesto promise was to scrap tuition fees for courses starting September 2017 whether it was a first, second or third year that was being started at that point.

That promise is completely unchanged.




In an interview in NME - an interview read / seen by virtually no one - Corbyn expressed a desire to do something about historic debt but stated there was no policy on it, he did not know what the policy would be, he did not know when a policy would be formulated, but felt 'something' should be done about historic debt.

When crate digging this was brought up and then painted as a u-turn, but there was no u-turn as there was no policy on it. The fact that this has been jumped upon by the Tories and the right wing press and then the explanations that have been required has kept the story in the public domain is the reason that people get frustrated by the way politics is reported. The Tories ditched virtually all of their manifesto, but as there is much more right wing press this 'ditching' of a policy that never even existed has been given top billing.

Luckily the youth are more savvy, they were aware of the election policy and are aware that it is still the policy, and they generally get news from social media not the tradition press so only see this for what it is - Tory lies.








The Labour manifesto promise was to scrap tuition fees for courses starting September 2017 whether it was a first, second or third year that was being started at that point.

That promise is completely unchanged.

 

[Gremlin]

Like virtually every student out there. Do you suggest that our children forego an education and import our skilled staff from abroad? Didn't you vote against that kind of thing on the 23rd June 2016?

Or is it just the already wealthy that are allowed a further education?

The answer to all of your questions is no. I suggest that this lad has received a free education from the state from 5 - 16 years and then had a choice to make. It's nobody else's fault if he chose one he couldn't afford. At 16 he could have still studied, by way of an apprencticeship for example, and got himself qualified in a real trade and becoming "skilled staff", as you put it. He'd be in a profession by now, earning some of the folding stuff and a couple of years ahead of his peer group career-wise.

The 'everyone else does it/has one so why can't I?' approach is not a responsible one. Those adopting it and then whining about debt later on will get short shrift from me.

 

[MK Shrimper]

The answer to all of your questions is no. I suggest that this lad has received a free education from the state from 5 - 16 years and then had a choice to make. It's nobody else's fault if he chose one he couldn't afford. At 16 he could have still studied, by way of an apprencticeship for example, and got himself qualified in a real trade and becoming "skilled staff", as you put it. He'd be in a profession by now, earning some of the folding stuff and a couple of years ahead of his peer group career-wise.

The 'everyone else does it/has one so why can't I?' approach is not a responsible one. Those adopting it and then whining about debt later on will get short shrift from me.

So he's now going to graduate with a degree in (I think) Bio-Chemistry. So the next time a Doctor is treating you or one of your family, perhaps you can tell them that they should have been a bricklayer instead and see what kind of response you get.

 

[Gremlin]

So he's now going to graduate with a degree in (I think) Bio-Chemistry. So the next time a Doctor is treating you or one of your family, perhaps you can tell them that they should have been a bricklayer instead and see what kind of response you get.

So the lad's happy with the result but not that he had to pay for it, basically?

"I want free stuff. Give me free stuff"

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

So the lad's happy with the result but not that he had to pay for it, basically?

"I want free stuff. Give me free stuff"

I'm 46 and went to Uni where tuition was free at point of use and I was given a grant to help with living expenses.

Those in their 20's are the first generation to be less well off than their parents. As the 5th richest nation in the world that is not a situation that we should be proud of.