Labour, student debt and the BBC

The BBC are reporting with a straight face that:

'Jeremy Corbyn has insisted he did not promise to write off all student debt while appealing to young voters during the general election.

During the campaign, the Labour leader said he would "deal with" the issue of graduates burdened with debt since tuition fees rose to £9,000.

He told the BBC he had never promised to abolish all debt as Labour "were unaware of the size of it at the time".'

Let's turn back the clock to 16 May 2017, there was a piece  bySean Coughlan, the BBC's Education Correspondent, entitled 'All or nothing for Labour on tuition fees'. Here's how it started:

'Scrapping tuition fees in England is the biggest and most expensive proposal in Labour's £25bn worth of pledges for education.

Instead of fees rising to £9,250 per year in the autumn, Jeremy Corbyn is proposing a complete handbrake turn in saying that university tuition should not cost students anything.

It's a bolder step than Labour's previous leader, who two years ago opted for a halfway house of cutting fees to £6,000 - and then was accused of pleasing no-one.

This is Labour going for an all-or-nothing approach - asserting free education as a fundamental principle - and creating the starkest choice in university policy for two decades.

It's a direct appeal to younger voters - with surveys suggesting that students are more likely to vote Labour.

It makes the pitch that no-one should be deterred from university because of the cost or fear of debt.

Labour's big move on fees represents a complete of direction. Previously in government, Labour raised fees and in opposition proposed a modest reduction.

But they are now proposing to bulldoze the apparatus of fees, loans and repayments.'

 If this was not what Jeremy Corbyn was proposing then presumably the Labour Party protested vigorously to the BBC at the time about the BBC's misrepresentation of Labour Party policy. Can anybody provide evidence of such protests?

If there were no such protests was that because the Labour Party were happy to have their policy so misrepresented or because that was their policy?

Either way, the policy had its desired effect as an unexpectedly large turnout among students helped the Labour Party win seats such as Canterbury, which it took for the first time in 100 years, and increase its majority in cities such as Cambridge, Bristol and Leeds. Job done BBC and the Labour Party?

I wonder if the idiots who claimed that Jeremy Corbyn was a breath of fresh air with his honest attitude to politics still think that is the case?