Clegg

[pap]

The man is done, in my view.

 

Nothing he says is credible. Even the apology he made over student loans was half-hearted. He didn't apologise for tripling the burden on our undergraduates, just that the party would never promise anything they couldn't deliver again. That's a real problem for the Lib Dems; that's kind of their stock-in-trade.

 

I do feel a bit sorry for him. The Tories have been masterful in hanging most stuff on him, but then, if he hadn't made so many stupid promises, they wouldn't be able to.

 

Does anyone have any time for the Lib Dems with Clegg in charge? Would your opinion be altered if Vince Cable took the reins?

[Whitey Grandad]

Vince cable is even worse than Clegg. Nothing but loonie toons from him.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Don't think I would vote Lib Dem again, their new housing idea sounds mental.

[notnowcato]

I shall spoil my ballot paper from here on, none of the major parties are worthy of my vote.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Vote none of the above!

[Saintandy666]

You might not be wrong that he is done, although I still don't sense any real appetite to get rid of him from Lib Dem members, as the feeling is we will get battered no matter who is leader. And that may be so, but that doesn't mean that the Liberal Democrats can't hold their head high for the achievements that have happened, for example the income tac allowance, and the pupil premium, and just this week with Vince Cables investment bank. However, all of this will of course be overshadowed by those policies which are more conservative in nature, but which have been lumbered on Clegg as if he would have done it if he were in a majority government. Much of the Liberal Democrats unpopularity stems, in my opinion, from peoples inability to understand coalition. Though even on some of the losses, like Tuition Fees and the NHS, I feel that the outcome was a lot better thanks to Liberal soothing of Tory right wing policy.

 

And just as a side note, I met Clegg earlier this year and he came across as a very decent man genuinely interested in what people had to say. I liked him a lot.

 

Now for a tangent, based on Pap's assessment of tuition fees policy! Just think of what might have happened to tuition fees if this was a pure conservative government. The tories were signed up to the Browne report, which recommended lifting the cap entirely on fees with the likely result it would be 12k. And that might be 12k without the generous repayment scheme currently in place. There is much I disagree with the policy, but to say the new system triples the burden on undergraduates(such as me from next week!) is utterly wrong. For it to be correct, they would be having to pay it all back 3 times quicker. Infact, under the new system you don't start paying it back until you earn over 21k, as opposed to 15k under the old system and you actually end up paying back less over your lifetime if you remain in a job of a lesser salary. It is basically a graduate tax and they just should have called it that. There are of course weaknesses to the policy, I vehemently disagree with the marketisation of the university sector allowing different institutions to compete on price as I think it could cloud peoples judgements on what course to pick(the right one or the cheaper one?), as well as enshrining a proper two tier system; even more so than is in place today. However, as most unis are just charging '9k', this concern hasn't really materialised. But I still think a graduate tax would be better than the current arrangement, as it would eliminate the extremely bad communication that took place over this policy.

 

Back to the Lib Dems, and specifically Clegg. I don't think he made stupid promises(in plural, the pledge is a separate issue for what has been explained at length by lib dems in the media) at all. His manifesto was based on a Liberal Democrat majority, so of course compromises would have to reached and some policies ditched. But I don't think it'll make much different, I think the Lib Dems will get a major bashing at the next election. They always ride low inbetween elections, so I think they will probably come out with about 30ish seats and maybe something around 16 or 17 percent and will probably form a coalition with Labour.

 

NB:The conservatives won't win the next election, they shot themselves in the foot over lords reform, and now won't get their boundary changes required for their 2015 victory. They must be livid that the Cameron experiment has failed. After all those years of pretending to be cuddly, and care about the environment and social issues such as gay marriage and now they still won't have won an election in over 20 years come 2015. If I were in conservative strategy right now, I'd be panicking big time.

[thefunkygibbons]

I have never, nor would I vote lib Dem

 

However, surely Nick Clegg should have studied history and realised that coalitions are nearly always fatal to the junior partner

 

As so it is proving

[Saintandy666]

I shall spoil my ballot paper from here on, none of the major parties are worthy of my vote.

 

I know what the election I shall be spoiling my ballot for... the elections for the Police and Crime Commissioners in November. What an absolutely awful idea that is, to politicise the police force and buck the blame onto the opposition when crime policy is failing. I bet turnout is awful as well.

[Saintandy666]

I have never, nor would I vote lib Dem

 

However, surely Nick Clegg should have studied history and realised that coalitions are nearly always fatal to the junior partner

 

As so it is proving

 

Maybe in this country. I'd like to hear from someone who lives in a country that is accustomed to coalitions, say Germany or something to see if it is the same over there.

[Sheaf Saint]

Vote none of the above!

 

[trousers]

His manifesto was based on a Liberal Democrat majority, so of course compromises would have to reached and some policies ditched.

 

Exactly. Which is why he didn't need to apologise for ditching the pledge but for making an unfundable pledge in the first place. Who's more stupid? Clegg for making the pledge in the first place or students for actually believe it was achievable...?

Edited 26 September, 2012 by trousers

[Dr. Kucho]

Maybe in this country. I'd like to hear from someone who lives in a country that is accustomed to coalitions, say Germany or something to see if it is the same over there.

 

Well Saintandy666, I have lived in the Netherlands for most of my life and they have a coalition system over here. The last 5 governments (that's since 2002) have been:

 

CDA, LPF, VVD (2002)

CDA, VVD, D66 (2003-2006)

CDA, VVD (2006)

CDA, PVDA, Christian Party (2007-2010)

VVD, CDA (with support from the PVV) (2010-2012)

 

CDA: centre party, somewhere between Labour and Conservatives with there values.

VVD: Conservatives

PVDA: Labour

 

All these coalitions didn't complete the full 4 years they should. The last government that completed that was between 1998 and 2002. 2 weeks ago there has just been another general election (won by the VVD) and I don't think there would be a new government until February/March.

 

Coming back on topic, I cannot understand why anyone would vote for Labour, Tories or Lib dems. All these parties are the same and out of Milliband, Balls, Cameron, Osborne, Clegg or Alexander I don't think any of them has ever had a real job. There should be a rule that politicians have to have at least 15 years experience in the private or public sector until they can become a MP.

 

After hearing Nigel Farage speak on Question time and other debates I will be voting UKIP at the next election.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The stupid pledge was political opportunism at its very worst. As they have spent 100 years as a protest party they thought they could be really clever and hoover up some votes, knowing full well they would not be able to deliver. There is no credibility in blaming the Torys. They negotiated a coalition agreement, they could have made tuition fees a red line. The simple truth of the matter was they knew all along it was an unaffordable pledge but signed it to get votes, pure and simple. It's like me telling Mrs Duck that I would never **** Pippa Midleton, cause I know I'll never get the chance. It's great for politics that they got their comeuppence over this, perhaps it will make them think again about their electrol tactics.

 

 

They fight Tory seats to the right and Labour ones to the left. They are chancers who will say anything to get elected. Dont forget they lost seats at the last election.

 

What it be better under "Dr" Cable who also signed the pledge. He has somehow managed to fool some people that he's some sort of wise old head, in fact he's just a doddery old fool. I really hope he gets the chance to lead this party, because people will see this chancer for what he is.

[Saintandy666]

Exactly. Which is why he didn't need to apologise for ditching the pledge but for making an unfundable pledge in the first place. Who's more stupid? Clegg for making the pledge in the first place or students for actually believe it was achievable...?

 

Well, the manifesto was fully costed and if Nick Clegg was Primer Minister, there would be no 9k tuition fees. But obviously, Nick Clegg isn't Prime Minister and so the Tories came in and had different priorities which had to be accounted for. As Vince Cable said, if there had been a Lib Dem government obviously there would be different priorities and emphasis's.

 

The pledge was wrong though, because it said under any circumstance he would vote against it. The manifesto is different as it is a plan for majority government, something that the Lib Dems probably weren't going to get. Although, I was told by someone that head office went a little mad during the general election as they had a sniff of winning for a week or so... something they hadn't been near for a long time.

[iansums]

The man is done, in my view.

 

Nothing he says is credible. Even the apology he made over student loans was half-hearted. He didn't apologise for tripling the burden on our undergraduates, just that the party would never promise anything they couldn't deliver again. That's a real problem for the Lib Dems; that's kind of their stock-in-trade.

 

I do feel a bit sorry for him. The Tories have been masterful in hanging most stuff on him, but then, if he hadn't made so many stupid promises, they wouldn't be able to.

 

Does anyone have any time for the Lib Dems with Clegg in charge? Would your opinion be altered if Vince Cable took the reins?

 

I think Saintandy666 has a point:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/loans/9558187/Martin-Lewis-Its-time-to-stop-calling-student-loans-debts.html

[Saintandy666]

Well Saintandy666, I have lived in the Netherlands for most of my life and they have a coalition system over here. The last 5 governments (that's since 2002) have been:

 

CDA, LPF, VVD (2002)

CDA, VVD, D66 (2003-2006)

CDA, VVD (2006)

CDA, PVDA, Christian Party (2007-2010)

VVD, CDA (with support from the PVV) (2010-2012)

 

CDA: centre party, somewhere between Labour and Conservatives with there values.

VVD: Conservatives

PVDA: Labour

 

 

So from that, it doesn't seem like there is damage done to either partner in the coalition as both seem to return. I do see your frustration(is it frustration at the deadlock in government?), something why I have slid towards AMS as a preferred electoral system(like in Scotland) rather than STV.

 

What is going on with the cannabis law reform stuff in the Netherlands? Is it still likely to go through countrywide with the likely new government or will that change?

[Saintandy666]

The stupid pledge was political opportunism at its very worst. As they have spent 100 years as a protest party they thought they could be really clever and hoover up some votes, knowing full well they would not be able to deliver. There is no credibility in blaming the Torys. They negotiated a coalition agreement, they could have made tuition fees a red line. The simple truth of the matter was they knew all along it was an unaffordable pledge but signed it to get votes, pure and simple. It's like me telling Mrs Duck that I would never **** Pippa Midleton, cause I know I'll never get the chance. It's great for politics that they got their comeuppence over this, perhaps it will make them think again about their electrol tactics.

 

 

They fight Tory seats to the right and Labour ones to the left. They are chancers who will say anything to get elected. Dont forget they lost seats at the last election.

 

What it be better under "Dr" Cable who also signed the pledge. He has somehow managed to fool some people that he's some sort of wise old head, in fact he's just a doddery old fool. I really hope he gets the chance to lead this party, because people will see this chancer for what he is.

 

Vince Cable has said he was sceptical about the signing the pledge and I think a lot of what he comes out with is extremely sensible like the investment bank stuff. He was also right on the recession, the only one to predict it and right on Rupert Murdoch. I think he has earned his reputation as a 'wise old head'.

[CB Saint]

Well, the manifesto was fully costed and if Nick Clegg was Primer Minister, there would be no 9k tuition fees. But obviously, Nick Clegg isn't Prime Minister and so the Tories came in and had different priorities which had to be accounted for. As Vince Cable said, if there had been a Lib Dem government obviously there would be different priorities and emphasis's.

 

The pledge was wrong though, because it said under any circumstance he would vote against it. The manifesto is different as it is a plan for majority government, something that the Lib Dems probably weren't going to get. Although, I was told by someone that head office went a little mad during the general election as they had a sniff of winning for a week or so... something they hadn't been near for a long time.

 

Fully costed? - these manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on. The fully costed bit would be based upon an huge number of assumptions that have been made whilst wearing the rosiest pair of glasses they could find. If there is one thing that is certain about governments, their tax increases never raise the extra income they forecast, their efficiency savings never deliver, and they spend more than they save to cut costs.

[Saintandy666]

Fully costed? - these manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on. The fully costed bit would be based upon an huge number of assumptions that have been made whilst wearing the rosiest pair of glasses they could find. If there is one thing that is certain about governments, their tax increases never raise the extra income they forecast, their efficiency savings never deliver, and they spend more than they save to cut costs.

 

In fairness, 'savage cuts'(Cleggs description, not mine) were worked into Lib Dem plans. Infact, if I recall correctly Clegg even advocated cutting the NHS through efficiency savings and stuff, which is happening now anyways.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Well, the manifesto was fully costed and if Nick Clegg was Primer Minister, there would be no 9k tuition fees. But obviously, Nick Clegg isn't Prime Minister and so the Tories came in and had different priorities which had to be accounted for. As Vince Cable said, if there had been a Lib Dem government obviously there would be different priorities and emphasis's.

 

 

Complete and utter rubbish, and if the Lib/Dems go into the next election trying to claim there would have been no tuition fees if they had governed alone (god forbid) they'll lose even more seats than last time. If you really think that a Government can tax its people enough to fund free uni places in this day and age, then you're clearly drinking more than Charlie Kennedy. At least Paddy Pantsdown showed some honesty over this, he called it "opportunistic". Bloody hell that's how far the sandal wearers have fallen that Pantsdown is the most statesmen like one of them now.............

[Ken Tone]

Well I speak as someone who was previously a fairly regular LibDem voter.....

 

As far as I am concerned, Clegg sold the country, and his party, down the river for a 'mess of potage' in the form of a ministerial car and a bit of reflected glory as Cameron's lapdog. Has no credibility whatsoever. I cannot see me ever voting Lib Dem again whilst he is in charge --- if ever, in fact, because I don't see that many of the others who've enjoyed playing at being in government, at the cost of all principle, are much better.

[Ken Tone]

Vince Cable has said he was sceptical about the signing the pledge and I think a lot of what he comes out with is extremely sensible like the investment bank stuff. He was also right on the recession, the only one to predict it and right on Rupert Murdoch. I think he has earned his reputation as a 'wise old head'.

 

Of course he only said that about being sceptical well after the event.. not at the time.

[Thedelldays]

Well I speak as someone who was previously a fairly regular LibDem voter.....

 

As far as I am concerned, Clegg sold the country, and his party, down the river for a 'mess of potage' in the form of a ministerial car and a bit of reflected glory as Cameron's lapdog. Has no credibility whatsoever. I cannot see me ever voting Lib Dem again whilst he is in charge --- if ever, in fact, because I don't see that many of the others who've enjoyed playing at being in government, at the cost of all principle, are much better.

you would rather no polices of your party get in then.........?

some is better than none......right..?

[Saintandy666]

Complete and utter rubbish, and if the Lib/Dems go into the next election trying to claim there would have been no tuition fees if they had governed alone (god forbid) they'll lose even more seats than last time. If you really think that a Government can tax its people enough to fund free uni places in this day and age, then you're clearly drinking more than Charlie Kennedy. At least Paddy Pantsdown showed some honesty over this, he called it "opportunistic". Bloody hell that's how far the sandal wearers have fallen that Pantsdown is the most statesmen like one of them now.............

 

Who said it would be a free uni place?! It would have been replaced with a contribution system post-uni like a graduate tax. Paddy Ashdown called the pledge opportunistic, not the policy. Abolishing tuition fees has long been a Liberal Democrat objective and it remains so. A graduate tax is the way forward.

[Saintandy666]

Well I speak as someone who was previously a fairly regular LibDem voter.....

 

As far as I am concerned, Clegg sold the country, and his party, down the river for a 'mess of potage' in the form of a ministerial car and a bit of reflected glory as Cameron's lapdog. Has no credibility whatsoever. I cannot see me ever voting Lib Dem again whilst he is in charge --- if ever, in fact, because I don't see that many of the others who've enjoyed playing at being in government, at the cost of all principle, are much better.

 

But as an ex-Liberal Democrat voter, you surely understood that they supported PR and therefore supported coalition and therefore knew what this coalition would mean. And as the Delldays has said, we have got in some excellent policies including income tax allowance, pupil premium and a government funded investment bank. In addition to this, we have taken out a lot of the more right wing aspects of the conservative party allowing for more centre based policies in many areas. Surely, this arrangement is better than a conservative government. What did you want/expect? For the Lib Dems to just stay in opposition forever, sniping at the sidelines. At least Liberal Democrats policies become a reality this way.

[Thedelldays]

But as an ex-Liberal Democrat voter, you surely understood that they supported PR and therefore supported coalition and therefore knew what this coalition would mean. And as the Delldays has said, we have got in some excellent policies including income tax allowance, pupil premium and a government funded investment bank. In addition to this, we have taken out a lot of the more right wing aspects of the conservative party allowing for more centre based policies in many areas. Surely, this arrangement is better than a conservative government. What did you want/expect? For the Lib Dems to just stay in opposition forever, sniping at the sidelines. At least Liberal Democrats policies become a reality this way.

people like Ken are just being selfish........they never wanted the Lib Dems to get to power and purely vote for them as a protest

[Lord Duckhunter]

Infact, if I recall correctly Clegg even advocated cutting the NHS through efficiency savings and stuff, which is happening now anyways.

 

Their "fully costed" manifesto said they would half the Department of Health.

[Ken Tone]

(very much snipped)

.

 

 

.

 

I've met quite a few government ministers and shadow ministers, including Clegg, in my job and of course nearly all of them come across as decent and interested. That's how they get elected!

 

I'm afraid being in politics corrupts morally. They all end up making so many compromises and having to pretend they believe in stuff that they don't, that after a while they either get out because they can't take it --- or they go on to become very convincing liars!

[Saintandy666]

people like Ken are just being selfish........they never wanted the Lib Dems to get to power and purely vote for them as a protest

 

Hopefully, at the very least this experience of government will mean that the Liberal Democrats have a more sturdy core base in the future. Too many people just saw them a protest party or some ridiculously left wing party SWP-equivalent. I don't think they will lose quite as many seats at the next general election as some people predict though. It was interesting to note that in many Lib Dem seats at the locals this year(like Eastleigh and Portsmouth), Liberal Democrats did extremely well and in the case of Eastleigh swept the board!

[Lord Duckhunter]

. Abolishing tuition fees has long been a Liberal Democrat objective and it remains so.

 

It means so much to them, but clearly not quite as much as a ministerial car.

[Saintandy666]

(very much snipped)

 

I've met quite a few government ministers and shadow ministers, including Clegg, in my job and of course nearly all of them come across as decent and interested. That's how they get elected!

 

I'm afraid being in politics corrupts morally. They all end up making so many compromises and having to pretend they believe in stuff that they don't, that after a while they either get out because they can't take it --- or they go on to become very convincing liars!

 

In fairness, it's not as if Clegg is pretending to believe in things he doesn't. It's quite clear he was extremely uncomfortable with many aspects of conservative led policy, like the cutting of the 50p tax band, but its a coalition so you get on with it in the knowledge that you can make more of difference from the inside than from the outside.

[solentstars]

1980s tories failures of the nasty party out in shock attack on clegg thread

[Saintandy666]

It means so much to them, but clearly not quite as much as a ministerial car.

 

What an absolutely piece of rubbish. The Lib Dems were brave to go into coalition with the tories as they knew it would mean bad news in the polls, but they felt morally obliged too. They kept to their beliefs in coalition government. The hypocritical thing to do would have been not to go into coalition given their policy history on electoral reform.

[Ken Tone]

But as an ex-Liberal Democrat voter, you surely understood that they supported PR and therefore supported coalition and therefore knew what this coalition would mean. And as the Delldays has said, we have got in some excellent policies including income tax allowance, pupil premium and a government funded investment bank. In addition to this, we have taken out a lot of the more right wing aspects of the conservative party allowing for more centre based policies in many areas. Surely, this arrangement is better than a conservative government. What did you want/expect? For the Lib Dems to just stay in opposition forever, sniping at the sidelines. At least Liberal Democrats policies become a reality this way.

 

What I felt the LibDems should have done was to help form an interim government for a short time not agree a formal coalition fixed for 5 years regardless. In other words, to do more like they did in the days of the Lib-Lab pact. Without the LibDem part of the coalition we would not have had a conservative government is the point. They did not have a majority.

[Ken Tone]

people like Ken are just being selfish........they never wanted the Lib Dems to get to power and purely vote for them as a protest

 

What would you know? You're just a pleb!

[Lord Duckhunter]

What an absolutely piece of rubbish. The Lib Dems were brave to go into coalition with the tories as they knew it would mean bad news in the polls, but they felt morally obliged too. They kept to their beliefs in coalition government. The hypocritical thing to do would have been not to go into coalition given their policy history on electoral reform.

 

Surely the morally right thing to do was to ensure that this long held belief (pledge if you like) around uni fees was part of the agreement. They sat down and negotiated a coalition agreement. Quite clearly Uni fees were not that important to them.

[Saintandy666]

What I felt the LibDems should have done was to help form an interim government for a short time not agree a formal coalition fixed for 5 years regardless. In other words, to do more like they did in the days of the Lib-Lab pact. Without the LibDem part of the coalition we would not have had a conservative government is the point. They did not have a majority.

 

It would have been hypocritical because of their beliefs in coalition, dangerous because of the precarious state of the economy at the time and cowardly not to take the chance to get their hands dirty in the business of government and actually make a difference to people's lives.

 

What would have been the advantages of a pact? Less Liberal Democrat policy would have gotten through and government would have been unstable at a time when stable government was needed. It would have inevitably led to an election where either the same result would have happened again, or worse(and more likely imo) a Tory majority would have happened A complete conservative majority free to do as they wish.

[Saintandy666]

Surely the morally right thing to do was to ensure that this long held belief (pledge if you like) around uni fees was part of the agreement. They sat down and negotiated a coalition agreement. Quite clearly Uni fees were not that important to them.

 

It fairness their 4 key policy sets as stated in the opening few pages of their manifesto were:

 

1. Taxes - Income tax allowance to be raised to 10,000. DONE. Close tax loopholes exploited by the rich. DONE.

2. Education - Pupil Premium, £7bn extra for the countries poorest kids - DONE

3. Jobs, Banks and the Environment - Green investment bank + government investment bank - DONE Splitting up banks into retail and investment. - DONE

4, Electoral Reform - Move towards a fairer voting system + lords reform - so far a FAILURE(did get a referendum on AV though, but it should have been on PR).

 

I'd say they have delivered, despite being in coalition on 3/4 of their core policy sets. Not bad.

[capitalsaint]

Surely the morally right thing to do was to ensure that this long held belief (pledge if you like) around uni fees was part of the agreement. They sat down and negotiated a coalition agreement. Quite clearly Uni fees were not that important to them.

 

But when it gets down to it, scrapping Uni fees would cost so much money they'd have had to make far more savings than now.

[Ken Tone]

It would have been hypocritical because of their beliefs in coalition, dangerous because of the precarious state of the economy at the time and cowardly not to take the chance to get their hands dirty in the business of government and actually make a difference to people's lives.

 

What would have been the advantages of a pact? Less Liberal Democrat policy would have gotten through and government would have been unstable at a time when stable government was needed. It would have inevitably led to an election where either the same result would have happened again, or worse(and more likely imo) a Tory majority would have happened A complete conservative majority free to do as they wish.

 

Beliefs in coalition that they didn't have in the Lib-Lab days? A pact to help a minority goverment for the short term would have been a far greater brake on Tory policies than this coalition has been, because every extreme policy would have been subject to review, but of course it wouldn't have given Clegg the trappings of power as deputy prime minister- nor perhaps lost his party 4 million votes?

[Lord Duckhunter]

But when it gets down to it, scrapping Uni fees would cost so much money they'd have had to make far more savings than now.

 

But they knew that when they signed their "pledge".

[Saintandy666]

Beliefs in coalition that they didn't have in the Lib-Lab days? A pact to help a minority goverment for the short term would have been a far greater brake on Tory policies than this coalition has been, because every extreme policy would have been subject to review, but of course it wouldn't have given Clegg the trappings of power as deputy prime minister- nor perhaps lost his party 4 million votes?

 

I can't really comment too much on the Lib-Lab pact other than to say the obvious; the arithmetic was very different and so are the Labour Party to the Conservatives. You'll have to argue that with someone who was around at the time. And I completely disagree with you for what I already said on policies actually achieved as well as tory policies compromised in power! See all my other posts!

[trousers]

Well, the manifesto was fully costed and if Nick Clegg was Primer Minister, there would be no 9k tuition fees. But obviously, Nick Clegg isn't Prime Minister and so the Tories came in and had different priorities which had to be accounted for. As Vince Cable said, if there had been a Lib Dem government obviously there would be different priorities and emphasis's..

 

I saw interviews with both Clegg and Cable over the weekend and both said they were "sorry" for signing up to a pledge that they knew at the time they couldn't afford to keep. Their words not mine.

[Saintandy666]

I saw interviews with both Clegg and Cable over the weekend and both said they were "sorry" for signing up to a pledge that they knew at the time they couldn't afford to keep.

 

Knew they couldn't afford to keep, because they knew they would be in government in a coalition which would inevitably lead to different priorities throwing the costing of this policy out of the window.

[trousers]

Knew they couldn't afford to keep, because they knew they would be in government in a coalition which would inevitably lead to different priorities throwing the costing of this policy out of the window.

 

The interviews I saw were them saying what they knew BEFORE the notion of forming a coalition came onto the radar. Maybe I didn't hear it right but I'm pretty sure that's what they were saying they were apologising for.

 

How long before the election did they make the pledge btw? (I can't remember)

[Saintandy666]

The interviews I saw were them saying what they knew BEFORE the notion of forming a coalition came onto the radar. Maybe I didn't hear it right but I'm pretty sure that's what they were saying they were apologising for.

 

How long before the election did they make the pledge btw? (I can't remember)

 

Can't remember the exact time scale at all!

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Exactly. Which is why he didn't need to apologise for ditching the pledge but for making an unfundable pledge in the first place. Who's more stupid? Clegg for making the pledge in the first place or students for actually believe it was achievable...?

 

This is a massive red herring that has spun out to reduce the negative PR surrounding tuition fees. Introducing fees will have negligable impact on the deficit and will save the Government very little over the life of this Parliament and probably the next. Fees will be paid back over 20 odd years and so will be funded by the Government (probably through borrowing. Not to mention that students won't be paying anything back at all until they get a reasonably well paid job - which will probably take ages if the current economic climate remains.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

But when it gets down to it, scrapping Uni fees would cost so much money they'd have had to make far more savings than now.

 

The new arrangements are not saving the current Government any money at all.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I saw interviews with both Clegg and Cable over the weekend and both said they were "sorry" for signing up to a pledge that they knew at the time they couldn't afford to keep. Their words not mine.

 

That's the thing in a nutshell, and to be fair to Clegg ect they haven't really tried to weasel out of it.

 

Why is it that labour had a manifesto commitment not to introduce/raise fees, broke it, yet didn't get the stick that Cleggover and his chums are getting? The reason in my opinion, is because people thought they were different and the people can see the original pledge was pure opportunism and political posturing.

 

One phrase you wont hear at the next election is "I agree with Nick". Clegg has been found out, and if "Dr" cable becomes leader, he'll go the same way. I cant think of a time when politicans of all 3 parties were so poor and useless.

 

Looking forward to UKIP trouncing the whole lot of them at the Euro elections.

Edited 26 September, 2012 by Lord Duckhunter

[trousers]

That's the thing in a nutshell, and to be fair to Clegg ect they haven't really tried to weasel out of it.

 

Why is it that labour had a manifesto commitment not to introduce/raise fees, broke it, yet didn't get the stick that Cleggover and his chums are getting?

 

Because people with a natural tendency to protest against the state prefer not to do it when a Labour government is in power but instead save up their angst until the Tories (or in this case a coalition involving the Tories) get back in?

 

Edit: not counting the protest against the Iraq war of course :-)