Archbishop

[ahinton]

this really misses the point about why so many people are justifiably angry about it
the dishonesty is what many find so objectionable

No, it doesn't - nor does it even argue with or deny the validity of that point - but, since all main parties had pledged to make some kinds of cuts to the education budget (and the NHS and other budgets), people's understandable anger at what they perceive to be the dishonesty of the one/s currently in office is surely (albeit also unfortunately) somewhat diluted by this fact?

[french frank]

this really misses the point about why so many people are justifiably angry about it
the dishonesty is what many find so objectionable

Listen very carefully: I will restate the argument once [more] and then not bother, perhaps.

The matter, in the long or medium run, of whether the LibDems voted for or against a rise in tuition fees was of no practical relevance, since fees were going to rise - and had to, as both major parties agreed.

If people cannot see anything beyond: "You said you wouldn't and you did" there's nothing further to be said. But to me, the important thing is not whether the LibDems 'kept their word' or ended up being hated by everyone: the important thing - for everyone - is the policy on tuition fees. The LibDems were offered a seat at the table to thrash out a new policy which is not what the Tories would have come up with (and one can recognise something of LibDem policy on helping part-time students which was in their original six-year phased plan for eventual abolition).

Their final decision was between: Do we vote for a policy which we believe is as good as we're likely to get or do we vote against that policy because - in different circumstances - we pledged that we would.

In my view, any fair-minded person would concede that this was - at the very least - a genuine dilemma, and one which LibDem MPs solved in different ways. One could argue, and I think I would, that voting against the policy was pure populism ('Let's hope my voters remember that when the next election comes round.') The LibDems were still semi-anchored to their policy for abolition which had long since been scuppered as far as the country as a whole was concerned (though they had succeeded with it in Scotland). What they didn't - but should have - take(n) into account was what Browne would recommend.

IOW, the only point in sticking to a lost cause was to improve their chances of getting re-elected. You could say - typical politician's self interest. In fact, you can have it both ways if you like, and say that those who voted against the policy were were doing it to save their political skins at the next election, and those who voted for it were lying, deceitful hounds ...

[MrGongGong]

No, it doesn't - nor does it even argue with or deny the validity of that point - but, since all main parties had pledged to make some kinds of cuts to the education budget (and the NHS and other budgets), people's understandable anger at what they perceive to be the dishonesty of the one/s currently in office is surely (albeit also unfortunately) somewhat diluted by this fact?

Short answer NO


the long answer (NOOOOOOOOOO)
The dishonesty is what people are most angry about (if I talk to my student daughter) NOT the increase in fees , which to most students will just feel like another big number on a piece of paper.

I do think that this is what the Lib Dems are completely missing, all the explanations of the circumstances matter not one bit, they were dishonest end of. Interesting that amongst all the talk of disaffected youth etc that our current cohort of university students are prepared to make such a fuss about something that won't affect them directly, which somewhat scotches the whole "vote for me and i'll make YOU better off' rhetoric that all parties sadly stoop to.

sorry FF (and I hold you in high regard indeed !)

this

"the important thing - for everyone - is the policy on tuition fees" is NOT true at all
the really important thing is the principle of honesty THAT matters more than short term economics even if it makes you worse off in the short term !

yes it was a genuine dilemma for them
but they blew it
and went for short term gain

the young people who voted for them based on this policy will not let them forget it
nor should they

[french frank]

I do think that this is what the Lib Dems are completely missing, all the explanations of the circumstances matter not one bit

So much for the political understanding of the British public. No wonder they read the Sun and the Express

Edit: Sorry - having spent a long time with the 'explanations' in my previous post, the idea that no one actually cares is a bit galling

[MrGongGong]

So much for the political understanding of the British public. No wonder they read the Sun and the Express

Edit: Sorry - having spent a long time with the 'explanations' in my previous post, the idea that no one actually cares is a bit galling

What I mean is that people DO care
they care about the principle
over the circumstances

if you say you believe in something, you should stand by that
or
stand for re election based on the new position

[aeolium]

I don't think the argument about the Libdems dealing with changed circumstances stands up. They knew in advance of the election, and everyone knew, that they would not be the major governing party - there was no realistic chance of that whatsoever. Therefore, if their pledge not to increase tuition fees was anything other than a vote-getting exercise (pure populism, in other words) it was a statement of principle. It certainly will have seemed like that to the many of those in university towns who voted for them in that belief. Therefore they should have insisted to the Tories that it would not be possible for them to support a policy which resulted in fees being increased. If both the major parties were in favour of fee increase as we are constantly told then it should have been perfectly possible for a policy to be devised which would have resulted in that, irrespective of the Libdems' position. Incidentally, why it should be thought that Lord Browne, a former BP executive who was arguably responsible for the creation of that company's dodgy safety record with subsequent calamitous results, should be any kind of authority about education and its financing, is a mystery to me.

Mr GG's point is spot on, to my mind. How a party deals with its explicit commitments is key to its trustworthiness. How can any future leader of the Libdems come forward to the electorate with a policy and say, this is what we believe in, when the electorate will simply view it as a starting point for negotiations? Once a party's credibility on any major area of policy is shot, then that party is in a lot of trouble.

[agingjb]

I wonder if an Archbishop of a disestablished Church (and so, not in the House of Lords ex-officio) would become a useful, even a necessary voice as we shift back to tribal two-party politics (in England).

[BBMmk2]

That would be a totally different scenario!! I would never have imagined that happening but what a useful tool that would be!!

[ahinton]

Short answer NO


the long answer (NOOOOOOOOOO)
The dishonesty is what people are most angry about (if I talk to my student daughter) NOT the increase in fees , which to most students will just feel like another big number on a piece of paper.

I do think that this is what the Lib Dems are completely missing, all the explanations of the circumstances matter not one bit, they were dishonest end of. Interesting that amongst all the talk of disaffected youth etc that our current cohort of university students are prepared to make such a fuss about something that won't affect them directly, which somewhat scotches the whole "vote for me and i'll make YOU better off' rhetoric that all parties sadly stoop to.

sorry FF (and I hold you in high regard indeed !)

this

"the important thing - for everyone - is the policy on tuition fees" is NOT true at all
the really important thing is the principle of honesty THAT matters more than short term economics even if it makes you worse off in the short term !

yes it was a genuine dilemma for them
but they blew it
and went for short term gain

the young people who voted for them based on this policy will not let them forget it
nor should they

The point at issue here now appears to be that, whilst (as I have already implied) many people are understandably and indeed justifiably aggrieved at the dishonesty to which you rightly draw attention, those sufficiently long in the tooth who are well enough versed in the ways of "grown-up" politics have surely nevertheless long since come to expect little else; if a policy is going to be deeply unpopular, it is unlikely of itself to be helped along by its proponents being honest and up-front about it in advance, particular if all main political parties would only have come up with different versions of the same policy had they been granted the electoral mandate to do so.

[aeolium]

if a policy is going to be deeply unpopular, it is unlikely of itself to be helped along by its proponents being honest and up-front about it in advance, particular if all main political parties would only have come up with different versions of the same policy had they been granted the electoral mandate to do so.

That is true, though there are ways in which political parties have managed to get round this in the past, usually by statements starting with "We have no plans to ..." or by simply not mentioning the particular details of a policy, e.g. the mechanisms by which deficits will be reduced. It is also true that circumstances alter cases, so that a policy may have to be abandoned as a result of a major event such as the financial crash of 2008 - that is entirely understandable and no-one would expect otherwise. That is different from reversing a policy commitment as soon as one gets into power.

The second part of your sentence is also a depressing commentary on the way political parties all tend nowadays towards the same sort of policies and programmes - something else that Rowan Williams commented on - rather than attempting a radically different vision, e.g. believing that there are other ways of tackling the financial deficit than simply cutting great swathes of public expenditure, or believing that it was worth trying to do something to tackle inequality rather than letting it increase as every government of the last 30+ years has done.

[ahinton]

The second part of your sentence is also a depressing commentary on the way political parties all tend nowadays towards the same sort of policies and programmes - something else that Rowan Williams commented on - rather than attempting a radically different vision, e.g. believing that there are other ways of tackling the financial deficit than simply cutting great swathes of public expenditure, or believing that it was worth trying to do something to tackle inequality rather than letting it increase as every government of the last 30+ years has done.

But then the A of C's comments would appear to make it unlikely that he'd take especially kindly to a suggestion that he read The Big Society by Jesse Norman, MP (Con., Hereford and South Herefordshire), which he might otherwise conclude seeks to promote just that, its title notwithstanding...

[Lateralthinking1]

Could I say thank you to pabmusic for post number 54. I found it enlightening.

More broadly, I find that the individual doesn't have to be religious to offer a different vision. Anyone who communicates honestly, sensitively and directly and doesn't appear to be ripping people off or two-timing is a commentary in itself. The content is secondary.

Since I left the bureaucracy, I have had the misfortune for the past six months of needing to deal with senior civil servants, local authority staff, private sector staff, and a privatised ombudsman, on a range of difficult issues. 75% of the service has been so lousy that it all just seems geared towards the money-makers and developers. The latter are aware just how far they can push the law by doing what they please essentially, knowing that any enquiry about their behaviour will at best be met with evasiveness.

I can see now clearly why my colleagues and I were often criticised for being "overly helpful" and "too nice". I have literally been shaken by the entire absence of support provided to me by many of the so-called systems and the way in which they seem to reward base practice. I was in an ivory tower for a long time but nevertheless I do feel sure that 2011 is different and not in a great way.

So, yes, my expectations have been well and truly "managed", which is their way when you show that you have the intelligence to see through what they like to call their "story". I hardly saw myself as idealistic and I'm certainly no saint. Still, I swear that I have been projecting some of my more positive traits onto these people and then been sadly disappointed. I'm sure that other good folk on here would feel similarly from their own perspectives.

The politicians, the economists, the lawyers and so on.....they have created this system but it now runs awfully deep. I tend to see the situation increasingly as a case of professionals versus the public rather than simply MPs versus the public. Many people seem to be fine beyond what they get paid to do but are corrupted by the requirements of their employment and this can have knock-on effects. There is no systemic sense of national or neighbourhood community. The nearest that you tend to find it at all is where there are shared interests such as on forums like this one.

[Serial_Apologist]

There is no systemic sense of national or neighbourhood community. The nearest that you tend to find it at all is where there are shared interests such as on forums like this one.

Outside the area of communes, some have tried to encourage locally-based networks of community, usually as informal alternatives to the "rat race" and in the teeth of massive state opposition. I'm thinking of the squatting movement in the 1970s. It IS however possible in some districts to create "community togetherness" without balking the system, but this I think depends on strong leadership and relatively settled communities.

A friend who moved into a property in Buckhurst Hill encouintered the usual sort of street where the only people one was on speaking terms were next doors. She and her partner spent a whole year of enormous effort resuscitating a moribund area of allotments at the end of the street, getting everybody involved in sprucing the area up, including those initially uninterested even in their own patches of land - at the end of which everyone was on friendly terms with everyone else in the streets; street parties and barbecues were held, etc etc., and all round trust was established to the point where they were able to pressure the council to improve a community centre for the use of their children and teenagers from around the district, inputting their own ideas.

Another idea of getting the public involved which could have proved more successful had not target dates and grant restrictions suddenly been bureaucratically imposed was the community forest Thames Chase, established to the east of Romford in the early 1990s with the aim of resuscitating an urban fringe decimated by industrial neglect, high unemployment and mutual antagonism between the farming and urban communities. Learning Through Landscapes was a brilliant methodology initially brought in to encourage the involvement of everyone in maintaining and planning their districts. There is always the danger of strong-willed characters assuming over-dominating roles in schemes of this kind; Learning Through Landscapes devised subtle empoweringf means to encourage the unconfident and uncommitted to get involved and skill themselves up to that end.

The building up of any sense of community spirit depends for success on two factors: firstly that people have time, in the sense of time to get involved and time to see the project through to fulfilment and self-sustainment; and secondly, it depends I think on stability: a sense of loyalty to the district concerned born of the feeling that the community is likely to remain a relatively settled one.

The latter is hard to achieve in today's mobile age, in which employment is short-term and job holders expected to be on the move for available work. One of the problems I have found in being part of the residents' association in the block where I live is one of curating the accumulated experience of dealing with the "authorities" - in our case our freeholder - when the leaseholds are under constant changes of tenure.

All this adds up to a considerable problem which will only be resolved if society's priorities change from short- to longer-term orientation; and that, I fear, will only come about under a more sustainable political and economic regime than the one we now have.

S-A

[Lateralthinking1]

These are very good examples and I agree with so much that has been said - team effort often needed to bring about action from authorities, certain strong-willed characters assuming over-dominating roles, the need for time, stability and long-termism, and certainly the freeholder and leasehold business. Don't I know the latter from my last property experience. Being on the committee was in itself an isolating thing. The others owned several places but didn't live in that block and were in it for the money while some who rented for six months at a time couldn't have cared less. People speak about family breakdown and/or the broken society. It actually goes far beyond that. There is increasing breakdown between men and women, men and men, children and parents, young and older. It is the building in almost every sense that is crumbling and already there's a civil war just below the functioning. Resident versus resident. Residents versus owners. Insiders and outsiders thrown together through necessity and at loggerheads. I was for the sixties revolution. It was better than anything hitherto and has now become an absolute disaster.

Anyway, here are a few things to consider. People do get together - the local football team, the pub, the church etc - when they feel like it! Sure many folk are moving a lot but much is still longish term - employment, mortgages, relationships, friendships. Given a moment to celebrate huge inequality - the royal weddings - it is all street parties all of a sudden. However, notice how those are often largely populated by women and children. All sorts of things to be read into that perhaps. And there is still - just about - the old war spirit. My Mum has six keys for looking after peoples' homes while they are away and feeds a lot of cats! Dad shuffles round taking the empty dustbins down the steps of local working friends when the dustmen have been so that thieves are less aware that they are out! We all walk around being careful not to make excessive noise, even when a local Ibiza is booming out from across the fences. These things admittedly are now unusual. The boomers are greater in number if nothing else. The only time that they ever converse with others is indirectly through a speaker labelled "our room, do not disturb us, and keep out".

This is why when my parents eventually go, I see their natural replacement as the middle of a field rather than other people. This saddens me but it isn't as if I haven't tried. I have given people a very good try one way and another, really thrown myself in with them, not without a lot of very good times indeed. But on balance this is probably not what I would want mainly in the present and future climate. If I emigrated, it might be different but what worries me there is that those who are draining the country generally clear off to other parts of the world when they retire. You can't get away from them and really it says it all when you see their preferred destinations. So it isn't just ordinary ex-Londoners who leave in droves for the sunshine. And while many of the chosen countries are hardly economic powerhouses, one senses that it is about rather more than just the weather. Liberalism elsewhere seems to be bedded down in a small c catholic sense of togetherness, far nearer oddly enough to the old nonconformist liberal ways. How much more relaxing it feels. Almost normal. Nearly human.

It is so very miserable living here and sometimes like torture. We used to speak about class difference and that is still prevalent. Class now means more than it did and is often defined by money as much as background. Actually, it should ostensibly be defined by methods of presentation, communication and mindsets. The British problem begins with "authorities" that won't address issues directly or in writing because either they can't write or more likely they are almost paranoid about litigation. Ludicrous when most people couldn't even afford to go to the law. Plus those "in charge" have learnt the benefits of this approach. Less work to do, less bother, less need to consider impacts, including the emotional, less need to pay people to do the job. More of a feeling of self-importance, more of a chance to be slapdash or duplicitous and to avoid accountability, more room to cut corners and to support others who do so. Without a doubt, this is the most defensive and aggressive "civilian" country I have known. It simmers tangibly even in love. That is not to say there isn't any romance - some of it is cloying - but it is just another form of business.

Politicians etc can't expect people to work in that kind of framework and then go home to their streets and be all ring-a-ring-a-roses. Course they don't see it like that - they don't want to. It is though pretty obvious. When the regulatory systems are increasingly geared towards the risk taking free markets and risk taking individuals, they are essentially siding with risky behaviours against ones more likely to encourage stability and all round responsibility. The protection for those put at risk becomes less and it is more for those who are putting others in danger. In fact, as a mechanism it places the risk away from the so-called risk takers while at the same time enabling them naturally to club together. This isolates the more stable-minded from the systems themselves and significantly reduces incentives for individuals to act in the interests of other people. There is no commonweal. I really can understand why other nationalities view the British as eccentric. It is the observation from a distance of what I feel personally - the way we do things here is downright peculiar - really peculiar - and yet closer-up less and less endearing by the day.

The current framework also increases an adolescent infant authority from the top to the bottom of the social pyramid - grab the last biscuits, tread the crumbs into the carpet, and then disappear or deny or both these things. Move on to where all the other biscuits are! When Government Ministers are of this mentality, the whole half-baked emphasis on a big society will fall on deaf ears. In fact, the more the "professional" classes behave in the ways they do, the more interesting it seems that the use of the word "class" is often first heard in relation to a school. This is no coincidence. What we are getting these days is a polished version of the British classroom dynamics. Sorry, but that ain't real adulthood! Ironically, if the country were to be invaded, the mood music would change overnight. Sometimes it makes one hope that it might be. That too is regrettable but increasingly it appeals on the grounds of sense. It would, I think, lead to social and societal development. Perhaps Rowan could lead the crusade from inside Canterbury if no foreigner has the benevolence to declare a sane moral war against us just off the white cliffs of Dover.