Is Nick Clegg the Roy Tucker of Politics?

[Flosshilde]

Would you still have expected Mr Clegg to fulfil his promise if, say, he had lost his parliamentary seat?!

As he was quite specific that it was Party policy - "The Liberal Democrats are different. Not only will we oppose any raising of the cap, we will scrap tuition fees for good, including for part-time students . . . Students can make the difference in countless seats in this election. Use your vote to block those unfair tuition fees and get them scrapped once and for all." (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/th...clegg-vote-mps) - whether he was an MP or not was irrelevant. The Party should still have voted against it.

The coalition agreement (pay attention, Scotty/Tipps) included this - "If the response of the government to Lord Browne's report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote."

In fact 27 voted for the plans including Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, 21 voted against, including former leaders Sir Menzies Campbell and Charles Kennedy, and 8 abstained, including deputy leader Simon Hughes.

So one has to assume that Clegg was, to quote another slippery politician, 'intensely relaxed' about the hike in tuition fees.

[amateur51]

Isn't that the pledge designed, printed and published by the NUS rather than by the Liberal Democrats? And distributed to all the 2010 parliamentary candidates? In that sense 'muddled'.

If that's the case, and I have no reason to doubt you, then I'm wrong, rather than 'muddled'.

[french frank]

If that's the case, and I have no reason to doubt you, then I'm wrong, rather than 'muddled'.

I suspect a lot of people weren't entirely clear that the NUS got the leaflets printed and circulated and I suspect there was no central coordination over whether candidates should sign it or not. Some Labour candidates did, but although a Labour win didn't look to be on the cards, had they won enough seats, say to be in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, the Labour leadership would have been looking to raise tuition fees too. As I said, the Browne report recommended another £12,000 p.a.

My own view would be that funding for the universities would have had to be increased. The only question would have been, How? The coalition way was/is a form of graduate tax whereby the graduates repay an amount proportional with the monetary value of their benefit. Or it could be taken out of general taxation spread out over millions of people earning less than the graduates and not benefiting at all from the education. It could look very much like the less well-off subsidising the better-off which is not what a progressive tax system should do.

[P. G. Tipps]

I had said I'd given up on the other Clegg thread so I'll keep my pledge!

I was intrigued to read there that so many Lib Dems want to replace their leader. The obvious question to that is ... with whom,exactly?

Speaking as an outside observer, I watched quite a bit of the Lib Dem Conference and most of the speeches were unremittingly dreadful. With the possible exception of Menzies Campbell, Clegg was head and shoulders above any other speaker.

Apparently Tim Farron ... who, maybe unfairly, tends to remind me of a compere at a 1950's seaside holiday camp ... is considered one of the favourites to succeed Clegg.

Not that that the Lib Dems are much different from the other two parties ... there is such a dearth of obvious alternative political leaders these days.

Sometimes better not to demand something better and then end up with something even worse!

[french frank]

I was intrigued to read there that so many Lib Dems want to replace their leader. The obvious question to that is ... with whom,exactly?

I was in a minority in the survey I completed, and in a minority down here with friends. The question of 'Who do we get to take over?' is raised but to me that was the secondary matter. My view was that when you've led a party to such a resounding rejection by the electorate - in Europe and the locals - you resign. End of story. I was horrified when Clegg was quoted as saying it hadn't entered his head to resign :-(

If you took the view, as the party did, that you enter a coalition with the hated Tories because in what was an economic crisis (and I do accept that it was) it was best for the country to have a government that could be confident of passing necessary legislation, then a coalition based on agreed terms was needed. I don't think the terms were sewn up tightly enough. But, to start the sentence again :-) if you're saying you enter the coalition for the country, not the benefit of the party, you can't say we mustn't lose our leader because that wouldn't be in the interests of the party. I have a slender belief in 'Cometh the hour, cometh the (wo)man.' There would have been people standing for election and we'd have voted for the one who seemed best. And if it meant we couldn't continue with the coalition, so be it. There would be protests that we 'have to see the job through', but no one believes that the country is in a better state than it was four years ago anyway, in spite of the number of indicators that say it is. So, what is there to lose by bowing out? The history books might explain, but they haven't been written.

[Serial_Apologist]

The only question would have been, How? The coalition way was/is a form of graduate tax whereby the graduates repay an amount proportional with the monetary value of their benefit. Or it could be taken out of general taxation spread out over millions of people earning less than the graduates and not benefiting at all from the education.

I'm not sure I agree with the principle behind that. Surely we all benefit from the presence and contribution of graudates - especially those of us knocking on a bit who have being looked after by hopefully graduated persons to look forward to.

[french frank]

I'm not sure I agree with the principle behind that. Surely we all benefit from the presence and contribution of graudates - especially those of us knocking on a bit who have being looked after by hopefully graduated persons to look forward to.

Indeed we do, but part of the principle is that some can well afford to contribute, others can't. So do you just charge it up to general taxation so that everyone pays?

I presume you (and I actually) would think that a trade-off was possible and that if the less well-off were being charged the income tax, it would be far better if it went towards education than Trident or foreign wars. But that is carrying the argument forward into a different "if" area. If "B" doesn't happen, the less well-off are still having to find the tax ...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It's interesting that the Lib-Dems have now begun to say the things I (and they) believe in once again, now that the election is approaching. But I don't feel I can trust them ever again. For many months, I had believed Danny Alexander was a Tory, listening to his Cameron/Osborne rhetoric that blamed the Labour government for the ills of the (mainly American) bankers, and supported the Tory line on public sector bashing. Pay restraint is OK just as long as it is not limited to a particular sector of the workforce.

[MrGongGong]

It's interesting that the Lib-Dems have now begun to say the things I (and they) believe in once again, now that the election is approaching. But I don't feel I can trust them ever again.

I'm with you on this
So maybe one question is what DO they need to do, and how long will it take, before they become trustworthy ? (if it IS possible)

[french frank]

It's interesting that the Lib-Dems have now begun to say the things I (and they) believe in once again, now that the election is approaching.

But it is what you would expect. Coalition carries collective responsibilities: campaigning for a General Election - and government beyond that - as a distinct party doesn't. I think the line "It's all Labour's fault" was exaggerated. But that doesn't mean they didn't make big mistakes which exacerbated the situation, does it?

Circumstances meant that LDs ended up in with the Tories - which set Labour/the left-of-centre against them. If they'd ended up with Labour, the right to right-of-centre would have been against them (and so would the students if they'd failed to dissuade Labour from raising tuition fees!). Either way, they lose a slice of their support.

Democracy is democracy, and Labour was rejected by the voters in 2010. There was never going to be a Liberal Democrat party inside government arguing for Labour policies.

[MrGongGong]

Democracy is democracy, and Labour was rejected by the voters in 2010..

I think it's important to remember that ALL parties were rejected
(wot I said about humility)

[french frank]

I think it's important to remember that ALL parties were rejected
(wot I said about humility)

Not exactly. Labour went into the election on its record as the government - that was what was 'rejected'. The other parties failed to convince that they had anything better - but the Tories were ahead. I don't think anyone would suggest as a serious alternative (so jokes apart!) that all the politicians should go away and cultivate their gardens. Last person to leave the HoC, please lock the door.

[MrGongGong]

Not exactly. Labour went into the election on its record as the government - that was what was 'rejected'. The other parties failed to convince that they had anything better - but the Tories were ahead. I don't think anyone would suggest as a serious alternative (so jokes apart!) that all the politicians should go away and cultivate their gardens. Last person to leave the HoC, please lock the door.

I always had you down as a PR supporter

"The other parties failed to convince that they had anything better" how is that NOT being rejected ?
(this is a bit OT though)

I don't think the details are a big issue but I do wish those in charge would have a bit more humility about exactly how much support they REALLY have (which is much much less than they think )

[french frank]

"The other parties failed to convince that they had anything better" how is that NOT being rejected ?

Let's agree that both are being rejected. But the rejection of Labour meant "we don't want you to continue", which is why propping Labour up would have seemed to be going against the tide of public opinion. But more people voted for the Tories than for Labour (shock, horror) and the Liberal Democrats really had no mandate to do anything at all - their proposed manifesto was rejected decisively, which is why, arguably, they had no reason not to abandon it.

But that's just how 'representative democracy' works. There has to be some recognition that the system as it stands, in certain circumstances, poses impossible obstacles. Imagine driving on to a traffic roundabout where every turning-off says 'No Entry' (with the possibility that when you get back to the turning you came in on, that says 'No Entry' too). I can't see that your criticism can be overcome by anything other than having a plebiscite every time any issue crops up for which there is no obvious majority agreement.

[aeolium]

But that's just how 'representative democracy' works. There has to be some recognition that the system as it stands, in certain circumstances, poses impossible obstacles. Imagine driving on to a traffic roundabout where every turning-off says 'No Entry' (with the possibility that when you get back to the turning you came in on, that says 'No Entry' too). I can't see that your criticism can be overcome by anything other than having a plebiscite every time any issue crops up for which there is no obvious majority agreement.

Yes, but the problem with the "system as it stands" is that people generally are so disenchanted with it, and the trend especially in Europe has been one of declining support for the establishment parties. See for instance this:

http://www.economist.com/node/18621743

And that was before the European elections of 2014 which saw UKIP coming top here and Marine Le Pen's party coming top in France.

If we are not to replicate the disasters of the 1930s there has to be a change in representative politics, and one change would be for establishment parties not to be invariably gravitating to some centre ground (which has in fact appeared to move more to the right over the last 30 years). Austerity economics has been disastrous for society and politics, as it was in the 1930s after the Depression there, and I don't think the mainstream parties realise how many people have been left behind by the rising trends in inequality combined with the 2008 Crash. The "recovery" here has been estimated (by Danny Blanchflower) to have been the slowest since that after the South Sea Bubble in 1720. To carry on with the same platitudes and policies that clearly now have little resonance seems pointless.