Pensions untouched in the Budget

marlot

dunstonh wrote: »

I did catch Corbyn saying that he would not allow credit card borrowers to pay back more than they borrow...

Yes I heard that and wondered how he thought it might work.

Malthusian

dunstonh wrote: »

I did catch Corbyn saying that he would not allow credit card borrowers to pay back more than they borrow. I am sure interest free credit cards will be popular to borrowers but I suspect lenders would pull out of the market.

In case anyone is wondering, Corbyn did actually say this.

And Mr Deputy Speaker, why didn’t the Chancellor take the opportunity to make two changes to control debt?

Firstly, to cap credit card debt so that nobody pays back more than they borrowed.

No misinterpration, no twisting of words. Corbyn believes that you should be able to borrow money on credit cards for free.

Silvertabby wrote:

Or they would slap a huge annual admin charge onto all cards, thus penalising those of us who always pay off our credit card bills in full every month.

No, that wouldn't be allowed - you'd still be paying back more than you borrowed.

Malthusian

Thank God we bailed out the bankers using taxpayers' money, eh? The Guardian for one has pointed out that Hammond was able to announce that he'd reduced the national debt as a % of GDP because of the £15bn raised from selling RBS shares. (Plus taking Housing Association debt off the Government's books.)

Do you think we should forgive Gordon Brown for selling off the gold reserves at rock bottom prices? At least he managed to make one good business decision.

steampowered

dunstonh wrote: »

I did catch Corbyn saying that he would not allow credit card borrowers to pay back more than they borrow. I am sure interest free credit cards will be popular to borrowers but I suspect lenders would pull out of the market.

You have misunderstood. Labour's proposed policy is that borrowers should not have to pay in fees and interest payments more than the original loan.

So, if you borrowed £100 on a credit card, the maximum the bank could claim would be £200.

I can't see that this would have any impact on the vast majority of borrowers. Except perhaps people who borrow a small amount of money and then get hit with regular "late payment fees" on top of the interest, causing the debt to spiral into something many times larger than the amount borrowed.

The principle is the same as the payday loan caps introduced by the current Conservative government. It does seem very odd to have a situation where the interest and fees payable on payday loans are capped, but the interest and fees charged by credit card providers are not.

steampowered

Malthusian wrote: »

No misinterpration, no twisting of words. Corbyn believes that you should be able to borrow money on credit cards for free.

That is clearly not the policy that is on the table.

You are deliberately taking a ridiculous interpretation of a single sentence summary rather than looking at the substance of the matter.

The credit card cap policy has been around for some time, and has been clearly explained in detail. The policy is not to make credit cards completely interest free and you know this.

Politics in this country will be more productive if people look at the substance of the policy. Rather than trying to catch people out by splitting hairs over the wording of a press release or interview, and rather than trying to twist it into something that you know is not what is on the table.

dunstonh

You have misunderstood. Labour's proposed policy is that borrowers should not have to pay in fees and interest payments more than the original loan.

I have not misunderstood. Corbyn said this:
"Firstly, to cap credit card debt so that nobody pays back more than they borrowed."

Now the intention may be one thing but what he said is another. Not the first time Corbyn has done this. Remember student debt?

Politics in this country will be more productive if people look at the substance of the policy. Rather than trying to catch people out by splitting hairs over the wording of a press release or interview, and rather than trying to twist it into something that you know is not what is on the table.

We all know that soundbites and headlines gain more political capital than actual detail. it shouldn't but it does.

If the leaders of any party say one thing when they really mean something different, they should be picked up on it.

Thrugelmir

Malthusian wrote: »

In case anyone is wondering, Corbyn did actually say this.

Corbyn seemed to be having another of his "election" mode rants rather than a constructive rebutal of the budget. Assume McDonnell was intentionally sidelined.

stoozie1

Lorian wrote: »

He did crack at least two jokes. The rest whizzed by.

I actually laughed at one of the jokes. The one about maths.

Only on an anonymous forum would I admit this.

Malthusian

steampowered wrote: »

That is clearly not the policy that is on the table.

If Corbyn says one thing and the apparatchiks say another then nothing can be described as "clear".

You are deliberately taking a ridiculous interpretation of a single sentence summary rather than looking at the substance of the matter.

It's not an interpretation. It's what Corbyn said. "Firstly, to cap credit card debt so that nobody pays back more than they borrowed." Note that he said "debt" not "fees". "Nobody pays back more than they borrowed" is similarly explicit.

How dare I twist the Great Leader's words by, er, quoting them verbatim. It's the student debt nonsense all over again. When Corbyn announced that Labour would write off student debts and we deviously misinterpreted him by saying he'd promised to write off student debts.

"Finally the Dear Leader has proposed to make borrowing fair and equal for all!" "But this is absurd, if credit card debt was interest free no-one would lend." "You are twisting his words! The Dear Leader is infallible and would not propose an obviously absurd law, therefore that isn't what he proposed." "But here is a verbatim transcript and a video which shows him saying that nobody should pay back more than they borrowed on credit cards." "Yes! It's brilliant isn't it. Finally fair and equal borrowing for all." "But it's obviously absurd, no-one would ever lend money." "Stop twisting the Dear Leader's words, that's not what he said!" And round and round ad nauseam.

Classic doublethink. You have to be able to believe both that the Dear Leader said that no interest should be charged on credit card debt (because it's genius and just and fair for all), and that he didn't say it (because it's obviously unworkable). Simultaneously. Unless you can perform this feat of mental gymnastics you have no place in the Labour Party.

michaels

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Corbyn seemed to be having another of his "election" mode rants rather than a constructive rebutal of the budget. Assume McDonnell was intentionally sidelined.

Nope, tradition os leader of opposition responds to budget speech not shadow chancellor. It is a thankless task without prior knowledge so normally they have had the speech writers prepare some good jokes to catch the soundbite headlines.