Jeremy Corbyn Would Make A Good Prime Minister

My opponent starts by claiming that, "According to Labour's own admissions, the costs of tuition fees being abolished would be 100 Billion in the long run". I checked his source for this and it appears that he was either very mistaken or deceptive. Angela Rayner, (the Shadow Education Secretary) was in fact talking about wiping student debt. Since the election Corbyn has ruled out wiping student debt on economic grounds. My opponents source which con wrongly quoted from - . http://www.independent.co.uk... It is true that scrapping tuition fees would cost a decent amount of money but it would also benefit society dramatically. Everyone in society benefits from university graduates because they are educated and can benefit society by doing jobs that require that higher education. Furthermore tuition fees hinder bright working class students from attending university. Now over 8% of working class students drop out of university in their first year and high costs are predominantly stated as the reason for this. As for the Browne report this was published at a time of recession where the Government was looking to make as many savings as possible and is less relevant today when the economy is growing. . http://metro.co.uk... My opponent claims that universities would have less money if tuition fees were abolished. However the figure of 8 Billion would be giving universities the money that Tuition Fees would take away. My opponent contradicts himself because either abolishing tuition fees would cost 8 Billion and universities would have the same funding they have now or it would cost less than that and university funding would be cut. Con cannot have it both ways. The truth is that abolishing tuition fees would cost roughly 8 Billion but Universities would have the same spending money, and the same facilities, same rooms, same food and just as motivated teachers. The real change is that you would have more working class students staying in University. My opponent makes a good point by saying that richer students are more likely to get good grades and this is true. It is also why Labour committed to more spending on comprehensive schools in their 2017 manifesto to even out that gap. . http://www.labour.org.uk... It is ridiculous of my opponent to claim it would be better for universities to accept people on the basis of money and grades than just grades. Once again my opponent quotes dozens of figures about how wonderful tuition fees are but doesn't address the fact that nothing would change other than the government paying for tuition fees rather than students. My first argument in favour of a Prime Minister Corbyn would be that he has shown incredible foresight in being on the right side of history so many times. 1) Corbyn was a staunch opponent of the Apartheid when Thatcher was calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist, 2) Corbyn supported LGBT rights from the time when it was very much out of the political norm. 3) Corbyn campaigned against selling weapons to Sadam Hussein and then went on to campaign against the Iraq war on the basis that it would create huge instability and increase the risk of terrorism within the region. In 2015 most of Northern Iraq was under the control of Islamic State. 4) Corbyn was heavily criticised for advocating negotiations with Sinn Fein to end the Irish troubles. The good friday agreement was the result of a negotiation between Sinn Fein and the British government and that treaty brought an end to the Irish troubles. 5) Corbyn and McDonnell argued in favour of further regulation on the banks in the run up to the recession of 2008 and we now know that had the Banks been properly regulated the UK would have been in a far better state that it was in real life. If you want my source type into google 15 times Jeremy Corbyn has been on the right side of history. It is the word press article. Furthermore a Prime Minister Corbyn would ban unpaid internships which would be fantastic for furthering the cause of meritocracy in Britain. These are extremely unfair because they require participants to work for free all the while paying for their accommodation, food etc. Only people living off the bank off mum and dad would be able to pay for this. There are a raft of other progressive policies used by the Labour Party which I will comment on in future rounds. I now await my opponents response.