some students at my college were at that huge protest- I wasnt at college that day :P

 

theres also an organised walkout on the 24th (Im also not at college that day :lol: ) which I think is a better way of protest, I could just tell that first thing was going to turn violent (apparently there were people walking there with coffins :o) I would like these fees to go down, £9,000 is just ludicrous :mellow: even though Im going this September, so I just escape them

 

i think those were coffins for the universitie's (i.e suggesting that they are dead due to the rises)

The Liberal Democrats were drawing up plans to abandon Nick Clegg's flagship policy to scrap university tuition fees two months before the general election, secret party documents reveal.

 

As the Lib Dem leader faces a growing revolt after this week's violent protest against fee rises, internal documents show the party was drawing up proposals for coalition negotiations which contrasted sharply with Clegg's public pronouncements.

 

A month before Clegg pledged in April to scrap the "dead weight of debt", a secret team of key Lib Dems made clear that, in the event of a hung parliament, the party would not waste political capital defending its manifesto pledge to abolish university tuition fees within six years.

 

In a document marked "confidential" and dated 16 March, the head of the secret pre-election coalition negotiating team, Danny Alexander, wrote: "On tuition fees we should seek agreement on part time students and leave the rest. We will have clear yellow water with the other [parties]on raising the tuition fee cap, so let us not cause ourselves more headaches."

 

The document is likely to fuel criticism among Lib Dem backbenchers and in the National Union of Students that the party courted the university vote in the full knowledge that its pledge would have to be abandoned as the party sought to achieve a foot in government. Within a month of the secret document, Clegg recorded a YouTube video for the annual NUS conference on 13 April in which he pledged to abolish fees within six years.

 

"You've got people leaving university with this dead weight of debt, around £24,000, round their neck," the future deputy PM said in the video that was screened at the conference on 13 April.

 

Clegg also joined all other Lib Dem MPs in signing an NUS pledge to "vote against any increase in fees". The leaked document showed that during the preparations for a hung parliament the Lib Dems still intended to fulfil that commitment.

 

The Lib Dems, who are now under intense pressure after agreeing in government that tuition fees should be allowed to rise, said the document was designed to work out how to reach agreement with the Tories and Labour, who were "diametrically" opposed to them.

 

As the party was isolated, the negotiators concentrated on trying to win ground where they could find consensus. Source say that, in government, they have succeeded in tackling the discrimination against part-time students identified in the secret document.

 

The secret internal Lib Dem document is disclosed in a new book on the coalition negotiations by Rob Wilson, Conservative MP for Reading East. Wilson, who interviewed 60 key figures from the main parties for Five Days to Power, reveals that:

 

• The Lib Dems made no attempt to stand by their two key economic election pledges – no deficit reduction this year and opposition to a VAT increase – in the coalition negotiations. A Clegg aide told Wilson: "The thing that changed minds was George Osborne saying that he had seen the figures and it was quite horrific in real life as opposed to spin life."

 

• Alexander, appointed by Clegg last year to lead a secret four-strong coalition negotiating team, had thought the Lib Dems would only support a minority Tory government and not a coalition because of a "substantial gulf" between the two parties. In his confidential document on 16 March, Alexander wrote that it "would make it all but impossible for a coalition to be sustainable if it were formed, and extremely difficult to form without splitting the party."

 

• Chris Huhne, a member of the secret team, wrote a dissenting report to Clegg insisting that the Lib Dems would have to form a full-blown coalition with the Tories and not prop up a minority government. He warned there was no precedent for a minority government succeeding delivering a fiscal consolidation, raising the prospect both parties would face a backlash. "Financial crises are catastrophic for the political parties that are blamed, and we should avoid this at all costs."

 

• George Osborne, who had long feared the Tories would struggle to win an overall parliamentary majority, persuaded David Cameron to allow him to form the Tories' own secret coalition negotiating team two weeks before the election. The Tory leader demanded total secrecy and asked only to be given the barest details for fear that he would blurt it out "unplanned in an interview".

 

• David Laws, a member of the secret Lib Dem negotiating team who briefly served in the cabinet, predicted on 24 February 2010 that the Tories would make a "very early offer of co-operation or coalition" in the event of a hung parliament. Laws told Wilson that he has a high regard for Osborne who tried to persuade him to join the Tories in 2006.

 

• Gordon Brown was so keen to form a coalition with the Lib Dems that on Monday 10 May, the day before his resignation, he offered to form "a completely new sort of government" in which Clegg would run EU policy. The Lib Dems understood they would take half of the seats in cabinet.

 

A Lib Dem spokesman said tonight: "These are selective extracts of documents which discussed a range of options ahead of any possible negotiations. As the Liberal Democrats made clear throughout the election and in negotiations, they had four key priorities which were set out on the front page of the manifesto. All of these priorities were agreed in the coalition document. The nature of the coalition agreement has meant we were able to set the foundations for a stable five-year government that will deliver many of the priorities the Liberal Democrats have long supported."

 

Clegg tried to downgrade the pledge to abolish tuition fees at the 2009 conference, prompting a backlash from the left. A plan to abolish them over six years was included in the general election manifesto.

 

OH DEAR.

i want my vote back.

Bloody hell. I'm finding it harder and harder to justify standing by my choice to vote LibDem again

To think I was seriously considering voting Lib Dem until a couple of months before the election. Thank God I didn't - I always had a horrible feeling Clegg would instinctively side with the Tories, although even I didn't think he'd go as far as this. He can give up on his pathetic excuse that "we didn't win the election" - the fees policy wasn't just a bog-standard manifesto commitment, it was the party's FLAGSHIP policy, upon which they directly gained about 10 seats. They signed a pledge saying they would definitely vote against a rise in fees - no ifs, no buts, no caveats - and, in light of these leaked documents, it was obviously completely disingenuous for Clegg in particular to sign it. The fact this ridiculous U-turn comes from a man who made "restoring public trust in politics" a cornerstone of his election campaign makes it even more sickening.

 

Rather hilariously, there's reports that a petition calling for a by-election in Sheffield Hallam is fast approaching the 5% of the electorate mark required for the Coalition's proposed "recall" legislation. Somehow, I think that's one law I don't think Clegg will be in a hurry to pass.

Good lord. That's the LD f***** up. No chance for them for about 20years minimum... Green Party anyone?

Good lord. That's the LD f***** up. No chance for them for about 20years minimum... Green Party anyone?

 

Yeah, I think there's good money on the Greens emerging as the third party within the next 10 years. Perhaps the remnants of the Lib Dems will eventually merge with the Greens in fact (after Clegg and Laws have been given nice, safe Tory seats).

There's a reasonable defence here.

 

http://richardbaum.mycouncillor.org.uk/201...not-nick-clegg/

 

I don't agree with everything he says but the gist of it is right. Of course all three parties will have been discussing what they would do in the event of a hung parliament. I confidently predicted a hung parliament immediately after the 2005 election and by the start of this year it looked the likeliest outcome.

 

The real failure is on the part of journalists. They consistently asked Clegg what he would do and he consistently said that he would first talk to the party who "won". That, of course, is what he did. However, the other leaders were rarely asked what they would do. All three leaders should have been asked about which policies they considered to be sacrosanct and where they would be prepared to negotiate. It seems that journalists decided that was too much like hard work. They remained stuck in the mindset that the only possible outcomes were a Labour majority or a Tory majority and failed to consider the realities of a coalition. That failure has continued since May with a complete lack of understanding of what a coalition is.

If these tuition fees do go through and it seems they will now, I can see some LD MP's losing their seats at the next election. Nick Clegg may even lose his in Sheffield. From Deputy PM to booted out of Parliament!!!!

I'm glad I associate with much different people to you guys then since the general consensus to people i have talked to about it (non students) have found the cuts extremely unreasonable and generally bad, and have been against them even though they are not effected, but then again i don't like to associate with people who only care about things that effect them and not care about what is right or wrong.

 

I don't associate with these ppl ha. I went to a school in a very deprived area unfortunately (only 38% of us got FIVE A*-C GCSE grades...) and I think only about 11 of us ended up going to University. The other people are now in jail, married, have children, have full time jobs, living off the dole. These are the sorts of people who think the cuts are fine because they've never experienced proper learning - this is perhaps their own fault as they didn't want to learn, but I think a lot of people who are not invovled in education don't really care about the cuts.

Tim Farron MP - who reiterated his commitment to vote against the increase in fees a few days ago - has been elected as president of the Liberal Democrats.

There's a reasonable defence here.

 

http://richardbaum.mycouncillor.org.uk/201...not-nick-clegg/

 

I don't agree with everything he says but the gist of it is right. Of course all three parties will have been discussing what they would do in the event of a hung parliament. I confidently predicted a hung parliament immediately after the 2005 election and by the start of this year it looked the likeliest outcome.

 

The real failure is on the part of journalists. They consistently asked Clegg what he would do and he consistently said that he would first talk to the party who "won". That, of course, is what he did. However, the other leaders were rarely asked what they would do. All three leaders should have been asked about which policies they considered to be sacrosanct and where they would be prepared to negotiate. It seems that journalists decided that was too much like hard work. They remained stuck in the mindset that the only possible outcomes were a Labour majority or a Tory majority and failed to consider the realities of a coalition. That failure has continued since May with a complete lack of understanding of what a coalition is.

Indeed, the Tory press is very concentrated on highlighting what compromises the LibDems have made in an attempt to gain their voters for the Tories, what is left of the Labour press is just picking at everything it can.

 

Unfortunately we don't have an unbaised paper for the masses to tell the f***wits that in a coalition government some sacrifices have to be made. This tuition fee amendment is clearly a hybrid between the two. Had the Conservatives got a majority you could be paying a bloody fortune to go to some schools making them out of reach for the 'lower classes' something the c**ts would love.

This tuition fee amendment is clearly a hybrid between the two. Had the Conservatives got a majority you could be paying a bloody fortune to go to some schools making them out of reach for the 'lower classes' something the c**ts would love.

 

So, you think that tripling the fees isn't "a bloody fortune" then...? It'll end up costing 36k to do a degree in a Scottish university mate, and on top of that you have living costs... Come on, you could easily be looking at a 50k debt ffs, and for what, to go to Glasgow Cally (a former Polytechnic) or Dundee uni..... Might as well pay $50k and go to fukkin' Harvard or Yale.... -_-

So, you think that tripling the fees isn't "a bloody fortune" then...? It'll end up costing 36k to do a degree in a Scottish university mate, and on top of that you have living costs... Come on, you could easily be looking at a 50k debt ffs, and for what, to go to Glasgow Cally (a former Polytechnic) or Dundee uni..... Might as well pay $50k and go to fukkin' Harvard or Yale.... -_-

£9k a year is a very lot of money, but had there been no cap Oxbridge would have been free to charge over £20k pa

 

Scottish fees are currently just £1800, the coalitions rise doesn't affect Scotland as Education is a fully devolved area :funky: Just got to wait and see what the SNP do in response to stop Scottish uni's being flooded with English applicants.

 

Cally's a dire uni, i wouldn't go there and i get a free education :heehee:

 

With living costs etc it's about $85k pa for an Ivy. Prices that could have been a reality here had the Tories got a majority.

 

 

 

Don't get my wrong, i'm not saying £9k isn't a lot of money, i'm saying it could have been a hell of a lot worse.

£9k a year is a very lot of money, but had there been no cap Oxbridge would have been free to charge over £20k pa

 

Scottish fees are currently just £1800, the coalitions rise doesn't affect Scotland as Education is a fully devolved area :funky: Just got to wait and see what the SNP do in response to stop Scottish uni's being flooded with English applicants.

 

Cally's a dire uni, i wouldn't go there and i get a free education :heehee:

 

With living costs etc it's about $85k pa for an Ivy. Prices that could have been a reality here had the Tories got a majority.

Don't get my wrong, i'm not saying £9k isn't a lot of money, i'm saying it could have been a hell of a lot worse.

Indeed. If the Tories had a majority there would be no cap. If Labour had won a majority I suspect their response would have been similar to the coalition's response. If there was a Labour / Lib Dem coalition I suspect the cap would have been lower, more like £6K.

£9k a year is a very lot of money, but had there been no cap Oxbridge would have been free to charge over £20k pa

 

Scottish fees are currently just £1800, the coalitions rise doesn't affect Scotland as Education is a fully devolved area :funky: Just got to wait and see what the SNP do in response to stop Scottish uni's being flooded with English applicants.

 

Cally's a dire uni, i wouldn't go there and i get a free education :heehee:

 

With living costs etc it's about $85k pa for an Ivy. Prices that could have been a reality here had the Tories got a majority.

Don't get my wrong, i'm not saying £9k isn't a lot of money, i'm saying it could have been a hell of a lot worse.

 

Well, isn't it the case that Non-Scottish students just wont be able to get free tuition...? How could they anyway, I mean, it's the Scottish Education Dept doing this, who are the LEA in Scotland, English and Welsh students have to go through their own LEAs, which wont be giving them free tuition....

 

It's all very well to say "things could have been worse", but it hardly gets the Fib Dems off the hook for signing pledges they really had no intentions of keeping, they've been exposed...

 

And how do they justify the 40% cut to uni funding...?

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed. If the Tories had a majority there would be no cap. If Labour had won a majority I suspect their response would have been similar to the coalition's response. If there was a Labour / Lib Dem coalition I suspect the cap would have been lower, more like £6K.

 

Sorry, but that's not good enough. In most European coalitions, the junior partner will negotiate a certain number of "opt-outs" at the outset - government policies where the junior partner will be free to oppose them in full. The Orange Book Cabal of Clegg, Laws and Alexander failed in their duty to get an opt-out on their party's key pledge, and they never planned to - therefore, they did get student votes under false pretences.

Well, isn't it the case that Non-Scottish students just wont be able to get free tuition...? How could they anyway, I mean, it's the Scottish Education Dept doing this, who are the LEA in Scotland, English and Welsh students have to go through their own LEAs, which wont be giving them free tuition....

 

It's all very well to say "things could have been worse", but it hardly gets the Fib Dems off the hook for signing pledges they really had no intentions of keeping, they've been exposed...

 

And how do they justify the 40% cut to uni funding...?

Students from England, Wales and NI have never been able to get free tuition up here. The Scottish government has the power to manipulate the fees and raise the charges for the English etc.

 

I'm not trying to get the LibDems off the hook at all, i don't like that they went back on the pledge, but i understand that in a coalition situation compromises have to be made. I'd rather they didn't go back on their policies, but in reality that never happens. Politician's lie, its practically in their job description :lol:

 

 

A cut of 40% can not be justified. It's just wrong on every level.

Students from England, Wales and NI have never been able to get free tuition up here. The Scottish government has the power to manipulate the fees and raise the charges for the English etc.

 

I'm not trying to get the LibDems off the hook at all, i don't like that they went back on the pledge, but i understand that in a coalition situation compromises have to be made. I'd rather they didn't go back on their policies, but in reality that never happens. Politician's lie, its practically in their job description :lol:

A cut of 40% can not be justified. It's just wrong on every level.

 

"Compromise" isn't quite the same as "selling out", which is what the LDs have done, with a few noble exceptions such as Ming Campbell... The fact is, this document proves that it was likely that they would have to renege on the committment, and so, should never have signed the pledges in the first place, they still went out to wheedle votes out of people knowing damn fine that it was unlikely they'd be able to make good on the pledges they were signing...

 

I think that people have become way too accepting of the fact that politicians lie, and somehow we should just expect it... For me, this is the whole problem with British "democracy"....

 

Obviously there's an element of compromise to every coalition. But the point with the Lib Dems is that they've compromised EVERYTHING - they seemingly don't actually stand for anything at all, especially as they sold out probably their most important policy (other than PR, which is a default policy for any party that isn't the main two). All that the Lib Dems seem to stand for these days is, uh, the areas they agree with the Conservatives on civil liberties.