Jeremy Corbyn Would Make A Good Prime Minister

Firstly my opponent failed to address the fact that in his opening argument he lied. He needs to explain why he did this because this lie was the basis of arguments he has used later on in the debate. He should also apologise for that lie. He claims that working class pupils have gone up directly because of the rise in tuition fees. This is not only illogical it is also factually incorrect. While the numbers of working class people attending university have gone up in recent years it is not to do with the rise in tuition fees. Under the Blair government there was huge investment in comprehensive school and while private school and grammar schools are still on average better in the UK the standard of comprehensive education has gone up dramatically. For instance by 2006/2007 record numeracy and literacy levels had been seen within comprehensive schools. When you take into account that the vast majority of comprehensive students are from the working class that means you are going to have a far better educated working class. Therefore it stands to reason that more people from the working class will get the grades required to enter university. If my opponent is going to claim that tuition fees bring more working class students into university then he will have to prove it. That is something he has so far been unable to do. My opponent rightfully mentions that the lack of maintenance grants at university could be the reason why many working class young people quit university within their first year. What he doesn't mention is that Labours 2017 manifesto advocated the reintroduction of maintenance grants. The average student leaves university with a debt of "44,000 and that is expected to rise as the cost of living gets more expensive. This is a tremendous amount of money to be in debt off this early in life. My opponent does rebut my argument on history but what I was saying is that Corbyn stood up for his beliefs at a time when those beliefs were laughed at. In my opinion that shows he is a man of principle. My opponents claims Labour would like to raise the highest rate of income tax to 70%. He needs to produce evidence for this or we will all have to assume he has once again lied. Labour's manifesto states that the highest rate of income tax under a Labour government would be 60%. Not 70%, 60%. It is unlikely that rich individuals and corporations would leave Britain because in most major nations corporations tax is much higher than it is in Britain. The UK corporation tax is 19% and being lowered whereas the average global corporation tax is 22% and the corporation tax per GDP is 29%. Furthermore as the Professor of Economics at Cambridge University, Ha-Joon-Chang says, "if tax really were a pure burden, all rich individuals and companies would move to Paraguay or Bulgaria, where the top rate of income tax is 10%. Of course, this does not happen because, in those countries, in return for low tax you get poor public services. Conversely, most rich Swedes don"t go into tax exile because of their 60% top income tax rate, because they get a good welfare state and excellent education in return". This shows that major economists don't agree with the premise that increased taxation means that wealthy individuals will leave. https://www.gov.uk... https://taxfoundation.org... https://www.theguardian.com... Joseph Stiglitz, a recipient of the Noble Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences said this in support of Labour's economic policy. "In an economy, when the government spends more and invests in the economy, that money circulates, and recirculates again and again. So not only does it create jobs once: the investment creates jobs multiple times." He continued by saying. "The result of that is that the economy grows by a multiple of the initial spending, and public finances turn out to be stronger: as the economy grows, fiscal revenues increase, and demands for the government to pay unemployment benefits, or fund social programmes to help the poor and needy, go down. As tax revenues go up as a result of growth, and as these expenditures decrease, the government"s fiscal position strengthens". https://www.theguardian.com... These renowned economists do not share my opponents unevidenced dire predictions of Corbyn Britain and neither should those who will vote on this debate. Labour has committed to investment in Health, in Infrastructure, in Transport and much more. This investment will grow Britain's economy, this will create jobs thereby increasing tax revenue and decreasing the welfare budget. Nationalising the Railways are another signature promise within the Labour Manifesto. This will allow passengers to get just as good services on the railways for the a lesser price, 10% less in fact. In the last six years while wages have been stagnating prices have risen by 25%. In 2015 Customer Satisfaction was higher than in 2016 and the policy of re nationalisation of the railways in extremely popular among the public. According to a recent You Gov poll 58% of the public were in favour of nationalising the railways compared to 17% who opposed the policy. https://yougov.co.uk...