I Will Deal With It

Devorgilla, if you read this link you will see it wasn't a throw away remark.

voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/07/23/next-time-someone-tells-you-jeremy-corbyn-promised-to-wipe-out-student-debt-show-them-this/
Watch the video.
The DM has taken words out of context, omitted others completely, and given the intended message to anyone who dislikes Corbyn. But it isn't what he said.
I wonder when/if the DM will put the record straight.

Don't hold your breath dj

I heard the original interview and I do think JC hadn't expected that aspect to be put to him so said what he thought would be non committal. Alas, as you so rightly say, the DM latches on to everything. You will wait a long time for the record to be put right on that and other matters.

I think he genuinely meant 'I will deal with it',as in I will look into it !
In no way could he physically do anything about it , at the time or now, without the full details and costs and the authority to access all details.
One day when he is Prime Minister, he will have the power to authorise a full enquiry

Penstemmon, on a lighter note, the best advice I ever got about having a good clear out, and one I follow to this day, is to take everything out (in your case to the garden on a good day), clean and tidy interior and then only put back what you know you want in there. Sooner or later, you or someone else, will get fed up with the rusting pile left behind and take it to the dump. This works every time for me and for every room. By this method I got husband to go through his clothes and only put back what he really would wear. We took to charity shop three massive bags of clothes. I did 'allow' him to keep the odd sentimental item of clothing. Even I am not that harsh.

Elfies, yes I agree, having been faced with the question he made a statement that he thought implied he would look into it when in a position to do so for the next manifesto or as PM. However, it is naive to assume that an experienced interviewer will not look for the part pertinent to the issue not mentioned and ask the question. Politicians need someone to play 'devil's advocate' and look for the hidden angles the interviewer will seize upon and take them through those paces in advance. If you are talking about how students should be financed it is reasonable to expect a question on existing debt and its burden and your solution. All politicians need to do thorough homework in advance, spot the loopholes and have the 'let out' phrase to hand - and then have a better answer when next asked it, which they will be.

But you are all talking on the premise that he will not do it when he becomes PM.
I think he will.

Tax research blog.
3/7/2017
It's time for all politicians to say sorry for the scandal of student debt.

Quantitative Easing will pay it all off.

"In that case, thirdly, let’s recognise that this means the debt does not have anything to do with education per se: it’s just been a convenient way of dropping part of government debt onto a particular group in society who may pay 10% extra tax for much of their lives as a result and be denied the chance to afford a house, raise a family or save as a consequence. This is financial engineering in that case. It is not about being a student. And if in doubt think about it like this. Instead of making students bear part of the national debt suppose we made other people do so instead. So, if you went to hospital you’d have to pay more of the national debt as a result. Or if you had a fire you’d pick up a slug of debt. And what about if you didn’t have children? You’d get a national debt refund for not burdening the state in the Gove / Cable personal costing formula . All these are analogous to what’s been happening with student debt, and as absurd.

We should pick those who go to university because they have the ability to attend and will benefit society by doing so. I know that the current system does not produce outcomes without bias, but maybe that’s at least partly because of the debt. And we also know now that fire is not always a random chance either. And nor is ill health. But we realise we should spread the risk of these last two, at least in principle. So why not also spread the risk of being able to benefit from university? We all gain as a result. Instead Cable and Gove seem to have utterly forgotten the role of government in pooling risk and benefit as a result. Let me be clear, having higher rates of tax for all on higher incomes to tackle potentially resulting inequalities is absolutely fine: I welcome those. But what I don’t see is why we should privatise the national debt to a portion of society.

So what should we do?

First scrap fees.

Second, scrap the student debt now owing and use QE to buy back that already sold to third parties.

As a result make a level playing field. And give people a chance in life.

As importantly, boost the economy by reducing the crushing burden of debt that hangs over so many younger people now before they might ever think about going near a mortgage. If this debt is taken off them they may spend more. But as importantly they might have a chance to live.

And then a lot of politicians need to say sorry. Because student debt was never about paying for university at all. Student debt was about dumping national debt off the balance sheet and onto the young. whilst extracting a profit for the financial services sector on the way. It was always a scandal in the making. It;’s time the scandal was brought to a close.

It’s time too that Cable and Gove worked out the reason for government. But maybe that’s too much to hope for."

Thanks dj Brilliant piece. I have long felt that student debt was wrong in principle but to see it reasoned out like that was reassuring. So I am not just an old leftie who believes education is a vital part of our society and should be free to all, but there is real economic sense behind not having student debt as well. Hurrah!!!

The rest of it is worth reading, too, trisher, and the replies.

Agree with what you posted dj in my view we as a country benefit enormously from a well educated population and should pay for it.

Your youngest was lucky Devorgilla. Student debt is taken into account in mortgage applications and has affected my youngest son. It is included in the 'affordability' calculation.

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2646007/Student-loan-debt-IS-considered-applying-mortgage.html

JC went to Glastonbury and told students education would be free from now on nad he would deal with debt for previous students. I recently heard JC say on TV he was not sure how much it would cost to make student debt problem go away for YP. He is as clueless as DA about finances. He seemed to invent new promises each day in run up to election. At one point he was not only offering the world for school he was also offering every child in country to learn a musical instrument. That musical tuition is expensive and there would not be enough teachers qualified to teach it but that did not stop JC. I teach 14-19 year old students and I am still often shocked at how vulnerable they are in their beliefs of politicians. Most seem to not to realise politicians are infallible. Many students in debt possibly would vote for the devil himself if they were told their debt would be wiped, They are so stressed about debt.

May students voted Lib Dem when they were promising students would not have to pay for degree level education but once they were in power with Conservatives and did not deliver students did not vote for them again. I expect many disillusioned YP still paying off their own student debt may not vote for JC again. I personally think he also picked up some pensioner votes as promising to keep triple lock on pensions for all pensioners as well as current student vote.

I personally think degrees for nursing, teaching, health visitors, social work and other public service could be free as those professions will never be rich and we need those people but other degrees should be kept to current arrangements and paid for by students if and when they earn over a certain amount as graduates will earn a lot extra in their life time. It is not feasible for all students to get free degrees as in the past as then only less than 20% went to university and now over 50% go. Also it means the ones who don't go will have to pay indirectly for the ones who do go and on average earn a lot more so is morally wrong. Student debts can be repaid. My DD and her DH are both paying back student debts seven years after graduating but it has not stopped them saving for deposit and buying their own house and having child.

Read the tax research newnanny it explains the situation perfectly. This "we can't afford it because there are more" was probably used when the school leaving age was raised from 14 to 16, but we coped. I don't suppose you think your students should pay for their education so why should they pay at 18? Is there some magic transformation that takes place? I suppose buying a house largely depends on where you live. Also student debt seven years ago was very little compared with the £50,000 that most will come out with now.

It's interesting to talk to students who voted for Labour at the last election. I showed the voxpolitical blog post to my youngest and her language was explicit! Her view (just one student) was 'next time Labour come canvassing, I'll show them this' - a middle finger salute.
May not be representative of all young Labour voters, but I think the 'we never said that' approach doesn't sit well with recent graduates.

Corbyns a shyster he knew he wouldn't win the election so he promised the earth to the gullible voters knowing there was no chance he had to deliver to get a few more seats.

So if Corbyn is a "shyster" when at least he admits there is a student debt problem what are all the rest of the politicians who are pretending that there isn't a problem and trying to convince you that all is well? It isn't going to go away. It isn't going to be paid off. It isn't going to do what the people who introduced it thought it would. So what is the answer? In order to find the answer you have to first acknowledge the problem.

I think everyone understands the issues around student debt, even the Tories. I also think some people who voted Labour will now understand what 'I will deal with it' actually means.
Telling them they are wrong to feel disappointed at best, or duped at worst, will not change the way they feel.

They may understand it Primrose65 but they're not talking about it are they?

In answer to your question Anniebach, I would expect anyone who told me 'they'd deal with it' to do just that; no ifs, buts or maybe's.

Surely smileless there is more than one way of dealing with a problem - it doesn't mean waving a magic wand and the problem disappears.

Yes but you don't promise to get rid of student debt a few weeks before a general election with no intention or means to do so if you were elected, but of course he knew he wouldn't get elected so he and the Labour party told lie after lie and made promises they knew they couldn't deliver. He's not only a shyster but lier. Were you duped Trisher into voting for him well more fool you for doing so in my opinion.