Promises promises

[amateur51]

To recap ...

Before the election Clegg made a last minute pitch at the student/parent vote with his 'pledge' and some people were persuaded to vote for him & Clegg won some seats.

No party won an outright majority so coalition talks started. Tories saw that with LibDem seats they had a parlimentary
majority. A coalition was thrashed out & announced. This involved compromise, as anyone might expect.

The LibDem education backtrack is announced - the pledge was not kept. Voters express dismay - when is a pledge not a pledge? "When you enter a coalition" say some people smugly.

If Clegg hadn't made the pledge he would not have garnered so many votes, why else make the pledge? It was to gain votes. Fewer votes might mean fewer seats and less/no bargaining power for coalition. A Tory/Lib Dem coalition might not have been possible/practical. So the pledge might have made the coalition possble.

Call it deception. Call it dishonesty. Call it realpolitik. Whichever way you look at it, the public was fooled and we resent it.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap, someone wrote once.

[MrGongGong]

Call it deception. Call it dishonesty. Call it realpolitik. Whichever way you look at it, the public was fooled and we resent it.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap, someone wrote once.

Indeed.

(So back to Roy and Haley ?)

[ahinton]

To recap ...

Before the election Clegg made a last minute pitch at the student/parent vote with his 'pledge' and some people were persuaded to vote for him & Clegg won some seats.

No party won an outright majority so coalition talks started. Tories saw that with LibDem seats they had a parlimentary
majority. A coalition was thrashed out & announced. This involved compromise, as anyone might expect.

The LibDem education backtrack is announced - the pledge was not kept. Voters express dismay - when is a pledge not a pledge? "When you enter a coalition" say some people smugly.

If Clegg hadn't made the pledge he would not have garnered so many votes, why else make the pledge? It was to gain votes. Fewer votes might mean fewer seats and less/no bargaining power for coalition. A Tory/Lib Dem coalition might not have been possible/practical. So the pledge might have made the coalition possble.

Call it deception. Call it dishonesty. Call it realpolitik. Whichever way you look at it, the public was fooled and we resent it.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap, someone wrote once.

Very well summarised, ams!

[ahinton]

Indeed.

(So back to Roy and Haley ?)

Who's "Haley" when he/she is at home or elsewhere? We can't go "back" to him/her on this thread as I believe that this is the first mention of the name here!

[MrGongGong]

Who's "Haley" when he/she is at home or elsewhere? We can't go "back" to him/her on this thread as I believe that this is the first mention of the name here!

(my manservant has a day off)

Hayley Tucker

wrong thread through, I know

[Flosshilde]

I give up ... <smiley>

:thumbsup:

[ahinton]

(my manservant has a day off)

On full pay, one hopes! But surely you don't only have one such?...

Hayley Tucker

Is that a name or an instruction?

wrong thread through, I know

I cannot imagine what would be the right one, frankly, not least because neither of these fictitious figures (nor the equally fictitious "Lizzie" [who is not the subject on that other thread]) can possibly have any conceivable connection with Mr Nicholas Clegg.

[MrGongGong]

I give up ... <smiley>

Just before you do
Given that £10 notes are also only "promises"
I was wondering whether you could change the 100 of these i've just drawn on old envelopes ?

[ahinton]

Just before you do
Given that £10 notes are also only "promises"
I was wondering whether you could change the 100 of these i've just drawn on old envelopes ?

For or into what? one might ask. Either way, I doubt that this would be possible electronically.

It's not clear to me what our resident Tippster is giving up anyway; not tea consumption, surely?...

[MrGongGong]

For or into what? one might ask. Either way, I doubt that this would be possible electronically.

It's not clear to me what our resident Tippster is giving up anyway; not tea consumption, surely?...

A newt, of course

[ahinton]

A newt, of course

Eh? You've lost me there!

[french frank]

I feel bound to make some comments!

To recap ...

Before the election Clegg made a last minute pitch at the student/parent vote with his 'pledge' and some people were persuaded to vote for him & Clegg won some seats.

The timing can't be attributed to Clegg: the NUS timed their campaign, targeted at all three parties, and all candidates standing for election (most of whom did NOT promise not to raise tuition fees).

No party won an outright majority so coalition talks started. Tories saw that with LibDem seats they had a parlimentary
majority. A coalition was thrashed out & announced. This involved compromise, as anyone might expect.

Okay ...

The LibDem education backtrack is announced - the pledge was not kept. Voters express dismay - when is a pledge not a pledge? "When you enter a coalition" say some people smugly.

Yes, I'll go with that.

If Clegg hadn't made the pledge he would not have garnered so many votes, why else make the pledge? It was to gain votes. Fewer votes might mean fewer seats and less/no bargaining power for coalition. A Tory/Lib Dem coalition might not have been possible/practical. So the pledge might have made the coalition possble.

Only slightly possibly. I think it overestimates how important the issue was to the wider electorate, most of whom were/are entirely unaffected by university tuition fees. And in spite of what was said about tuition fees, the Lib Dems had a net loss of five seats: this confirms it was hardly a vote winner. It was never going to be an issue that would 'decide an election'.

Call it deception. Call it dishonesty. Call it realpolitik. Whichever way you look at it, the public was fooled and we resent it.

Though some are more motivated to resent it than others: it has little to do with the policy itself, because most people are unaffected. Mr GongGong is mistaken in thinking Liberal Democrats don't realise that. There is no such thing as being confronted by reality and altering course. Realpolitik, if you like. But you can't alter what's already been done, or a mistake that's already been made.

The "pledge" had two parts, one being not to vote for a fee rise, the other being to work towards a fairer system. Neither is dependent on the other. Tuition fees could have been unchanged or gone down and the system could have been made more unfair: fees could rise yet there could still be a socially fairer system.

The result has been 1) no long term drop in applications and 2) more students from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university, neither of which matters a jot, it seems. And as far as I can see drop-out rates have fallen slightly. Furthermore, the level of income that graduates are required to earn before they have to pay back even one penny of what they have borrowed was raised, so that only those who establish themselves in well-paid careers pay anything back. So the rise in fees has in wide measure not affected the student population either - which is what student organisations were saying.

Cui bono the stoking up of 'resentment'? SECONDS OUT!!! :-)

[amateur51]

Thanks to french frank for so clearly (and on a by-election day too) exemplifying several issues for many in the 'general public' that have led to their total disenchantment with 'mainstream' political parties & politicians.

No better recruiting sergeant for UKIP I'm afraid.

[ahinton]

Thanks to french frank for so clearly (and on a by-election day too) exemplifying several issues for many in the 'general public' that have led to their total disenchantment with 'mainstream' political parties & politicians.

No better recruiting sergeant for UKIP I'm afraid.

That will doubtless go down like a lead balloon, french frankly! In any case, we surely have a far more enthusiastic recruiting sergeant for that organisation on this forum, don't we?(!)...

[aeolium]

The "pledge" had two parts, one being not to vote for a fee rise, the other being to work towards a fairer system. Neither is dependent on the other. Tuition fees could have been unchanged or gone down and the system could have been made more unfair: fees could rise yet there could still be a socially fairer system.

The result has been 1) no long term drop in applications and 2) more students from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university, neither of which matters a jot, it seems. And as far as I can see drop-out rates have fallen slightly. Furthermore, the level of income that graduates are required to earn before they have to pay back even one penny of what they have borrowed was raised, so that only those who establish themselves in well-paid careers pay anything back. So the rise in fees has in wide measure unaffected the student population too - which is what student organisations were saying.

On the other hand, irrespective of the damage that broken pledges can do to the reputation of politics generally, it's worth questioning whether the Libdems' eventual support for tuition fee rises was a good thing, whether the policy itself is a good thing. Look at this article for instance:

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/sep/30/tuition-fees-bonanza-for-one-per-cent-danny-dorling

The only people who seem to come out ahead from the whole fiasco seem to be: a) the present government, in that the cost for repaying the tuition fees of defaulting students is deferred to future governments ("it's not my problem") b) university institutions, especially the top brass in them, who are able to charge much more and increase their salaries to a level on a par with industry executives - £424K is Oxford's vice-chancellor's current salary) and c) those who can make money out of the loans in the first place. The students are loaded with a whole pile of debt, at least £50K, which as the article indicates increases with RPI and a weighting: they are either tied to a below average wage to avoid repayment, or incur repayments which make it more difficult for them to save for anything like a home or a pension. Since current estimates are for a rate of default of up to 45%, the taxpayers of the future are also effectively loaded up with this debt, so that as with PFI and the rail franchising system, they are the ones who end up bearing part of the greatly increased cost. But the idea that there is no alternative is also wrong: 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?

So it seems to me that the Libdems not only shot themselves in the foot with their broken pledge but did it for a rotten policy.