Labour introduced tuition fees/top up fees despite ruling them out in manif

[Stoatwobbler]

Whilst also being elected with less than half of the votes of the total number of people eligable even when the two parties combine their votes.

 

In addition raising tuition fees to £9000 in most universities (and telling us that £9,000 would be an exception) they have also introduced the largest top-down reorganisation of the NHS since it was founded (despite their election pledge not to) and are opening every area of the NHS to competition from private providers (not mentioned in the election because they'd have lost it if they had). Then we also have Cameron's stated plan to have almost all of the public sector services run by the private or voluntary sector, something he also failed to mention either in his election manifesto or in the coalition manifesto.

 

I think on balance this current government wins when it comes to introducing huge policies that go against their election pledges. Having to form a coalition doesn't excuse them from the pledges they used to get people's votes nor give them the mandate to create entirely new policies of such wideranging scale that nobody at all has been able to vote on.

 

To be blunt about it I don't think any of the parties fought the last election on honest platforms. The fact that so little of the election campaign was about the actual policies they wanted to implement was something of a warning sign on that front.

[sues_budgie]

New Labour (not old labour)

 

In the next election campain, will bring up the issue of tuition fees, and there supporters will back them, as will many of the Lib Dems who feel betrayed by there own party.

 

New Labour (not old labour) who masqerade as the friend of the working class, if elected will increase the yearly tuition fees to a level the Conservatives would not dare. £25,000 a year within 12 months of being re-elected ?????

 

Of course, they will produce the spin, there supporters who still believe New Labour resembles the labour of old will be taken in by the spin, but of course, the very people who will lose out - will be the people who back new labour.

 

As the saying goes, if they put a 'performing baboon' as the labour candidate, it would get voted in

[I1L2T3]

and they were a single party government with a parliamentary majority.

 

In 2005 Labour won 35.2% of the vote amounting to just 21% of the 44 million people eligible to vote so just over a fifth.From this Tony Blair commanded 55% of the seats in the House of Commons.

 

The Archbishop of Canterburys comments from the Guardian article here...

 

Williams thinks the coalition lacks a democratic mandate for its radical package of austerity measures -"long term policies for which no one voted" he claims — underpinned by what he calls "anxiety and anguish" and the "quiet resurgence of the seductive language of the deserving and the undeserving poor".

 

(Full article here

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jun/09/tony-blair-rowan-williams-which-you-want-to-hear )

 

...tells me that he would be better restricting his comments to the policies themselves. Why does he feel the need to get involved in a debate about mandates.

 

So labour also broke their promises on tuition fees and decided to introduce them.The media seems happy to let us all forget this subject, though it will be a long while until people forget the recent hype about the coalitions policies.

Generally the public are happy with the work of the coalition.Comments like these need to be explained for what they really are.

 

In 2005 Labour won a majority of seats. They won the election outright. Pretty convincingly for a party seeking a third term.

 

Your real beef is that the electoral system is unfair. I agree with you.

 

In 2010 nobody won. Nobody voted for a Tory-Lib coalition. Nobody voted for any other kind of coalition. The fact is none of the parties convinced the electorate they were worth electing. IMO none of them were fit to govern - this has subsequently been proven by an appallingly out of touch coalition and a weak, blundering opposition.

 

Now onto the policies. The Libs have helped implement an increase in tuition fees way beyond what anybody expected and way beyond what Labour would have dared try. Yes, your LibDems espadrille. They have gone well beyond the pale in a full-on assault on the young and we all know it.

[espadrille]

In 2005 Labour won a majority of seats. They won the election outright. Pretty convincingly for a party seeking a third term.

 

Your real beef is that the electoral system is unfair. I agree with you.

 

In 2010 nobody won. Nobody voted for a Tory-Lib coalition. Nobody voted for any other kind of coalition. The fact is none of the parties convinced the electorate they were worth electing. IMO none of them were fit to govern - this has subsequently been proven by an appallingly out of touch coalition and a weak, blundering opposition.

 

Now onto the policies. The Libs have helped implement an increase in tuition fees way beyond what anybody expected and way beyond what Labour would have dared try. Yes, your LibDems espadrille. They have gone well beyond the pale in a full-on assault on the young and we all know it.

 

You speak for yourself on that one. Get the full facts about tuition fees....

 

As I said it was Labour who introduced them.They obviously dared to try that without having it in their manifesto.

[I1L2T3]

You speak for yourself on that one. Get the full facts about tuition fees....

 

As I said it was Labour who introduced them.They obviously dared to try that without having it in their manifesto.

 

We know Labour introduced them. I very much doubt Labour expected the Lib-Torys would build a policy on top of that which resulted in fees for a 3 year course averaging at £26k, and unlike current fees will saddle ex-students with the debt for much longer. A move towards exclusivity, falling attendance, institutions going out of business, wrecked local economies, university education provided by private companies etc... etc... I got all the facts about this thanks. The only thing this has going for it is it costs less per month and even that is a pathetic headline for the reforms - less per month but more debt and potentially decades of it. Your LibDems espadrille. They are doing all this.

 

Like you said in previous posts this was voted against by local LibDems. You were quite proud of that point. What has changed?

[espadrille]

We know Labour introduced them. I very much doubt Labour expected the Lib-Torys would build a policy on top of that which resulted in fees for a 3 year course averaging at £26k, and unlike current fees will saddle ex-students with the debt for much longer. A move towards exclusivity, falling attendance, institutions going out of business, wrecked local economies, university education provided by private companies etc... etc... I got all the facts about this thanks. The only thing this has going for it is it costs less per month and even that is a pathetic headline for the reforms - less per month but more debt and potentially decades of it. Your LibDems espadrille. They are doing all this.

 

Like you said in previous posts this was voted against by local LibDems. You were quite proud of that point. What has changed?

As I explained back then.The lib dem administration (locally ) voted against the tuition fees.I of course couldnt not vote as I was a candidate.

 

I didnt have all the facts at that time about how the new system would work but on the face of it I agreed with the vote against it. Since then I have learnt more about it.

I have a 15 year old daughter who I would not have been able to send to University if I had to pay anything in the way of fees up front. However now if she decides that she wants to go and can get a place doing what she wants to do then she will be able to as she will pay nothing up front and, if she doesn't earn more than 21 k then she wont pay anything at all.

 

Simon Hughes explains it very well here.If you care to read it.

http://leicester-libdems.org.uk/en/article/2011/490922/university-tuition-fees-simon-hughes

[andikay]

In 2005 Labour won a majority of seats. They won the election outright. Pretty convincingly for a party seeking a third term.

 

Your real beef is that the electoral system is unfair. I agree with you.

 

In 2010 nobody won. Nobody voted for a Tory-Lib coalition. Nobody voted for any other kind of coalition. The fact is none of the parties convinced the electorate they were worth electing. IMO none of them were fit to govern - this has subsequently been proven by an appallingly out of touch coalition and a weak, blundering opposition.

 

Now onto the policies. The Libs have helped implement an increase in tuition fees way beyond what anybody expected and way beyond what Labour would have dared try. Yes, your LibDems espadrille. They have gone well beyond the pale in a full-on assault on the young and we all know it.

 

In the 2010 election the Conservatives had a greater share of the vote than Labour had in the 2005 election, combine that with the Lib Dems share of the vote and we have a government with a greater share of the vote than any other resent government.

It’s also worth remembering that Lib Dems voters new the best they could hope for was a coalition.

 

 

 

Conservative 10,726,614 they beat labour by 2,000,000 votes and didn’t win outright.

Labour 8,609,527

Liberal Democrat 6,836,824

Labour 1997 13,518,167

Labour 2001 10,724,953

Labour 2005 9,552,436 they beat the Conservatives by 800,000 votes but won outright.

[I1L2T3]

As I explained back then.The lib dem administration (locally ) voted against the tuition fees.I of course couldnt not vote as I was a candidate

 

Simon Hughes explains it very well here.If you care to read it.

 

simon hughes basically explains that they had to let the policy through and won two minor concessions about monthly payments and the 21k threshold. As I said above the monthly payment thing is a gimmick, designed to give lib dems something positive to talk about when trying to defend the policy. Well dome for sticking to script.

[espadrille]

As I explained back then.The lib dem administration (locally ) voted against the tuition fees.I of course couldnt not vote as I was a candidate

 

Simon Hughes explains it very well here.If you care to read it.

 

 

simon hughes basically explains that they had to let the policy through and won two minor concessions about monthly payments and the 21k threshold. As I said above the monthly payment thing is a gimmick, designed to give lib dems something positive to talk about when trying to defend the policy. Well dome for sticking to script.

 

 

Not quite sure what you mean by this.

I used Simon Hughes article to explain as it is much easier than typing the whole thing out myself and he does explain it clearly.

 

If you think it is a gimmick that is up to you.Each to his/her own.

[evildrneil]

We know Labour introduced them. I very much doubt Labour expected the Lib-Torys would build a policy on top of that which resulted in fees for a 3 year course averaging at £26k, and unlike current fees will saddle ex-students with the debt for much longer. A move towards exclusivity, falling attendance, institutions going out of business, wrecked local economies, university education provided by private companies etc... etc... I got all the facts about this thanks. The only thing this has going for it is it costs less per month and even that is a pathetic headline for the reforms - less per month but more debt and potentially decades of it. Your LibDems espadrille. They are doing all this.

 

Like you said in previous posts this was voted against by local LibDems. You were quite proud of that point. What has changed?

 

Given that the increase in fees was a response to the Browne Review started by the previous Labour administration and which recommended uncapped fees perhaps the only thing that Labour didn't expect is that the coalition would introduce a cap so that the universities couldn't charge any amount they liked? For Labour to rail against the increased tuition fees given their history on the subject is at least disingenuous if not down right hypocritical.