[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

1bn compared to 100bn. Er!

Where did this £100billion figure come from?

[jet]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Where did this £100billion figure come from?

In the article -

Jeremy Corbyn’s plans to cancel all historic student debt would cost £100billion, his education spokesman has revealed...

[user104658]

Jet your position seems to be arguing that bribery is OK so long as the bribe money is then "spent on good things". At some point you're going to have to accept that not everyone feels that way. A bribe / extortion is immoral in politics no matter what it's spent on, in the opinion of many, so constantly arguing that it's all good because it will be spent in good ways for NI is going to prove fruitless for you. It isn't that people aren't hearing you or that they don't understand that. It's that it's irrelevant. Whether they spend it on mustard gas or a cancer cure for kittens, is totally besides the point when it comes to discussing the morality of bribery in the first place, or whether a government spending money on bribes is justifiable.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Jet your position seems to be arguing that bribery is OK so long as the bribe money is then "spent on good things". At some point you're going to have to accept that not everyone feels that way. A bribe / extortion is immoral in politics no matter what it's spent on, in the opinion of many, so constantly arguing that it's all good because it will be spent in good ways for NI is going to prove fruitless for you. It isn't that people aren't hearing you or that they don't understand that. It's that it's irrelevant. Whether they spend it on mustard gas or a cancer cure for kittens, is totally besides the point when it comes to discussing the morality of bribery in the first place, or whether a government spending money on bribes is justifiable.

Where have I said bribery is okay? Quote me? I was arguing the point and ONLY the point that the money won't be wasted (as someone posted it will be) as it will do good.

As for morality - people get all moralistic only when it suits them. Supporting a known terrorist sympathiser is totally immoral in my view, but obviously it matters not a jot to many. They just conveniently refuse to believe it and morals be damned.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Suddenly you are getting elitist. I thought Corbynites cared about the many. Or is that only when it suits.

Not sure you understand the context, it's not shocking to expect a certain standard of education especially as it is costing you thousands per year...:/
Only Corbynites care about the many...What do you care about then the few?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Jet your position seems to be arguing that bribery is OK so long as the bribe money is then "spent on good things". At some point you're going to have to accept that not everyone feels that way. A bribe / extortion is immoral in politics no matter what it's spent on, in the opinion of many, so constantly arguing that it's all good because it will be spent in good ways for NI is going to prove fruitless for you. It isn't that people aren't hearing you or that they don't understand that. It's that it's irrelevant. Whether they spend it on mustard gas or a cancer cure for kittens, is totally besides the point when it comes to discussing the morality of bribery in the first place, or whether a government spending money on bribes is justifiable.

You talk of bribery - the cost of Bribery for Corbyn's young voters is more than 100bn. It stinks.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Not sure you understand the context, it's not shocking to expect a certain standard of education especially as it is costing you thousands per year...:/
Only Corbynites care about the many...What do you care about then the few?

You said it 'quality not QUANTITY' (as in many). Like May (grammar schools) you want opportunities for the brightest, not the many.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

You talk of bribery - the cost of Bribery for Corbyn's young voters is more than 100bn. It stinks.

But it's harmless ole Corbyn doing the bribing, so it's OK. Get with the programme Brillo.

[user104658]

If we're going to be pretending that manifesto promises during an election campaign are in the same league as offering money to another political party, there's little point continuing this discussion.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If we're going to be pretending that manifesto promises during an election campaign are in the same league as offering money to another political party, there's little point continuing this discussion.

People shouldn't make promises unless they know they can 100% keep them.

He's backtracking already:

Ms Rayner said: "Jeremy said that that's an ambition, it's something that he'd like to do. It's something that we will not announce that we're doing unless we can afford to do that.

He bribed young people into voting for him over something he wasn't even sure would be affordable or sensible.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Free education for all, higher entry requirements across the board, if I'm being honest. Get rid of the situation we have now where many jobs that realistically don't require higher education nonetheless have a "must have a-degree-any-degree" checkbox to tick on the application form, and also make it that you need more than two C's and a swimming certificate to get into University.

Have to admit that I am a bit of an academic snob. I believe that getting into University should be based purely on ability, not financial considerations or anything else, and I also quite strongly believe that academia is being dramatically "dumbed down" with being turned into tuitions fees factories where they will accept pretty much anyone in order to harvest their cash, regardless of whether or not they will actually thrive in higher education.

Also, schools need to stop pushing so hard for 18 year olds to go straight to University out of the school gates! SOME people truly have a lath in mind and a course set at 18. A very small number of people. Most would benefit hugely from having a few years to actually figure out what they want to do, rather than heading off to university "because everyone else is". I definitely would have. I trotted along to Uni "because that's what you do next the teachers said so" and swapped degrees three times, never went to classes, ended up dropping out without a degree because I had zero motivation in the first place. Now that I'm older and wiser (the wisest, let's face it) I would absolutely love to go back into academia, but it's not financially or practically realistic, at least not until my wife graduates and is earning.

However I honestly believe that if I hadn't "rushed" to Uni at 18 and had taken 2 or 3 years to actually think about it, I would have gone in much more focused in the first place.

Good thoughts, I agree with a lot of this. I know you don't like clappys (or so you say haha) so I'll give you one.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

You said it 'quality not QUANTITY' (as in many). Like May (grammar schools) you want opportunities for the brightest, not the many.

Since when should 'the many' mean poor students alone? I didn't ever allude to that, you seem to think I have the same 'us and them' chip you are displaying here.
'The many' mean the brightest irrespective of income. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? there has always been a benchmark for entry

To clarify, I should like to see free uni places FOR ALL.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

There you go again, making comments that have no truth to them. I have never supported the DUP. You forgot to mention the bits where I said I disliked them. lol
How does saying nobody in the party killed anyone (unlike Sinn Fein) mean I support them? It means just what I said - they are not as bad as Sinn Fein.
Truth - unless you disagree and support Sinn Fein/IRA like ole Corbyn?

So some links to terrorism are okay but not others? The hypocrisy of this post speaks for itself. You can't disparage someone for supposedly having links to terrorism and then conveniently ignore similar (and more solid) links from a party just because they are opposed to Corbyn.

It's hypocritical beyond belief and now you'll probably respond to this be bleating on about Corbyn to mask the fact that you don't have a response about the DUP.

Originally Posted by jet

Are you serious?

So where do you think it will go then? No diverting this time please!

I've never diverted anything, you are just overly emotional and cannot hold a debate because you don't accept responses you dislike. You treat any answers you dislike as diversionary tactics. Until you become more mature then discussing anything with you is a complete waste of time.

It's not going to go to the NHS, it's not going to the Police. Hospitals, police forces and other vital services around all four states of the UK are suffering from budget cuts yet the Tories bribed the DUP with £1bn, denying that taxpayer money from services across the UK just to stay in power.

That money only went to NI to keep the Tories in power, it wouldn't have happened otherwise like Joey said. Also reiterating what TS said, a bribe is a bribe, you can't justifty the means by the ends. To support this coalition and the bribe that created it is essentially supporting Pay to Play Politics except it's taxpayers money that's being used and not private funds.

That's my last response to you, I already know what you are going to respond with (both posts) and we're just going to go around in circles because you don't accept opinions you don't like.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

So some links to terrorism are okay but not others? The hypocrisy of this post speaks for itself. You can't disparage someone for supposedly having links to terrorism and then conveniently ignore similar (and more solid) links from a party just because they are opposed to Corbyn.

It's hypocritical beyond belief and now you'll probably respond to this be bleating on about Corbyn to mask the fact that you don't have a response about the DUP.

Now where did I say that? I really do think you have difficulty with comprehension, and I'm not just being sarcastic here. Or maybe you are once again using diversion tactics.
Please post a quote where I say or imply some links to terrorism are okay.
You won't be able to, because I don't think ANY terrorism is okay.

Now let me spell out for you why I say Sinn Fein are worse than the DUP, imo.
Sinn Fein are the official political party of the terrorist IRA. The DuP are not the official political party of any terrorist organisation, and never have been.
Sinn Fein still have murderers in their party in high positions representing N. Ireland. The DUP have not, and have never had murderers in their party representing N. Ireland.
Got that?

I support neither the DUP nor Sinn Fein. I support neither Torys nor Labour. I have supported and been loyal to the SDLP for more than 30 years, the N. Irish party with no links to terrorism that I know of.

I am not in the least concerned about the DUP or whatever terrorist links they had because none of their members have a chance of becoming the Prime Minister of the UK. Your terrorist supporter Corbyn does, and not just with the IRA either, and I think that is why you twist others words and use diversionary tactics because you know his solid links to terrorism are true and you feel guilty about not caring.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I've never diverted anything, you are just overly emotional and cannot hold a debate because you don't accept responses you dislike. You treat any answers you dislike as diversionary tactics. Until you become more mature then discussing anything with you is a complete waste of time.

It's not going to go to the NHS, it's not going to the Police. Hospitals, police forces and other vital services around all four states of the UK are suffering from budget cuts yet the Tories bribed the DUP with £1bn, denying that taxpayer money from services across the UK just to stay in power.

That money only went to NI to keep the Tories in power, it wouldn't have happened otherwise like Joey said. Also reiterating what TS said, a bribe is a bribe, you can't justifty the means by the ends. To support this coalition and the bribe that created it is essentially supporting Pay to Play Politics except it's taxpayers money that's being used and not private funds.

That's my last response to you, I already know what you are going to respond with (both posts) and we're just going to go around in circles because you don't accept opinions you don't like.

And you are overly cold and and cannot hold a debate because you can't answer simple questions directly. I asked 'how is the money being wasted'? and you bleated on about bribes and diverted, diverted, diverted over and over again. Until you become more mature and aware of what is actually being asked it is pointless discussing anything with you.

Are bribes wrong? Of course. But I'm pretty sure it is not the first time any government has used them to ensure they have the seats or anything else they needed, whether that was behind closed doors payouts or other 'secret' deals which benefited the party they needed whatever it was from. You really don't believe that politics is as pure as the driven snow do you? I mean, look at ole terrorist lover Jeremy and how he is the new Santa. That's politics for you.
At least this deal was upfront and out in the open. Get over it.

[Tom4784]

I'll give you one last reply.

Originally Posted by jet

Now where did I say that? I really do think you have difficulty with comprehension, and I'm not just being sarcastic here. Or maybe you are once again using diversion tactics.
Please post a quote where I say or imply some links to terrorism are okay.
You won't be able to, because I don't think ANY terrorism is okay.

Now let me spell out for you why I say Sinn Fein are worse than the DUP, imo.
Sinn Fein are the official political party of the terrorist IRA. The DuP are not the official political party of any terrorist organisation, and never have been.
Sinn Fein still have murderers in their party in high positions representing N. Ireland. The DUP have not, and have never had murderers in their party representing N. Ireland.
Got that?

I support neither the DUP nor Sinn Fein. I support neither Torys nor Labour. I have supported and been loyal to the SDLP for more than 30 years, the N. Irish party with no links to terrorism that I know of.

I am not in the least concerned about the DUP or whatever terrorist links they had because none of their members have a chance of becoming the Prime Minister of the UK. Your terrorist supporter Corbyn does, and not just with the IRA either, and I think that is why you twist others words and use diversionary tactics because you know his solid links to terrorism are true and you feel guilty about not caring.

You said it yourself 'They are not as bad as Sinn Fein'. One would think that proven terrorist links would be enough to condemn them as you would Sinn Fein but the DUP opposes JC so obviously you can excuse their links and will do so through any means necessary. My reading comprehension is fine, your short term memory? Might need some work because you are literally saying what I said you were saying in my last post 'The DUP aren't murderers so it's k.'

I've asked this a thousand times and never actually got a good answer but I'll ask it again. In the world of politics where one wrong statement or scandal will end your career, how is it that, if these accusations towards JC have any merit, he's still in power? He has most of the media and a lot of the sheep constantly looking to bring him down on top of actual enemies that COULD bring him down yet this scandal which if true would end his career overnight hasn't managed to do so in the months since the story blew up. Why?

It's because it's likely been misrepresented and overblown, you can't have the enemies that JC has and be involved in a legitimate scandal and still stay in power.

Originally Posted by jet

And you are overly cold and and cannot hold a debate because you can't answer simple questions directly. I asked 'how is the money being wasted'? and you bleated on about bribes and diverted, diverted, diverted over and over again. Until you become more mature and aware of what is actually being asked it is pointless discussing anything with you.
Are bribes wrong? Of course. But I'm pretty sure it is not the first time any government has used them to ensure they have the seats or anything else they needed, whether that was behind closed doors payouts or other 'secret' deals which benefited the party they needed whatever it was from. You really don't believe that politics is as pure as the driven snow do you?
At least this deal was upfront and out in the open. Get over it.

I've answered directly, you are just a brick wall when it comes to answers you dislike and you proved it in this post. Also it's obviously very mature to repeat what I said verbatim but you should honestly work on the context since repeating what I said without the correct context in place makes that barb a bit of a flop. Nice try though I'd give it a 'You tried' gold star.

Your second paragraph is hilarious, it's you trying to justify bribes yet, if it was JC doing the bribe, you'd be calling for his head, oh and since you are very predictable I'll answer the point you'll inevitably try to attack me with in your followup post. No, I would not defend JC if the tables were reversed and he bribed the DUP instead. The DUP should never be anywhere near power because they are a bunch of bigots and such a deal would be a betrayal of values from Corbyn.

When it comes to politics, my only allegiance is to the NHS, it is the only issue I truly care about. My agenda alligns with Labour at this point but it won't likely stay that way because I personally think party loyalty is for fools.

There's nothing more to be said but since you like having the last word I'll let you have it since I know you need to feel like you've scored points against me. Consider it my gift to you, as empty as it will be. I'm happy enough just being the better person and walking away, which is exactly what I'm doing now.

[the truth]

the left will bankrupt us yet again...as for the nhs they lost us 10s of billions due to insane middle management , endless cover ups, mass outbreaks of mrsa, allowing the nhs to waste billions on vanity surgery boobs jobs liposuction etc gp out of hours work ended, illegal wars, now after inventing tuition fees they want to end them and cost the economy £100 billion a year. labour brought in endless nonsense degree courses and wanted everyone to go to uni....what nonsense. they even allowed for a degree course in david beckham studies? not everyone goes to uni not everyone will be a doctor or a lawyer...some people have different skills talents ways of leanring and no labour fans not everyone is the same, everyone is different

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'll give you one last reply.
You said it yourself 'They are not as bad as Sinn Fein'. One would think that proven terrorist links would be enough to condemn them as you would Sinn Fein but the DUP opposes JC so obviously you can excuse their links and will do so through any means necessary. My reading comprehension is fine, your short term memory? Might need some work because you are literally saying what I said you were saying in my last post 'The DUP aren't murderers so it's k.'
.

No, that is what YOU were saying I said, because you can't find a quote where I actually said that as it doesn't exist. I said they weren't as bad as Sinn Fein, because its true, that is all. I condemn ALL terrorists links.


You obviously don't think Sinn Fein are worse than the DUP...
So you think that having murderers in high profile positions in a political party is on a par with a party that don't? Wow.
So you think a party that is the official one of a terrorist organisation is on a par with one that isn't? Wow.

You obviously excuse Sinn Fein/IRA because of their links with Corbyn. I have never seen you condemn them when I pointed out their gruesome links to terrorism but you constantly condemn the DUP because they oppose Corbyn.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I've asked this a thousand times and never actually got a good answer but I'll ask it again. In the world of politics where one wrong statement or scandal will end your career, how is it that, if these accusations towards JC have any merit, he's still in power? He has most of the media and a lot of the sheep constantly looking to bring him down on top of actual enemies that COULD bring him down yet this scandal which if true would end his career overnight hasn't managed to do so in the months since the story blew up. Why?

It's because it's likely been misrepresented and overblown, you can't have the enemies that JC has and be involved in a legitimate scandal and still stay in power.

Your second paragraph is hilarious, it's you trying to justify bribes yet, if it was JC doing the bribe, you'd be calling for his head, oh and since you are very predictable I'll answer the point you'll inevitably try to attack me with in your followup post. No, I would not defend JC if the tables were reversed and he bribed the DUP instead. The DUP should never be anywhere near power because they are a bunch of bigots and such a deal would be a betrayal of values from Corbyn.

And I've asked a thousand times why he hasn't sued or refused to condemn the IRA. There has been plenty of press and TV about Corbyn's IRA support but his fanatics don't care, so what is the point of pushing it? It only makes them support him more cos they think the poor ole harmless luvvie is being persecuted.
Time will expose him for what he is.

Milliband and Brown both tried to get the DUP on board, (tut tut). You wouldn't like him going near the DUP though, I know that. Sinn Fein, his buddies, with their resident murderers, would fit better with his values.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by jet

But it's harmless ole Corbyn doing the bribing, so it's OK. Get with the programme Brillo.

Yep, one rule for one and all that. That 100bn is pure bribery - anyone that tries to convince otherwise is being disingenuous or a fool.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by the truth

they want to end them and cost the economy £100 billion a year.

honestly, no wonder some people get themselves so worked up, when they aren't reading or comprehending the figures properly. It does not cost the economy 100 billion per year. That would be an insane amount. It's a flat figure of all the debt that already exists that would be being written off. A one off thing.

The per-year figure for scrapping tuition fees is £9 billion.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Yep, one rule for one and all that. That 100bn is pure bribery - anyone that tries to convince otherwise is being disingenuous or a fool.

It's no more bribery than any other party manifesto promise. All parties make those. All parties try to appeal to certain people. Is it bribery? If you want to be pedantic, I suppose it is, but no more than tax cuts / concessions offered to any other section of society by any other party in a manifesto. Any manifesto is a document full of bribes and treats designed to entice voters, most of which will never happen. To suggest that only Corbyn / Labour have made election promises is ludicrous.

It is not the same as exchanges of money between political parties to secure votes in parliament. I'm convinced that no one really believes that its the same.

[Kizzy]

Disgusting exploitation.

When Grace Parkins opened her first statement from the Student Loans Company she wasn’t prepared for what she saw. After four years studying she discovered she was now more than £69,000 in debt.

Parkins was one of the first generation of students to sign up to £9,000 a year tuition fees. Like many recent graduates, she had no idea she was also racking up £8,000 of interest on her student loan while still at university. Students currently pay interest of 4.6%, even while they study, and this will rise to 6.1% in September. “That should have been made much clearer,” she says. “I didn’t expect that at all. All I really knew was that I wouldn’t be repaying until I earned £21,000 and my outstanding debt would be written off after 30 years.”

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...s-tuition-fees

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's no more bribery than any other party manifesto promise. All parties make those. All parties try to appeal to certain people. Is it bribery? If you want to be pedantic, I suppose it is, but no more than tax cuts / concessions offered to any other section of society by any other party in a manifesto. Any manifesto is a document full of bribes and treats designed to entice voters, most of which will never happen. To suggest that only Corbyn / Labour have made election promises is ludicrous.

It is not the same as exchanges of money between political parties to secure votes in parliament. I'm convinced that no one really believes that its the same.

DUC and Sinn Fein are political parties are they not. If there is nothing in the rules that says they cannot form an alliance with a government then to keep bleating on about any of them doing so is just tactics. Take it up with the political rule-makers. I have no doubt in my mind if JC had been in the position of having to form an alliance with Sinn Fein he would have. Other Labour leaders have done so with the DUC.

As for the 'bribe' - the DUC are supporting and working with Government - it is an alliance - therefore they are entitled to some kind of consideration when money is allocated.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

DUC and Sinn Fein are political parties are they not. If there is nothing in the rules that says they cannot form an alliance with a government then to keep bleating on about any of them doing so is just tactics. Take it up with the political rule-makers. I have no doubt in my mind if JC had been in the position of having to form an alliance with Sinn Fein he would have. Other Labour leaders have done so with the DUC.

As for the 'bribe' - the DUC are supporting and working with Government - it is an alliance - therefore they are entitled to some kind of consideration when money is allocated.

That isn't what happened. They wouldn't work with the government until the government agreed to the extra money. That is a bribe. They were PAID OFF to form an alliance as they were deliberately holding out. Stop pretending otherwise.

Also stop calling them the DUC it makes me giggle. Quack.