As the SKWAWKBOX and others have shown, the Tories and their mouthpieces are continuing to push their desperate claim that Corbyn has rowed back on a ‘promise’ to cancel student debts.
The only straw they’re grasping in support of that claim is an NME interview by Corbyn and specifically a single sentence Corbyn said when asked about student debt:
I will deal with it.
But simply reading the rest of the paragraph – conveniently omitted from the Tories’ press release justifying their claim – shows that claim for the misleading nonsense it is:
As the boxed section shows, Corbyn stated the options he was looking at – and lengthening the repayment period was one, along with ‘reducing’ or ‘ameliorating’ it.
Lengthening a repayment period is emphatically not the same as writing anything off.
Labour made a manifesto commitment to ending tuition fees. There was never any manifesto promise to write off, clear or wipe existing student debts.
And even the Tories’ sole piece of desperate ‘evidence’ is shown to be nonsense by the same passage they’re quoting – because a longer repayment period cannot possibly be considered a promise to wipe anything.
The SKWAWKBOX has contacted CCHQ for comment. We also tried to reach the Tories’ communications director, Carrie Symonds, for an interview about her and her party’s tactic, but were told she was unavailable – although she was at least free enough to send out the above tweet.
The matter is beyond any doubt – Corbyn never made any promise to clear student debt and even the supposed ‘evidence’ being used to suggest otherwise is self-disproving.
This blog now calls on the Conservatives, a huge array of media and LibDem leader Vince Cable, who was happy to tweet the false claim, to retract – and to apologise for creating and/or promoting fake news.
But we won’t hold our breath.
(‘Hat-tip’ to @britainjoey for flagging the NME detail.)
The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
It seems that this Government is scrabbling about, looking for any old lie or half truth in an effort to discredit JC and the Labour Party. They really are running scared are they not, and so they should be, Doomsday is getting closer!
Reblogged this on Earth Changing Extremities.
The red box conveniently omits the last two sentences of the quoted text.
“I will deal with it” can equally be interpreted as I will deal with the historical misfortune of those who are carrying an excessive burden of debt compared to new students under a hypothetical Labour government.
As someone quite cleverly said on Twitter:
If your other half rings you at work and asks you to bring milk home, and your reply is “I’ll deal with it”, is there a reasonable expectation of milk delivery?
Ahh! The seductive power of selective quotes.
It’s a bit dumb to try that one when commenting on an article that is criticising the MSM for attempting to do the same thing. LOL
Sorry – not trying to be selective. The whole NME article’s here for those who wish to read it:
“http://www.nme.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-will-deal-already-burdened-student-debt-2082478”
The point I was trying to make, clumsily, is that the red box / underlining itself is a form of selective quotation, drawing the eye away from the meaty bit at the end, and emphasising the payment extension solution at the expense of the reduction option.
Skwawkbox continues that theme by bolding the words “lengthening the repayment period” and using normal text for the words “along with ‘reducing’ or ‘ameliorating’ it.”
I would still say that the final two sentences do seem to commit Mr Corbyn to doing something (what exactly being unclear) about excessive historical debt should he have won the election. However as Labour lost the election, we’ll have to wait until the next manifesto to see what that might entail.
Your extensive reply only works if you have difficulty with English comprehension. Alternatively if you are maliciously trying to misinterpret simple English language in order to make your case then maybe you can deceive yourself into believing the rubbish you are attempting to project
OK. How would you read the final two sentences?
IMHO to all the good folks who are responding to G .Hindson you , I fear , are wasting your time and playing his game . His only intention and purpose is to cover the actions of his Govt paymasters by appearing reasonable on the surface but below is an all out Tory Troll who is as unpleasant as they come .Visit some of the articles surrounding Grenfell tower fire and note his ducking and diving to straight questions and utter lack of sensitivity and compassion , and then note here again on this topic the same pattern of comment .
His reason is to undermine this blog ,make you think it is unworthy of belief and to question its writers honesty. Whilst providing a blanket of cover for the actions of the establishment and his Govt who he defends every time very subtly . There is a very clear pattern of action that he masquerades as ” debate” but successfully in some cases “pushes all the right buttons ” ,that wind up ( me included but no more ) honest decent people with a moral conscience , something he clearly has none of .
No doubt he will respond to this in his usual whining way playing the injured sole who only wants debate , when in fact he wants to shut down and destroy any alternative narrative to the one his puppet masters want you to hear.
I leave you to make the judgement and intend no insult to any who have genuinely tried to engage in meaningful debate with this Troll
In context
I meant – what do you think he meant by “I’ll deal with it”?
What don’t you understand about ‘in context’.
@SteveH
I’m trying to establish what you think Mr Corbyn meant when he said he would “deal with it”.
I’ve put up my interpretation – if you think I’m wrong, why don’t you put up an alternative?
The point is that you are putting your interpretation on a phrase taken out of context. I have no interest in indulging you in your
childish and meaningless games.
OK. We’ll leave it there. It appears that I’m wrong because I’m wrong!
It’s good to see you have the intelligence to recognise how pointless your original post was.
Anyone remember the £350 mill per week that will be spent on the NHS
I think that’s a misinterpretation of where we are.
I’ve put up my my understanding of Mr Corbyn’s final words and you haven’t.
It”s impossible to proceed if you will only dismiss my position without putting up your own.
You are coming across as being a rather specious and obtuse individual, Graham. No doubt you are a great defender of Blair and were vociferously arguing exactly the opposite case when it was discovered during the Chilcot report that Blair said he was going to back Bush come what may.
I dare say you were probably busting a gut emphasising the but that followed that particular statement.
Consistency is everything, Graham. You are all over the shop, mate.
I’ve put up my my understanding of Mr Corbyn’s final words twice and no one’s come up with an alternative yet.
He’s a Tory troll and has past form , you are wasting your time with him /it.
Straw man expert and subtle with it too.
Check out some of his less than pleasant comments / stance re Grenfell tower amongst others .Now trying the same tactics over on The Canary
Graham Hindson wants to focus on “Mr Corbyn’s final words” which is an attempt ot ignore everything that he said before, thus disregarding context. Corbyn says he is well aware of “that problem”, i.e. students who currently have debt. It is “that problem” he is going to “deal with”. Corbyn also provides a number of possible ways it could be dealt with, such as “lengthening the period of paying it off”. At no point does he say anything even remotely approaching cancelling the debt
The phrase ‘I will deal with it’, which is causing such contention seems to me to be self evident. JC says clearly, I will deal with it. This, to me implies that when he is in a position to do so he WILL deal with the problem of student debt, in one or more, of the ways he suggests, but, as we all know, at the moment he is not ‘in office’ and so is unable to deal with it, but when he is in office he will resolve the issue. Simples eh!
You’re reading it like me. He was saying that if Labour won he was going to deal with the debt burden in some way.
But they didn’t win, and the intention to deal has become an ambition to deal.
We’ll have to wait for the next manifesto to see the detail, if any, of the means of dealing.
Jeremy Corbyn promised to do something about existing student debt. Angela Rayner said she has an ambition to write off all student debt. The two are not exclusive options. Therefore there is no U-turn. Labour has not changed its policy on student debt. Labour has promised to end the current system of crushing lifelong debt for higher education and I am confident that Labour will do as much as it can to help those who are already in debt.
Exactly. The phrase “I will deal with it” is being pushed as the only option on the table was to write the debt off. This is far from the truth as there were several options mentioned with one of them ‘extending the period of payment’, which is diametrically opposed to ‘writing it off’.
Reblogged this on vondreassen.
I don’t normally respond to Rob’s standard diatribe, but this caught my eye.
“His reason is to undermine this blog ,make you think it is unworthy of belief ”
In some cases it is unworthy of belief, as the original story has to be retracted (D notice, Disabled benefits, JC’s tax return)
It would appear to be Rob’s case that this blog should somehow be immune from the very sort of scrutiny to which Skwawkbox subjects other media outlets.
Odd.
IMHO to all the good folks who are responding to G .Hindson you , I fear , are wasting your time and playing his game . His only intention and purpose is to cover the actions of his Govt paymasters by appearing reasonable on the surface but below is an all out Tory Troll who is as unpleasant as they come .Visit some of the articles surrounding Grenfell tower fire and note his ducking and diving to straight questions and utter lack of sensitivity and compassion , and then note here again on this topic the same pattern of comment .
His reason is to undermine this blog ,make you think it is unworthy of belief and to question its writers honesty. Whilst providing a blanket of cover for the actions of the establishment and his Govt who he defends every time very subtly . There is a very clear pattern of action that he masquerades as ” debate” but successfully in some cases “pushes all the right buttons ” ,that wind up ( me included but no more ) honest decent people with a moral conscience , something he clearly has none of .
No doubt he will respond to this in his usual whining way playing the injured sole who only wants debate , when in fact he wants to shut down and destroy any alternative narrative to the one his puppet masters want you to hear.
I leave you to make the judgement and intend no insult to any who have genuinely tried to engage in meaningful debate with this Troll
In some cases it is unworthy of belief, as the original story has to be retracted (D notice, Disabled benefits, JC’s tax return)
Right….
‘D’ Notice – A question was asked. NO statement there WAS a ‘D’ notice issued. Correct?
You know it’s correct, helmet. Stop being contrary.
Disability benefits – You (By your own admission) know NOTHING of the welfare system. Can disabled people moved to JSA be sanctioned for 3 YEARS? Y/N? It’s a ‘Y’ isn’t it? So the article wasn’t lying as such, was it?
(Unless of course you’re in denial that thousands of disabled people have died within 6 weeks of being found fit for work; and therefore subject to a possible three year sanction – nevermind one year?)
Silly question…It’s not in the daily heil and the toerags deny it, so it must be bollocks, that.
(Never seen the JC tax return one and don’t bother providing a link because I’m not interested in your usual shite, ok?)
Right Toffee but Hindson is “button pushing ” again to elicit some kind of debate. I’d just ignore the ( appropriate expletive here ) and post a warning for others to take note of . I see the troll is playing the same game on The Canary , hopefully they’ll soon twig him for what he is just like those other regular trolling twats Dummy Sands and Brad west
Rob, I’m sure there are others visiting the site what might visit with a perhaps less austere, less rabid attitude than hindson; perhaps a wee bit less dyed-in-the-wool, and a bit more receptive to facts they weren’t sure about or a different slant they mightn’t have been aware of.
I post the ‘replies’ to hindson’s tripe not for any sort of debate with, or to educate him in any way (It’s a folorn cause – You can’t educate pork) but in an attempt to point people to the truth without going after him on a personal level, if at all possible – And by Christ, it’s hard work not to just about every single time.
I’ve no problem whatsoever with you posting telling people to ignore him (I guess I’d be better off doing so) but I just feel people ‘passing through’ need to know why he’s wrong rather than pass through & leave with any sort of seed in their mind planted by him being the prevalent one.
In essence – There’s no effin’ way I’ll allow him to have the last word to the undecided. 😉
“D notice”. The story had to be amended to make it perfectly clear that there wasn’t a notice in force, after it had been reported that multiple sources (who turned out not to be independent of each other) said that there was. (And Skwawkbox’s every instinct told him the story was true). Left unchallenged this second hand story might very well have been taken to be true – when it wasn’t.
Disabled benefits. The fact that the article was deleted surely speaks for itself.
JC’s tax return. It was claimed that the tax return showed that he was paying staff himself. It showed no such thing, and after some exchanges with myself and another the story was changed. Left unchallenged it might have been taken as true – when it wasn’t.
I’m not sure why you and Rob are so sensitive about things that look a little odd being scrutinised for accuracy. I thought that this blog was all about getting the truth out!
Very true indeed Toffee and I am conscious of the need to challenge these fuckwhits at every turn but every time I find him posting shite he’s gona get the standard response from me .Keep up the good work BTW
In its latest survey the supposedly Labour Party supporting website LabourList.org is for reasons best known to itself is pouring petrol on this false news.
https://labourlist.org/2017/07/weekly-survey-brexit-splits-summer-campaigning-and-student-debt/
“We ask, did the ambiguity over Corbyn’s position on historic student debt help Labour to win more votes?”
WHAT EFFING AMBIGUITY, there is none.
Interesting to note that Private Eye carries two pieces in its latest edition arguing that Corbyn has lied to the students. They are busy digging out from their archives all the old Harold Wilson stories as the template for building disillusionment with “left” leaders. It would be potent stuff if there was any truth in it but that small detail is ignored just as it is in the Daily Mail.