General Election 2017

[Frank Fallows]

"Unsavoury" Labour supporters, read up on the antics of the current Police Commisioner , David Keane !!.

 

[Andy]

There seems to be big similarities between Trump and Corbyn supporters. They will defend their masters at whatever the cost.

 

[Kit]

Did he really never promise it? It's there in the front page of the independent at the start of a June. Why doesn't he just be honest and say he realises now it is unaffordable. Why lie and say he didn't promise it? Arrogance.

 

[Alan M]

Why not quote the interview rather than showing a front page? Probably because it doesn't actually uphold your argument. Sorry.
Here is the relevant section from the interview (31/05/17) ...

The Labour leader also revealed he was “sympathetic” towards students who are already saddled with debt.


Under his plans, new students will be freed from paying in excess of £9,000 in tuition fees as early as the start of the new term in September. But this would leave a generation of students and recent graduates with eye-watering debts due to the higher fees introduced during the coalition government.


“I appreciate that and we will look into that effect,” said Mr Corbyn.


“We’ve not got a policy or proposal on it. There wasn’t time between the announcement of the election and the publication of the manifesto but I do understand that point and I’m entirely sympathetic to it.”

 

[Kit]

He said things like this enough times to make people believe that he would wipe out that debt if elected. I don't see him saying he wouldn't wipe out the debt when asked.

 

[Alan M]

But you don't see him saying he would, either. It is simply a case of anti-Labour media and politicians propagating the myth that he actually said it - again, perfectly understandable as a tactic (say it often enough and people will believe it). It happened again on Any Questions this weekend, with the Conservative MP on the panel stating that he had promised to wipe past debt. He didn't, and any attempts to find primary evidence to the contrary has so far failed.

As already stated, all politicians make suitably ambiguous statements, and there are so many Conservative U-turns, retractions, "clarifications", etc which could equally be picked on where you could equally argue that people voted for them because of what they (the voters) interpreted they (the statements) meant.

I wouldn't personally say that large numbers voted either way because of one particular policy statement on either side. There are far too many push-pull factors and balancing judgements involved in voting decisions to reduce it to anything so simplistic, and I would think most people could not do the competition tie-breaker sentence completion in 10 words or fewer of "I voted Labour / Conservative / Leave / Remain because ..."

 

[Kit]

Were labour MPs saying this 'on the ground'? Yes they were. Were some of them tweeting it? Yes they were. It must have come from somewhere. It was one of the many undeliverable promises that helped swing votes. I think to blame right-wing press for this is a bit rich, the 'myth' came from Corbyn himself.
No matter what Corbyn promised, if May had managed even a half decent campaign she would have got the majority she wanted. May was the main reason for the swing, not Corbyn.

 

[Frank Fallows]

Can not recall anyone actually saying that £350 m on the bus would be placed into the NHS account, but was claimed by many "Remainers" that it was !!.

 

[Edge]

 

[Frank Fallows]

But where does ACTUALLY say that this sum will be put into the NHS, just what the reader puts into it !!.

 

[Edge]

I would say use of the word instead implies that the money would be spent there.

 

[Frank Fallows]

Edge, The word IMPLIES is not stating a fact, so much was IMPLIED by "Remainers" and did not happen I seem to recall !!.

 

[Edge]

I'm sure a lot of people read it as fact though.

 

[Frank Fallows]

Well there you have it, Edge, what you want to believe you do, but FACT is FACT and nothing else.

 

[Edge]

Does that not make it misleading though if people think it's a fact when it's not?

 

[Alan M]

Which merely illustrates my point. Boris and co will swear blind they never meant people to believe the implication, but did very little to disabuse the electorate at the time. Corbyn has done the same.

And so has Theresa May ...
"We will fix the broken housing market and support local authorities and housing associations to build a new generation of council homes right across the country." (TM in the run-up to the election)
Asked during an interview with Inside Housing magazine whether the houses would be at "low-level council rents", Housing Minister Gavin Barwell replied: "No, I think the idea is that they are what you’d call affordable rents in housing terminology"
I will leave it to you to decide whether TM's statement in national media would be seen/heard by more people than the "clarification" given by GB in a trade magazine.

As for Brexit, again I will leave you to interpret Liam Fox's recent words ...
"A lot of things were said in advance of this referendum that we might want to think about again".

 

[Frank Fallows]

If people think that then how is it a fact, a person's thoughts are theirs alone I always believed, when in the Army I was once put on a charge for having "dumb insolence", what was the charge ?, not knowing the opposing Goalkeeper was also the Corps stopper and should have known better. Now that is a fact !!.

 

[Frank Fallows]

Having scored twice last him !!, Try peeling two bags of spuds a nght with a carving knife for seven nights, was not aware that he was also the Cook Sgt !!.

 

[paul]

I would say use of the word instead implies that the money would be spent there.

I think Edge and Alan are still missing the fundamental point that Brexiteers knew that the figure of 350M was probably exaggerated but taking back control of our finances, laws and borders was actually why over 17 million people voted to leave the EU. Haven't we been here before....

 

[Alan M]

Alan has moved on with those arguments, but is merely using it to illustrate the point that all politicians of all hues will make statements which are at best ambiguous. Your comment "knew the figure was probably exaggerated" merely underlines my point.