Archbishop

[scottycelt]

Jesus Christ certainly had few qualms about upsetting the Establishment.

Perhaps Nick Clegg could step down in favour of the Archbishop.

I suspect Christ was about pointing out the evils and deficiencies (and probably more crucially the hypocrisies) of the Establishment of the time rather than 'upsetting' it though that obviously was the 'end' result.

As to your second point, the self-confessed atheist Nick suddenly appears to be not such a bad guy after all ..

[Lateralthinking1]

How would reform of the House of Lords affect the relationship of Church and State?

Plus, was the relationship between the Church (Scotland) and the State assessed when powers were devolved and what was the outcome?

Plus, should it be mandatory for the detail of the manifestos to be delivered to each household during an election campaign (like Boris effectively did in a big leaflet in London)?

Plus, should there be a freeview channel at election times that has rotating coverage of the manifestos with films and pictures and voice, all presented neutrally?

[MrGongGong]

the LibDem policy on tuition fees was an even more distant dream;

much as I have HUGE respect for FF
this is simply NOT true

they presented themselves as the HONEST third way, with the aim of attracting people who were disillusioned with politics
they succeeded
many young people of my daughters generation voting for the first time believed them

they lied
pure and simple

and then made up a load of guff to try and wriggle out of it ........
you don't make promises that you don't intent to keep, most of us have tried to bring up our children to be honest and honourable even if it means loosing out on some things

there is no mandate for what the tories are doing with the support of the discredited libdems

by all means have an election and vote for these things
but most people who voted didn't want this

the "its a compromise " argument stinks
principles cost , if you don't agree you really need to say so
even if it costs you

but I guess thats not the world we live in
no wonder most University students after briefly being enthused about politics are now fed up with the whole business

[french frank]

much as I have HUGE respect for FF

I must take comfort in that alone, then, MrGG: I see things in a quite different way from you (and from most others here, possibly)

[scottycelt]

they presented themselves as the HONEST third way, with the aim of attracting people who were disillusioned with politics
they succeeded
many young people of my daughters generation voting for the first time believed them

they lied
pure and simple

and then made up a load of guff to try and wriggle out of it ........
you don't make promises that you don't intent to keep, most of us have tried to bring up our children to be honest and honourable even if it means loosing out on some things

there is no mandate for what the tories are doing with the support of the discredited libdems

by all means have an election and vote for these things
but most people who voted didn't want this

the "its a compromise " argument stinks
principles cost , if you don't agree you really need to say so
even if it costs you

but I guess thats not the world we live in
no wonder most University students after briefly being enthused about politics are now fed up with the whole business

I cannot remember a party since the Thatcher Government that didn't present itself as an honest 'third way' portraying itself as morally superior to its rivals.

Rather than castigating Clegg and the Liberal Democrats for concessions mandatory in any sort of Coalition Government some might applaud them for the balancing concessions they have forced out of the Tories.

Personally I am delighted to witness the most obvious, ie a much more constructive engagement with our European partners, greater tax relief for the lowest paid in society, and a truly admirable commitment to increased aid for the very poorest countries in the world even when times are 'hard' at home.

Well done Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrat Party!

[MrGongGong]

a much more constructive engagement with our European partners,
!

what on earth ????
surely its time we actually took part in the EU rather than standing on the edge moaning
its our shared culture ! (you know Brahms, Elgar, Mozart, Delius, Stockhausen etc etc )

[aeolium]

If this ends up giving any party a 'mandate' in anything other than a technical sense, I can't see it.

What kind of mandate do you think would be provided in a system with frequent coalitions, as might well be the case with proportional representation? Might it not also result in the kind of 'compromises' we have seen in the current coalition?

the LibDems in coalition were able to influence an alternative policy (which was then considered good enough for only a minority to vote against it).

What do you mean? The tuition fees vote was only carried by 323 votes to 302, meaning that pretty much the whole of the Labour opposition plus some Libdems voted against it. Had the Libdems not supported it, then the tuition fees vote would have failed, thereby enabling the Libdems to have fulfilled the pledge that they had signed prior to the election.

What version of the Tory policy do you think the other parties would have 'voted through', post Browne - a better one than the coalition deal or a worse one?

In the absence of Libdem support, the Tories would have had to seek a consensus position with the opposition, possibly in favour of a graduate tax, or abandon their policy entirely.

I would like to know whether you think with the benefit of hindsight that the Libdems were right to abandon that opposition to tuition fees given that the image it created was of a party that would abandon any principles to have the chance of sharing power. Do you think the subsequent haemorrhaging of Libdem support in the local elections (and probable severe losses in the next general election) a price worth paying, or is it just down to the notorious untrustworthiness of the electorate who can't be relied on to understand grown-up politics?

[pilamenon]

This isn't a defence of the NHS reforms - merely suggesting that reform was part of the Tory manifesto.

Technically, I suppose you are right. But how many voters actually vote on the basis of having read the manifestos? Their media campaign certainly played the idea of a radical shake-up right down, and I go back to their "safe in our hands" slogan that was trotted out regularly.

In addition, forced into a coalition with the Lib Dems, a mandate to push through such major reforms was scarcely justifiable.

[Pabmusic]

How would reform of the House of Lords affect the relationship of Church and State?

Plus, was the relationship between the Church (Scotland) and the State assessed when powers were devolved and what was the outcome?

This could be an A-level Constitutional Law question! The first part is easy - any part of our constitution can be changed by subsequent legislation, so HL reform might seek to remove the Lords Spiritual entirely, though I'm not sure that's proposed (the only talk there has been is about removing the hereditary peers, which has largely been done). The C of E would still remain the established (ie: state) church, with a persuasive role in government and limited law-making powers. There's no talk yet about disestablishing the church. And there's enough convention to suggest the church has a historical duty to comment on public matters.

As far as the Church of Scotland goes, it isn't an established church so doesn't have a constitutional role, and I guess no thought was given to it under devolution.

The thing that's missed is that we don't actually elect a government at all; we elect a parliament. That's easily dismissed as semantics, but (often unscrupulous?) politicians hide behind it. What happened at the last election shows what I mean. We elected a parliament, from which the Queen (not us) chose a Prime Minister, who then formed a government. Remember those several days of suspense when we waited to see what government would emerge? Of course there are many conventions - the Queen invites the person to be PM who can command a majority in the Commons, for instance - but manifestos don't enter into it.

From our point of view it's different - we vote for the party we support (usually), often without reading the manifesto. On this occasion, I suspect no one got quite the government they wanted, so there's a natural tendency to look at the fine print because we're disappointed.

[french frank]

aeolium

At the cost of my Sunday I could reply to those points (Msg #52), ad nauseam ... but no one would change their minds on what they already think so I'll take my Sunday instead.

Generally, on tuition fees: I simply don't know the answer. The Labour government referred the question of funding to Lord Browne to find a solution and he published his recommendations (including top fees of at least £12,000). Yes, you have a situation where both major parties would be doing much the same thing in government, but in opposition neither would support the other. Don't expect the Liberal Democrats to somehow 'save' the situation.

I agree with pabmusic: With very few exceptions, voters don't read manifestos and they don't vote on specific policies. The issue of 'mandates' is therefore a false one which arises only retrospectively when people discover they don't like what a government is doing.

And now I'm bunking off ... (I just wish it would stop raining - what drought?)

[aeolium]

I think you're right, ff - best to agree to disagree here. I keep telling myself not to get too bothered at anything politicians do when I have lived through so many poor governments, but it doesnt seem to work. And there are plenty of governments elsewhere which remind me how fortunate we are to live in a democracy with freedom of speech and the rule of law.

I can't complain about the rain (even though I was to have played cricket today) as it's desperately needed here - ground like concrete. It's a chance to stay in and catch up on some iplayer listening.

[StephenO]

Rather than castigating Clegg and the Liberal Democrats for concessions mandatory in any sort of Coalition Government some might applaud them for the balancing concessions they have forced out of the Tories.

Personally I am delighted to witness the most obvious, ie a much more constructive engagement with our European partners, greater tax relief for the lowest paid in society, and a truly admirable commitment to increased aid for the very poorest countries in the world even when times are 'hard' at home.

Agreed. All admirable achievements, as you say, scotty, and all reasons why I voted Lib Dem. I'd add to your list the proposed reforms to the House of Lords and the concessions the Lib Dems are forcing the Tories to make over changes to the NHS.

The tuition fees debacle unfortunately but not surprisingly soured many people's view of the Lib Dems in general and of Nick Clegg in particular. As a party we paid the price for that in the local elections. Nevertheless I'd rather have a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition than a single-party Tory government dominated by its totally illeberal, anti-European right wing. Or, come to that, another five years of Labour.

[MrGongGong]

The tuition fees debacle unfortunately but not surprisingly soured many people's view of the Lib Dems in general and of Nick Clegg in particular.

It has made many people unable to trust a word that they say which is sad really
I think for people of my daughters generation who are currently at university it does mean that they have lost what little faith they had in politicians and it wont be as easily forgotten as the Lib Dems would like. Irrespective of the details of the funding of higher education what people are (rightly IMV) disgusted with is the blatant dishonesty ....... something that the Archbishop was alluding to

we certainly aren't "all in this together"
some are very much up to their necks !

At least with the proper tories you know where to aim !

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

we certainly aren't "all in this together"
some are very much up to their necks !

At least with the proper tories you know where to aim !

What really gets me about the Tories is the way Cameron replies to the criticisms by boasting about the really stupid, counterproductive and unnecessary things they are doing, particularly with regard to "Free Schools" and "Academies" (the former an idea put to Gove by his chum, the discredited Chris Woodhead).

What really gets me about the Lib-Dems is the way Clegg says "we have to make tough decisions". Whenever a politicians says that, he/she means it will be tough on those who have the least in the first place.

[MrGongGong]

What's your take on them removing music from the national curriculum ?