Promises promises

[MrGongGong]

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.

Some people don't place self interest above everything else

The otherwise admirable insistence on honesty should apply to everyone, not just the leader of the Lib Dems!

It should and it does

[french frank]

The Lib Dems instead decided to make a sham government with no mandate

What would constitute a 'mandate' for a coalition government?

[ahinton]

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!'?

Please re-read my post on this, specifically the reference to caveats; it remains obvious that all that any party with no chance of gaining an overall majority in a General Election can ever hope to do when issuing "promises" and "pledges" is to set out its stall as to what it would do IF it were to gain such a majority; if your party is not in majority government, all that it can hope to do is bang on about its ideas and hope to influence the party in power to the extent of persuading it tht it does not have a monopoly on good ideas.

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

To say that Clegg "broke his promise" is less "unfair" than misleading; he was in no position to make such promises in the first place, as I said and it's a pity that anyone conferred upon them the credibility that was not due to them and, because quite a few did, Clegg's been accued of being a turncoat.

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!

That's fair enough insofar as it goes but, of course, in the interests of complete honesty, it would have to be even more specific than that, i.e. "the Lib Dems would never entertain tuition fees even in the event of its participation in coalition government"; after all, a coalition might not include the LibDems at all!

[Richard Barrett]

What would constitute a 'mandate' for a coalition government?

Interesting question. What you would expect from a coalition (eg. in other European countries where, as in Germany, coalition government is much less exceptional) is a mixture of policies from the participating parties, not, as in this case, the smaller acting as a rubber-stamp for the frankly vicious policies of the larger, including things which the majority of citizens (as well as suppposedly the Lib Dems themselves) are clearly against, like NHS privatisation. If pledges are made, a political party owes it to the people who voted for them (not for a coalition, which under the UK system nobody can vote for even if they think that would be the best outcome) to demand that it be included in the coalition agreement or to refuse to go into coalition and let there be a minority government, in which case at least some of the attacks on the population in the last four years might not have taken place.

On the other hand we have learned things about the Lib Dems in the last four years that we didn't know before, in particular the fact that they can no longer shelter behind claims that they offer a real alternative to the two major parties, and that the "liberalism" they supposedly stood for isn't so important to them that it can't be thrown overboard for the sake of getting into government. And this will no doubt be reflected in their share of the vote next year.

[french frank]

One could also point out that 27 MPs voted for the increase in fees; 21 voted against, and 8 abstained - the possibility of abstention having been one of the conditions of the coalition agreement.

And for those who can actually think about the whole complex situation, rather than reduce it to banging One Gong, my MP explains why he abstained http://www.stephenwilliams.org.uk/wh...tion_fees_vote

[Richard Barrett]

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

That doesn't make it an unimportant issue though, because actually it will affect the large bulk of the population, not only in decisions as to whether to enter higher education, but also in the fact that the loan system will mean that the introduction and then raising of tuition fees will end up costing the government (ie. you the UK taxpayer) considerably more than the system it replaced.

Apart from which it's a particularly clear example of politicians promising one thing and then doing the opposite, which draws attention to this particularly egregious feature of "democratic" politics.

[Richard Barrett]

for those who can actually think about the whole complex situation

"In the circumstances which I and my party find ourselves we have done the best that we could for both students and graduates." Which was for all practical purposes nothing. And they didn't "find themselves" in the circumstances of propping up a Tory government, they sold themselves into it.

[french frank]

Which was for all practical purposes nothing.

Well, the article lists the various improvements to the system that was inherited from Labour. You can call that nothing if you wish to qualify it by a fairly meaningless 'for all practical purposes'. Those who are enraged that any minority party should 'prop up' the hated Tories may interpret it one way, till kingdom come; those who accept that coalition means giving as well as taking will place the emphasis elsewhere.

[P. G. Tipps]

That's fair enough insofar as it goes but, of course, in the interests of complete honesty, it would have to be even more specific than that, i.e. "the Lib Dems would never entertain tuition fees even in the event of its participation in coalition government"; after all, a coalition might not include the LibDems at all!

Well, as we are supposed to be talking about Clegg and the Lib Dems and they are currently in coalition, other members might have reasonably concluded that it did and does include the Lib Dems!

[P. G. Tipps]

That doesn't make it an unimportant issue though ...

I agree entirely. It is a very important issue along with so many other important issues.

However in 2010 the Lib Dems were faced with a simple and stark choice, ie, a) not agreeing to a coalition with either the Tories or Labour and continue to be impotent in opposition, at best just being a 'wrecking' party. or b) agreeing to a coalition with one of the two major parties and to have some influence in government.

They chose the latter and I think most leaders in Clegg's position would have done the same, though I'm sure some in his Party might have preferred an agreement with Labour which was hardly on the cards in any case due to that Party's total lack of economic credibility at the time (which still remains).

Whilst there will be many who remain upset at Clegg's compromise 'betrayal' over tuition fees there will probably be just as many (or even more) of the low-paid who now pay much less in tax, or even none at all, thanks to the same Mr Clegg and the Lib Dems.

Whilst Clegg might have expected the opprobrium that has been heaped upon him over tuition fees, he and his colleagues might have expected rather more credit for the welcome and long-overdue tax assistance for the low-paid as well!

[Richard Barrett]

Those who are enraged that any minority party should 'prop up' the hated Tories may interpret it one way, till kingdom come; those who accept that coalition means giving as well as taking will place the emphasis elsewhere.

It's not a question of hating the Tories, it's a question of regarding what they do as exemplifying government by the rich and for the rich, and a callous disregard for the most vulnerable in society. We saw it under Thatcher and we see it now, and it ought to be on the conscience of every Lib Dem MP, if they still have such a thing. Anyway I don't know why I'm droning on like this, MrGG has already put it more succinctly than I could.

[french frank]

That doesn't make it an unimportant issue though, because actually it will affect the large bulk of the population, not only in decisions as to whether to enter higher education

And applications are rising

but also in the fact that the loan system will mean that the introduction and then raising of tuition fees will end up costing the government (ie. you the UK taxpayer) considerably more than the system it replaced.

But you can't have it both ways: either the money is not invested in the universities, or the taxpayer forks out, and/or the graduate, in defined circumstances, forks out. However, perhaps the government should investigate raising the money from the private sector? That would make it less of a burden on the taxpayer.

Apart from which it's a particularly clear example of politicians promising one thing and then doing the opposite, which draws attention to this particularly egregious feature of "democratic" politics.

MrGongGong kindly quoted the exact wording of the bipartite pledge. The argument is that the second part nullifies the effect of the first (including the 40% rise in the salary level before any repayments are due at all) 'for all practical purposes', which, I agree, is a particularly subtle argument.

[amateur51]

[QUOTE=french frank;436426]

However, perhaps the government should investigate raising the money from the private sector? That would make it less of a burden on the taxpayer.

By 'private sector' do you mean industry? Or do you include charitable Trusts?

Industry will always require the 'bang for its buck' which might be problematic in some instances, but not in others.

Depending on the founding ethos of the Trust and the make-up of the current Trustees, the same may apply, but in different areas, to Trusts.

All funding comes with strings but sometimes the hands on the strings are less obvious than others.

[french frank]

By 'private sector' do you mean industry? Or do you include charitable Trusts?

I was being ironic, amsy. My point being, in answer to the claim that the estimated large default rate would mean the taxpayer would have to foot the bill, who do you want to foot the bill for higher education if not the taxpayer? France? And if the default rate is substantial, isn't that because it was negotiated that graduates who remained relatively low earners would eventually have their 'debt' written off?

In fact, isn't the new system a cross between a progressive graduate tax (the more you're earning, the more you pay, regardless of how much you owe - until the debt is repaid) and a hypothecated tax for higher education, paid for out of general taxation?

ahinton?

[ahinton]

Well, as we are supposed to be talking about Clegg and the Lib Dems and they are currently in coalition, other members might have reasonably concluded that it did and does include the Lib Dems!

It does now, yes - and has done over the past few years - but that was obviously neither known nor knowable in the lead-up to the 2010 General Election when these "promoses", "pledges" or whatever were actually made. Likewise, in the run-up to the next one, the LibDems could make further such assertions without knowing if it will result in a coalition or, even if it does, whether or not they might themslves be one of the coalition parties.