Promises promises

[french frank]

I really wish the Lib Dems would get rid of him and start again.
We really COULD do with a "Liberal" party

So do I. I take part in a regular Lib Dem members' survey and said YES, he should step down as Deputy Prime Minister after the last election results and Yes he should resign as Party leader. (And preferably, yes, get us out of this nightmare coalition). But even I was persuaded it was the right thing to do at the time and that we had policies that were worth fighting for. But the fact is, having got into it, the leadership was out-manoeuvred everyhere.

If you believe in PR you have to believe that coalitions work. Not just coalitions with your preferred partner, but coalition with whoever the electorate pairs you with.

The chief message is that if you think somehow it could ever have been different, fine. If not, never vote for PR again, assuming we ever get a chance.

Anyway
I promise to buy you a glass of wine
and I really will :-)

See you in France. I'm making my plans to be out of the country next May.

[Flosshilde]

But the fact is, having got into it, the leadership was out-manoeuvred everyhere.

Out-manoeuvered by Cameron? That must take some doing!

If you believe in PR you have to believe that coalitions work. Not just coalitions with your preferred partner, but coalition with whoever the electorate pairs you with.

Formal coalitions can work for a time - I think a five year parliament is stretching things too far. A far better arrangement is the first three governments in Scotland - a party with the largest number of MSPs, but not a majority. Not entering a formal coalition agreement with anyone, but working on a case-by-case basis, getting support for each Bill.

[french frank]

Out-manoeuvered by Cameron? That must take some doing!

:-) Perhaps "Too hard a nut to crack" would be better. I have pointed out to colleagues that although they can claim to have brought in useful policies they weren't on any of their headline policies which they completely muffed, nor on matters that are really important to people.

A far better arrangement is the first three governments in Scotland - a party with the largest number of MSPs, but not a majority. Not entering a formal coalition agreement with anyone, but working on a case-by-case basis, getting support for each Bill.

Which is what people say would have been preferable at Westminster, but I think it was easier in Scotland being a relatively new parliament and with all parties really united in wanting to make it work. It would have needed all the English Old Guard to be sacked and entirely new ones elected to get the kind of cooperation needed to get policies through (I suspect). Too much baggage south of the border.

[Dave2002]

The chief message is that if you think somehow it could ever have been different, fine. If not, never vote for PR again, assuming we ever get a chance.

Arguably none of us voted for PR last time, so we've never had a chance. I know people who would have voted for PR had it been offered.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Formal coalitions can work for a time - I think a five year parliament is stretching things too far. A far better arrangement is the first three governments in Scotland - a party with the largest number of MSPs, but not a majority. Not entering a formal coalition agreement with anyone, but working on a case-by-case basis, getting support for each Bill.

The Scottish Parliament broadcasts portray Holyrood as a place where intelligent (and polite) debate takes place, unlike Westminster, where bully-boy Flashman slings insults at anyone he doesn't like or agree with.

[french frank]

Arguably none of us voted for PR last time, so we've never had a chance. I know people who would have voted for PR had it been offered.

And for the reason Alpers gives, the result would be much as we have it at present: I hate you because you went into coalition with X. I hate you because you compromised on what you PROMISED. That's coalition. Then there's issue by issue voting when you discover how often no party agrees with any other closely enough to do anything but vote against proposal Y, when for government you have to have inter-party agreement.

[Richard Barrett]

why is it that in Holland, for instance, the annual tuition fee is only €1700, or less than a sixth of that in most English universities?

€1900 in fact for next year, and that's for students who are EU citizens; others pay €4500. Many EU countries have smaller or no tuition fees for EU students. The important thing about the Netherlands, however, is that many higher-education establishments, including the Royal Conservatoire in The Hague where I do my prof-type stuff, do all their teaching in English. This has led to a noticeable increase in the number of applicants from the UK in the last couple of years. If I were leaving school now it would be a no-brainer. (So to speak.)

Ahem. Sorry for offtopicness there. Personally I think the Lib Dems deserve all the rubbish-bin of history treatment they get over the tuition fees "pledge".

[teamsaint]

I wouldn't want to defend Clegg on tuition fees, but labour twice did the dirty on tuition fees, using the old " No Plans" trick.

mind you they tend to go in for love ins with the banks and foreign military adventures these days, so no real surprise.

those nice Greens are going to scrap them , though.

Edit: And of course, labour had a big majority, and so didn't have to compromise on this issue.

[Flosshilde]

The Scottish Parliament broadcasts portray Holyrood as a place where intelligent (and polite) debate takes place, unlike Westminster, where bully-boy Flashman slings insults at anyone he doesn't like or agree with.

There still seems to be plenty of snide comment/though. Salmond is an expert at the snide put-down. I suspect that a lot of the argy-bargy happens in the committees before bills are debated in Prliament.

[ahinton]

And for the reason Alpers gives, the result would be much as we have it at present: I hate you because you went into coalition with X. I hate you because you compromised on what you PROMISED. That's coalition. Then there's issue by issue voting when you discover how often no party agrees with any other closely enough to do anything but vote against proposal Y, when for government you have to have inter-party agreement.

Yes, but the problem with this kind of thing when the LibDems do it is that any "promise" or "pledge" that they make - not just the tuition fees one - should be (but never is) marketed with the caveat "if we achieve an overall majority LibDem government" and, as it's a foregone conclusion that there will be no such government and the most for which LibDems can therefore hope is to be invited to form a coalition with another party if no party achieves overall majority in its own right, the best hope for any such LibDem "promise" or "pledge" is that, should no single party achieve overall majority and should such an invitation be extended to the LibDems by the party with the most seats to join in a coalition with it, they could try it on once in coalition but, of course, there'd be no possible guarantee of seeing it through in such circumstances.

In sum, then, whilst party political dishonesty is to be deplored as much as it is to be expected, when this variety of it is committed by a party that has no chance of forming a majority govenment in its own right, it's even worse because it cannot eve renege upon such a "promise" or "pledge" because it's not in a position to make any "promises or "pledges" as such in the first place.

[P. G. Tipps]

In sum, then, whilst party political dishonesty is to be deplored as much as it is to be expected, when this variety of it is committed by a party that has no chance of forming a majority govenment in its own right, it's even worse because it cannot eve renege upon such a "promise" or "pledge" because it's not in a position to make any "promises or "pledges" as such in the first place.

Oh, come on ...

No political party can go into an election promising nothing because they have almost no perceived chance of winning an election. All parties set out their stalls. What did you expect the Lib Dems to do? Maybe something like .. 'look, we have no chance of winning this election so we won't offer you (the electorate) any policies, but please vote for us, anyway!'?

The Lib Dems set out their stall like the other Parties and, yes, they didn't win the election as expected.

So why some people still insist that Clegg 'broke his promise' in such circumstances is unfair.

If he had promised that the Lib Dems would never entertain tuition fees even in the event of coalition government, now that would that would have been an entirely different matter altogether!

[MrGongGong]

So why some people still insist that Clegg 'broke his promise' in such circumstances is unfair.

No it's not
because THAT'S what he did

How many times ?

Read what he signed

(to remind you it said this "I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.”)

See what he did
The exact opposite

All parties set out their stalls.

Excellent idea
On mine i'm going to have bottles of my 'malt whisky' (which is in fact just water)
no problem there then
£15 a bottle
I'm sure folks will buy them
(aaargh of course they will that's how homeopathy works innit)

Maybe if he started marketing his party as the party of homeopathic promises (there's nothing in them) he would get the support he craves ? (in Totnes and Hebden at least)

[P. G. Tipps]

No it's not
because THAT'S what he did

How many times ?

Read what he signed

(to remind you it said this "I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.”)

And I'm sure that's exactly what he would have done in opposition to which he was obviously referring and he may well have not introduced tuition fees in any Lib Dem Government. Unfortunately (for him) he didn't have the latter option.

But the Lib Dems (wisely, imv) decided instead on Coalition rather than total impotence on the opposition benches.

Better a half glass of whisky than no glass of whisky at all, Mr GongGong ... ?

[MrGongGong]

And I'm sure that's exactly what he would have done in opposition to which he was obviously referring and he may well have not introduced tuition fees in any Lib Dem Government. Unfortunately (for him) he didn't have the latter option.

But the Lib Dems (wisely, imv) decided instead on Coalition rather than total impotence on the opposition benches.

Better a half glass of whisky than no glass of whisky at all, Mr GongGong ... ?

Disposable principles ?
No thanks

He was dishonest
He should have resigned and stood again
Totally untrustworthy and a fraud

The Lib Dems instead decided to make a sham government with no mandate thus facilitating the dysfunctional Tories
and they are sure to get a kick up the ass for it

[P. G. Tipps]

When we preach about "honesty" we all know the real reason that some people (though certainly not all) bang on about Clegg's 'betrayal' on tuition fees is that they have never really forgiven him and his colleagues for entering coalition with the hated Tories in the first place. The otherwise admirable insistence on honesty should apply to everyone, not just the leader of the Lib Dems!

As has already been pointed out, the tuition fees issue will not have exercised the minds of the great bulk of the population as they will have been largely unaffected, at least directly. However, the incessant reference to it in the media (and elsewhere) has ensured the Lib Dems have already been 'kicked up the ass for it' many times by the voters.

At this rate the poor Lib Dems soon might have no 'asses' left to 'kick' ...