I Will Deal With It

smileless: the conservative manifesto said "We will grant a free vote on a government bill in government time to give parliament the opportunity to decide the future of the Hunting Act".

We're not having another vote because it was one of the proposals which was dropped after the election.

I am not sure she said she " wanted another vote" on foxhunting. My memory is of her being reported as saying that she was open to considering foxhunting. That was probably when she was in the company of people who hunted, and she wouldn't be likely to close the door completely on their vote by answering that she wasn't going to even consider it.

No we are asking that you criticise with a reasoned argument about what has actually been said. Primrose65. You keep saying you don't understand what he means by "I will deal with it". So your only real criticism is that he hasn't been clear and as has already been pointed out that is because the situation is unclear. But carry on criticising and trying to make out something else has been said, all it proves is that you are unable for some reason to understand a simple statement or the explanation of what it meant, but choose to go off on some fantasy of your own. Enjoy yourself but don't expect us all to follow.

But there isn't going to be another vote on fox hunting is there. To have had another vote on fox hunting and not another vote for Brexit would have been double standards.

It might be more truthful to say that TM was a remainer before the referendum vote was announced and DC broke his promise to remain PM regardless of the result. Whose to say that she's no longer a remainer but unlike her predecessor has stepped up to the plate to do what's best for the country.

Some just can't give her any credit because they don't like her and the party she represents no matter what she does, while finding no fault whatsoever with JC because they do like him and the party he represents. This is why we can't have a balanced approach devongirl.

It feels like a balanced approach to JC is never criticising. As soon as you do, this is the thread you get. We're not talking about TM on this thread - there are other threads for that.

What we would prefer is a balanced approach to TM and JC, rather than focussing on his 'fake promises'.

I would like to add, how come it's OK for TM to have wanted another vote on fox hunting, which had already been made illegal by democratic vote, because that's what she wants; whereas a second vote on Brexit is 'undemocratic'. Double standards or what?

Theresa May repeatedly and explicitly ruled out a snap general election in the months before calling one.
And 9 more u-turns from the financial times: www.ft.com/content/e021c208-3ede-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2
Yes most people welcome the Dementia Tax u-turn (although it was mainly removed because it would have been electoral suicide). I'm sure I don't need to remind everyone that TM was a Remainer before the referendum. Flip flopping her way through her Leadership. Not strong and stable.

I know I'm repeating myself here but why is there this need to attack TM and the gov. when 2 very unpopular decisions are overturned?

What would some of the posters on this thread prefer, that the so called dementia tax and the means testing for winter fuel allowance be implemented, rather than the gov. listening and doing a 'major u-turn', knowing the delight that would be taken in criticising them for a 'major u-turn' and lying to the electorate?

I still think Theresa May and the Conservatives have made many more promises that they have now disowned - in an official form in their Manifesto. Why does the main stream media obsess about Corbyn and the Labour Party making a minor slip (including Diane Abbott's) but fails to attack Theresa May about major u-turns and downright lies? And as for Boris Johnson's many faux pas, where do I start?
Hypocrisy.

There was an awful lot of criticism of the gov. when they were talking about means testing for the winter fuel allowance and the so called dementia tax. They have since changed their minds so I'm wondering why these changes are being used as a stick to beat them with, rather than being gratefully received.

"I'll deal with it" is certainly open to interpretation and for me, gives the distinct impression that what ever 'it' is referring too will be dealt with. Where as 'I'll look into this and see what can be done" IMO would have been a more honest and sensible response to the issue.

I had noticed that * devongirl*, I should have said.
There's video now of the shadow justice minister Imran Hussain saying that "every existing student will have all their debts wiped off."
It's up on Youtube.
I still think that's what he meant.

primrose, I for one have already proposed at least 3 possible actions which would come under 'I'll deal with it'.

That's really not the question. Of course, we can all see problems. The issue here is what did JC mean when he said 'I'll deal with it'. You said I can't read and I don't understand because I have interpreted this statement in one way, which I've been happy to share. What does it mean to you? I'm bored with being insulted. I'm still waiting to be educated.

Because it is such a complicated problem and he hasn't all the details, he isn't in government and when he is things may have changed and the actions he might take now might not be appropriate then. Do you not understand it's a mess and it needs dealing with but it needs proper assessment and time to consider the options to give a fair and acceptable solution?

We all know now what it didn't mean. Plenty of posters have said it didn't mean this or that.
No one seems to be able to say what he did mean though.

Well it doesn't mean I will write it all off, although interestingly there may be very little choice about this as time runs out on collecting the money. But you won't want to hear that, it is much too contentious a thing to talk about.

I believe Theresa May's government have also abandoned the grammar school pledge, the promise for a vote in Parliament to allow fox-hunting again, and the Boundary review. This is because they didn't get a clear mandate in the election. They promised they would reduce immigration but seem to have accepted that they will not be able to achieve their targets (as they are having to soften up on Brexit). This is in addition to abandoning the Dementia tax and means testing winter fuel allowance which they gave up on even before the election.
Manifesto pledges are frequently not kept. But Corbyn's "I will deal with it" was NEVER a manifesto pledge. Hypocritical of Conservatives to even mention it!

You're right that this is all academic really, but most people don't read the manifesto. They rely, rightly or wrongly, on other sources of information. That's why JC did interviews with magazines like NME. To reach younger people.

www.nme.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-will-deal-already-burdened-student-debt-2082478

Saying it was not in the manifesto is not the same as explaining what 'I will deal with it' means.

So Jeremy Corbyn, promised in the Labour Manifesto, to end tuition fees. He later said in an interview that the level of existing student debt was unfair and in a low key aside said that he "would deal with it". I interpreted that as meaning if Labour was elected they would look into the problem of student debt. There was no formal pledge or manifesto promise to wipe out the debt. As labour is not in government, they can't have broken any pledges anyway. They still intend to end tuition fees if they are elected.
Meanwhile, the Tories were (just about) re-elected and proceeded to abandon numerous pledges from their Manifesto. Dementia tax and winter fuel allowance being means tested come to mind. Look at the Tory manifesto!

If you can find a quote saying he would write off all student debt please post it and we can discuss. As it is numerous sources have been quoted and none have said this. I have said the student debt will have to be dealt with and at least he is being honest and talking about it. Others are keeping quiet whilst they try to hatch some nefarious plan that will make them look less incompetent, deal with the problem they created and convince the public that it wasn't their fault in the first place. (Will they blame the bankers, the Labour Party -interesting to see- bet they won't say 'we got it wrong")

Or... maybe you're predisposed to interpret his comments in a particular way?

It isn't an insult. If you can't read and understand something it is just a fact. Read and argue about what has been said by all means but don't make stuff up and expect to have a reasonable argument about it.

trisher I couldn't agree more.

I'm enjoying the kinder, gentler politics here. Keep throwing insults my way. I'll deal with it

There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.

It's not Vince Cable who lacks understanding. It's *Primrose' having comprehension difficulties...