Guest Posted November 13, 2010 Share Posted November 13, 2010 I think this kind of thread says a lot more about the OP Why? What does it say about the OP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted November 13, 2010 Share Posted November 13, 2010 I think you will find that is why the Libs have a problem. A month before Clegg pledged in April to scrap the "dead weight of debt", a secret team of key Lib Dems made clear that, in the event of a hung parliament, the party would not waste political capital defending its manifesto pledge to abolish university tuition fees within six years. In a document marked "confidential" and dated 16 March, the head of the secret pre-election coalition negotiating team, Danny Alexander, wrote: "On tuition fees we should seek agreement on part time students and leave the rest. All those votes in university seats! Nothing short of an electoral heist. It shows some realism about their position. Given that the other two parties are both in favour of tuition fees then trying to get this policy in a coalition agreement was always going to be a non-runner. Of course, if the non-university seats had voted lib dem, then we would have a lib dem dominated government and tuition fees would be on their way to being history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 13, 2010 Author Share Posted November 13, 2010 It shows some realism about their position. Given that the other two parties are both in favour of tuition fees then trying to get this policy in a coalition agreement was always going to be a non-runner. Of course, if the non-university seats had voted lib dem, then we would have a lib dem dominated government and tuition fees would be on their way to being history Maybe it gives them a big strategic problem. Ok, imagine this coalition stays the course. In the final year (or two) the LibDems will have to start disengaging from their coalition partner to regain a distinct identity ready for the election. Either that or they stay close or move closer still. In the first instance the electorate won't trust or believe them. And while in coalition they have limited scope to rebuild that trust. Especially so if they continue to act as human shields for their Tory partners. Bad for the LibDems. Bad for democracy. In the second instance, the one where they stay close, people may question why vote for them anyway. Then we may see electoral pacts being formed to ensure a further coalition. Again, bad for democracy. My view at the moment is that this country isn't ready for the type of coalition politics we get in the current system. And being a Labour supporter I think a LibLab coalition could have been just as bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted November 13, 2010 Share Posted November 13, 2010 Maybe it gives them a big strategic problem. Ok, imagine this coalition stays the course. In the final year (or two) the LibDems will have to start disengaging from their coalition partner to regain a distinct identity ready for the election. Either that or they stay close or move closer still. they may very well have a strategic problem but 5 years is a long time and we will have to see what happens nearer the end. one thing it may do, is make them a bit more cautious about making bold pronouncements and commitments about things. In the first instance the electorate won't trust or believe them. the electorate don't trust or believe any politician. Then we may see electoral pacts being formed to ensure a further coalition. Again, bad for democracy. i'm not sure further coalitions, in general, would be bad for democracy My view at the moment is that this country isn't ready for the type of coalition politics we get in the current system. And being a Labour supporter I think a LibLab coalition could have been just as bad. the only way to get ready for coalition politics is to have them. in a general sense a liblab coalition would perhaps be a more usual affair. in the specific situation of the results of the last general election then a liblab coalition couldn't have produced a majority govenment because of the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted November 13, 2010 Share Posted November 13, 2010 Its a "coalition" for Christ sake, they have to "compromise". Why are so many labour supports that thick they cannot comprehend this fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted November 13, 2010 Share Posted November 13, 2010 Its a "coalition" for Christ sake, they have to "compromise". Why are so many labour supports that thick they cannot comprehend this fact Probably the thick ones that voted Lib Dem to 'send Labour a message'. Well, they got what they voted for, but not what they wanted, and they've been in lip blubbering tantrum mode ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted November 13, 2010 Share Posted November 13, 2010 Its a "coalition" for Christ sake, they have to "compromise". Why are so many labour supports that thick they cannot comprehend this fact Exactly what have the Tories compromised on? Serious question. Where's that Mansion Tax that Cleggy promised (and Cameron didn't want) ? And where's that amnesty for illegal immigrants that Cleggy was going to allow ?* I regularly see that Lib Dem half of the ConDem coalition is capitulating compromsing on many things, including pre-election promises and their principles but I don't see the Tories compromising on owt x EDIT: *I'm not in favour of the amnesty at all but Cleggy did promise it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted November 13, 2010 Share Posted November 13, 2010 Exactly what have the Tories compromised on? Serious question. Where's that Mansion Tax that Cleggy promised (and Cameron didn't want) ? And where's that amnesty for illegal immigrants that Cleggy going to allow ? I regularly see that Lib Dem half of the ConDem coalition is capitulating compromsing on many things, including pre-election promises and their principles but I don't see the Tories compromising on owt x If you think the cuts are bad, you might want to think what they'd be like if the Tories had won with a majority. Pupil Premium ring any bells? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted November 13, 2010 Share Posted November 13, 2010 If you think the cuts are bad, you might want to think what they'd be like if the Tories had won with a majority. Pupil Premium ring any bells? Not really, no... any other compromises the Tories have made? x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dell12 Posted November 13, 2010 Share Posted November 13, 2010 Speaking as a Lib Dem voter I felt that Tuition fees were one of the main Lib Dem policies. A policy which won them a heck of alot of votes. They should have fought to the death the keep their pledge. I didn't see them making much effort at all to negotiate to keep them, indeed this news seems to point to the fact that they were quite willing to give up at the first opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.