HoLords reform hits the skids

[Serial_Apologist]

Now that the bill's been dropped, the Tory rebels are cocky hoop.

One thing it really shows up is the sheer arrogance of the Conservative parliamentary right - the utter brazeness they display in all their talk of "government defeat" - so different from the apologetic tone always conveyed by the Labour left whenever faced with accusations of disloyalty.

I wonder if the Sun, Express and Mail will now make hay with just how divided the largest party in the Coalition is, how permanently unelectable they henceforth will be - like they always did with successive Labour governments.

I somehow doubt it...

[amateur51]

I simply cannot understand those who despise Clegg for dropping ' election pledges'. It is not a Lib Dem Government it is a coalition, where both contributing parties have had to give and take and make sacrifices. This seems to me perfectly reasonable under the dire circumstances at the time. Surely we don't ever live in the world we might prefer, we have to deal with the one that actually exists?

OK scotty I've spelled it out before but I'm happy to reprise it.

The LibDems went into Polling Day with a very specific pledge about tuition fees. Let us assume that this pledge persuaded at least some people to vote for them. And as a result of that pledge the LibDems secured the seats total that enabled them to go into coalition with the Tories.

If they had not made that pledge, it is reasonable to assume that some of the people who voted for the LibDems because of the pledge would not vote for them. Perhaps this would have reduced further the number of LibDems seats. Which may have made them less attractive partners to the Tory spider. Who knows? I doubt that there is any psephologically valid way of establishing the truth here. But by pledging something under false pretences (because let's face it the LibDems did not stand a chance of forming a Government alone and they would have known before Polling Day that the pledge would not be acceptable to the Tories and would thus have to be ditched) they may have duped people into voting for them against their best interests. That is despicable in my book.

Simples

[MrGongGong]

I simply cannot understand those who despise Clegg for dropping ' election pledges'. It is not a Lib Dem Government it is a coalition, where both contributing parties have had to give and take and make sacrifices. This seems to me perfectly reasonable under the dire circumstances at the time. Surely we don't ever live in the world we might prefer,

And my version
is

People despise him (quite rightly IMV) because he (and his party) was so adamant about this as a pledge (i.e PROMISE) which was quickly abandoned,
so it's a bit like your mate in the frock in Rome deciding that Gay Weddings, Contraception and Women priests were now OK because that;s what the "real world" wants ............ errr hang on a minute

for a catholic to say this

"we have to deal with the one that actually exists?"

is the funniest thing I've heard for ages

it's very simple

Don't be dishonest ....... don't promise something then do something else
principles cost get over it

[Serial_Apologist]

OK scotty I've spelled it out before but I'm happy to reprise it.

The LibDems went into Polling Day with a very specific pledge about tuition fees. Let us assume that this pledge persuaded at least some people to vote for them. And as a result of that pledge the LibDems secured the seats total that enabled them to go into coalition with the Tories.

And, if as you say, Ams, many of those voting LibDem would have been students, and therefore first-time voters, what kind of impression is left engraved in their hearts of "democracy"? The samples of vox pops interviews shown on TV appeared to indicate to a man and woman that students were strongly enthusiastic towards Clegg's pledge.

[MrGongGong]

And, if as you say, Ams, many of those voting LibDem would have been students, and therefore first-time voters, what kind of impression is left engraved in their hearts of "democracy"? The samples of vox pops interviews shown on TV appeared to indicate to a man and woman that students were strongly enthusiastic towards Clegg's pledge.

indeed
and the other point is that for the first time in many years , young people were active about something that wouldn't directly affect them personally, for people of my daughters generation this was the first time that they had any interest in the whole political thing , that time has passed as Clegg blew it spectacularly

My own disgust at this dishonesty is not that as a parent of a student I would PERSONALLY benefit but that it's a point of principle , so the fact that I might personally "loose out" financially is less important to me than honesty.
If all we have is raw self interest then we really are screwed which is why this is such an important issue and why no amount of "explaining" will work , what might (and only just IMV) would be a real confession and apology but there's no chance of that ...........

[scottycelt]

Simples

In a very 'simples' world maybe ...

The Lib Dems may well have promised the earth at the last election knowing they would never actually gain power, I readily accept that. The other two main parties do much the same thing knowing there is a good chance they will win, only to drop their pledges as soon as they gain that power, so no great shock there.

The point about the Lib Dems is that they didn't gain power, so in such a situation how can they be accused of any sort of 'betrayal'? They agreed to become a junior partner in a coalition so it was a trade-off between the two participating parties as to the best possible deal for both. If I were a Lib Dem (which I'm certainly not) I'd rather have some of my party's policies become law that none at all. That was the stark and inescapable choice that faced Clegg & Co ... become a part of actual government or continue to live in the permanent 'comfort zone' of being the country's long-standing yet ultimately ineffective protest party.

Now here's a question very close to your heart. Do you honestly think that Cameron's sudden enthusiasm for 'gay marriage' would ever have erupted in the absence of any coalition demands from the Deputy Prime Minister and his fellow Liberal Democrats?

In any coalition you win some, you lose some ... it may be 'despicable', but it's the very nature of the beast.

[Serial_Apologist]

Now here's a question very close to your heart. Do you honestly think that Cameron's sudden enthusiasm for 'gay marriage' would ever have erupted in the absence of any coalition demands from the Deputy Prime Minister and his fellow Liberal Democrats?

I rather think it would - given that Tory MPs were starting to out themselves long before the election and more were likely to follow, married or not...

[Lateralthinking1]

I have just discovered that the Coalition Agreement commits the Government to creating a House of Lords which reflects the composition of the current House of Commons between now and a reformed elected House of Lords.

What that means is while Independents in the Lords would be finished off under an electoral system, they are going to be finished off anyway by the Government as it has decided the Lords must first be a replica of the Commons.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Compromises do have to be made in a coalition. However, that does not justify voting the opposite way to your manifesto commitments, just to secure your 30 pieces of silver. After more that 40years of voting Liberal/Lib Dem I am unlikely to do so again.

[MrGongGong]

Compromises do have to be made in a coalition. However, that does not justify voting the opposite way to your manifesto commitments, just to secure your 30 pieces of silver. After more that 40years of voting Liberal/Lib Dem I am unlikely to do so again.

indeed

[scottycelt]

And my version
is

People despise him (quite rightly IMV) because he (and his party) was so adamant about this as a pledge (i.e PROMISE) which was quickly abandoned,
so it's a bit like your mate in the frock in Rome deciding that Gay Weddings, Contraception and Women priests were now OK because that;s what the "real world" wants ............ errr hang on a minute

for a catholic to say this

"we have to deal with the one that actually exists?"

is the funniest thing I've heard for ages

it's very simple

Don't be dishonest ....... don't promise something then do something else
principles cost get over it

Yes, even the guy in the funny frock in Rome has to accept reality. That doesn't mean abandoning principle. Civil partnerships are accepted as a reality as indeed is heterosexual cohabitation. That doesn't mean the Church has to surrender it's principles on marriage etc, any more than you have to become a Catholic, Mr GG!

Anyway, let's not go down that road again on this thread, please ...

[amateur51]

In a very 'simples' world maybe ...

The Lib Dems may well have promised the earth at the last election knowing they would never actually gain power, I readily accept that. The other two main parties do much the same thing knowing there is a good chance they will win, only to drop their pledges as soon as they gain that power, so no great shock there.

The point about the Lib Dems is that they didn't gain power, so in such a situation how can they be accused of any sort of 'betrayal'? They agreed to become a junior partner in a coalition so it was a trade-off between the two participating parties as to the best possible deal for both. If I were a Lib Dem (which I'm certainly not) I'd rather have some of my party's policies become law that none at all. That was the stark and inescapable choice that faced Clegg & Co ... become a part of actual government or continue to live in the permanent 'comfort zone' of being the country's long-standing yet ultimately ineffective protest party.

Now here's a question very close to your heart. Do you honestly think that Cameron's sudden enthusiasm for 'gay marriage' would ever have erupted in the absence of any coalition demands from the Deputy Prime Minister and his fellow Liberal Democrats?

In any coalition you win some, you lose some ... it may be 'despicable', but it's the very nature of the beast.

Oh dear scotty I can see that you're not prepared to engage with the maths so there's no point my going further.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in 'gay marriage' as you (and Dave and Nick) put it; I'm interested in 'equal marriage'. No-one talks about 'heterosexual marriage' (probably just as well as lots of gay men and lesbians have been known to marry each other or heterosexual partners either as 'beards' or as 'marriages of convenience' - somebody pass the poor boy a stiff scotch & loosen his brogues

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Compromises do have to be made in a coalition. However, that does not justify voting the opposite way to your manifesto commitments, just to secure your 30 pieces of silver. After more that 40years of voting Liberal/Lib Dem I am unlikely to do so again.

I think this is the point, scotty: before the Coalition, the Lib-Dems were seen as trustworthy (if not exactly vote-worthy) and were gaining popularity and seats as voters became increasingly dissatisfied with the two main parties. Now they are perceived as (at best) "no different from the others", which is why I think that Clegg has undone all the work that Steele, Ashdown and Kennedy did for the Party. I do not think that many people will be thinking at the next elections "Ah well; we can't expect everything whilst they're in a coalition, let's vote for them again and see if we can get them in on their own this time."

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Excellently put.

[scottycelt]

I'm not the slightest bit interested in 'gay marriage' as you (and Dave and Nick) put it; I'm interested in 'equal marriage'.

That would certainly interest me too ... can you have a quiet little word with the wife, please, amsey?