Posh Boys in trouble?

[Lateralthinking1]

I seem to recall that after the debates there was a big personal vote for Nick Clegg.

Members of the public go for (a) the funny man - Boris or (b) the rebel - Ken or (c) the comparatively young and reasonably normal looking and sounding - Nick. The bigger truth in these people is normally quite the reverse of how they appear.

There was a new feeling around the notion of the typical Liberal Democrat voter in 2010. Students did vote for the Lib Dems in very high numbers. The Lib Dems also took many more votes from ethnic groups because of Iraq.

I think that the party might have come clean about elements of the Orange Book which directed them to the right. Their voters were more left wing than before and would not have known how Clegg would cave in happily to Tory policy.

I am serious about Boris running for the Presidency. Ludicrous if it happens but he qualifies having been born in New York.

[french frank]

I'm afraid I think the people planning the election campaign thought it could be a middle-class parent vote winner (more than having an eye on the student vote) and were never keen on it as practical policy.

But there were two separate issues: one was the manifesto policy to abolish tuition fees (and with LibDem support this had already been introduced in Scotland, so there was a precedent even before the election); the other was signing the pledge to vote against a rise.

My understanding was it was the NUS pledge that was the problem. If you have a senior partner set on raising the fees, I can well understand that they could hardly 'hang on to' the policy of abolition.

Election manifestos, though, are declarations of intent, not a set of 'promises'. As the Guardian article you quote notes, the economic situation facing the country was revealed to the government when it took over, and was worse than they had thought. Opposition manifestos are drawn up blind and to expect no adjustments, even when only one party is involved, is surely unrealistic.

[Lateralthinking1]

So you don't go for the idea of manifestos becoming a legally binding contract? I think I favour some sort of move in that direction.

It is being said that there is hardly anything in the forthcoming Queens Speech. There is an argument that the Coalition has run out of steam. I can think of at least a couple of areas in the Agreement that haven't been tackled. I suspect that there are many more. Is the Coalition being put before the country, ie can't do the rest because it will lead to divisions? If so, that's a big problem.

Each voter should be charged £20 ahead of an election. The money would be refunded if they voted. This would change the level of turnout dramatically and alter the political map. People who spoiled their ballot papers would be among those refunded.

[MrGongGong]

I find this is useful (Oxford dictionaries online)


pledge

Pronunciation: /plɛdʒ/
noun
1a solemn promise or undertaking:
[with infinitive]:
the conference ended with a joint pledge to limit pollution
a promise of a donation to charity:
appeals for emergency relief met with pledges totalling £250,000,000
(the pledge) a solemn undertaking to abstain from alcohol:
she persuaded Arthur to take the pledge


I think maybe the keyword Cleggers is SOLEMN
so you won't be in charge of the scissors or the milk next term
or the term after that

[french frank]

Please miss, we already know that the LibDems had been making plans for the possibility of a coalition so please don't come the old coal ..

That's not quite the case. Read the article again. It says Huhne wrote a dissenting report, against the main report drawn up by Alexander that a coalition would not be possible. That isn't planning for a coalition, it's planning against it (though I agree, it seems to envisage an election result where coalition might be offered).

The only way the abolition of fees could have even been possible (given the six-year programme) would have been an outright LibDem win, so it's hardly surprising that it was viewed as dead in the water. Against that, the priority of addressing the anomalous position of fees for part-time students has actually been introduced. So maybe some students will be grateful to the LibDems!

[MrGongGong]

The only way the abolition of fees could have even been possible (given the six-year programme) would have been an outright LibDem win, so it's hardly surprising that it was viewed as dead in the water.

aaah so you can "lie" (ooops sorry not a real "lie" though) if you think you can get away with it !
this is worse than I thought !

come on frenchie you are a good egg
sometimes it's best to simply do the "fair cop gov" routine

[french frank]

So you don't go for the idea of manifestos becoming a legally binding contract?

Impossible. Opposition parties can't do any more than say what they hope to do. If manifestos became legally binding, no party would put anything of substance in them.

[french frank]

aaah so you can "lie" (ooops sorry not a real "lie" though) if you think you can get away with it !
this is worse than I thought !

come on frenchie you are a good egg
sometimes it's best to simply do the "fair cop gov" routine

I think probably everyone should complete a course in politics. It's like people living in a foreign country not bothering to learn the language.

Don't they teach this sort of thing in 'citizenship' at schools?

[MrGongGong]

I think probably everyone should complete a course in politics. It's like people living in a foreign country not bothering to learn the language.

Don't they teach this sort of thing in 'citizenship' at schools?

Maybe
But I always thought that the Liberals and then the LibDems were trying to suggest that they were somehow different

at least with music we can have both Byrd and Beefheart

[french frank]

Maybe
But I always thought that the Liberals and then the LibDems were trying to suggest that they were somehow different

I think the phrase 'clear blue water' was meant to suggest that the Tories were 'different' too. What's the Labour phrase? . "We are all different."

[amateur51]

Impossible. Opposition parties can't do any more than say what they hope to do. If manifestos became legally binding, no party would put anything of substance in them.

PLEASE! Don't tempt me!

[french frank]

Students did vote for the Lib Dems in very high numbers.

Not sure what evidence you have for that, Lat. Experience of a university city suggests that they are hardly worth canvassing even though political parties all spend time in halls of residence, participating in discussions, attending meetings &.

This article says that in the last election it was hardly worth their time.

Conclusion: "Students who really care about future tuition fees should be voters before they are protesters—if all of them had voted the way they said they would last time, maybe they’d have got their way on fees after all."

So that's what happened to the LibDems' 29% support that wasn't...

[teamsaint]

Maybe
But I always thought that the Liberals and then the LibDems were trying to suggest that they were somehow different

at least with music we can have both Byrd and Beefheart

Music seldom lets you down.
Unlike politicians, bosses, footballers, buses, airlines...........

(well I suppose it may let you down if you go to a lot of expensive concerts, but you get my drift !!)

[handsomefortune]

"We are all different."

iirc it was 'everybody counts' ...unfortunate as numeracy slipped (even) further off the radar, and countless numbers were newly diagnosed with learning difficulties.

[John Skelton]

As the Guardian article you quote notes, the economic situation facing the country was revealed to the government when it took over, and was worse than they had thought.

But the article doesn't note that. It quotes a Clegg aide noting it:

A Clegg aide told Wilson: "The thing that changed minds was George Osborne saying that he had seen the figures and it was quite horrific in real life as opposed to spin life."

Which is different .

The notion that new, horrific, economic information became available once they had entered the offices, toppled the statues, pulled out the secret files is absolute rubbish. Unequivocal nonsense. Ludicrous beyond belief. It's the coalition's Foundation Myth, of course, but that doesn't make it real.

I agree that the LibDems aren't uniquely evil in strategically saying or promising stuff in opposition they regard as aspirational rather than binding. Or regard as a concession to their activists and it might get us some votes but we'll never have to do anything about it. New Labour flirts with the anti-austerity movement when it suits them now, and comes over all 'responsible' when it doesn't. I also agree that party manifestos aren't immutable (though, again, in the case of tuition fees the circumstantial change was being in coalition: not something lurking in the files).

I still don't see why the LibDems are hard done by, or Clegg is unfortunate, though. As you say, it's politics as they are practised in the mainstream so if they go wrong on a party and they come off badly, so ...?