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.

 

Exactly. They've been reduced to talking about the pupil premium - which is simply money that already existed in the education budget. Pathetic.

Exactly. They've been reduced to talking about the pupil premium - which is simply money that already existed in the education budget. Pathetic.

And a referendum on AV, reform of the House of Lords (details awaited), an increase in the income tax threshold, an increase in Capital Gains Tax and a move towards more sensible sentencing policy. Plus the abandoned Tory policies such as an increase in the Inheritance Tax allowance and renegotiating EU treaties which would have wasted a lot of time and achieved nothing.

 

The full extract from the book in the Guardian show how disingenuous Cameron was in the campaign. He allowed a team to discuss what to do in the event of a hung parliament while keeping a distance from it himself. If voters had known how much work was going on in the campaign the Tories could have lost a lot of support.

 

Could the Lib Dems have negotiated a deal which allowed them all to vote against an increase in fees? Probably not. Why would the Tories accept a deal which allowed them to try to introduce something which was almost certain to fail? If the talks had broken down on that issue leading to an early election the Lib Dems may well have gained additional student votes but would probably have lost more to people who didn't consider it to be sufficiently important for it to be a deal breaker.

 

Of course tuition fees are a major issue for many members here but for most voters it is a low priority issue.

Of course tuition fees are a major issue for many members here but for most voters it is a low priority issue.

 

Not for Lib Dem voters. Your explanation only shows that Clegg et al valued getting seats in Cabinet ahead of keeping their principles, in the form of a looser arrangement with the Tories which would've allowed them to oppose tuition fees.

 

 

And a referendum on AV, reform of the House of Lords (details awaited), an increase in the income tax threshold, an increase in Capital Gains Tax and a move towards more sensible sentencing policy. Plus the abandoned Tory policies such as an increase in the Inheritance Tax allowance and renegotiating EU treaties which would have wasted a lot of time and achieved nothing.

 

Yeah, a "referendum" on AV, the "miserable little compromise" (Clegg's words) which the Tories will have no qualms about unleashing the power of Ashcroft and Coulson on to ensure it fails. I'll believe House of Lords reform when I see it - every government promises that, as did the last Tory manifesto. You really think the sentencing policy from Ken Clarke, the veteran Tory, can be credited to the Lib Dems? I'll give you CGT though.

 

I appreciate that you're staying loyal to the party that I believe you've been a member of for decades, but surely even you must think that this U-turn on tuition fees, one of their flagship policies for the last two elections, could well be disastrous for the party? Assuming they stay in the Coalition til the end, what issues are they going to be able to make their own at the next election? The only one I can think of is Trident (assuming the decision is delayed) - which, as much as I agree with the Lib Dems' stance on it, is only going to appeal to hard-lefties, who certainly aren't going to vote Lib Dem anytime soon in light of the Coalition's economic polcies. I imagine Clegg is deluding himself into thinking he can turn the party into the German free-market liberals, i.e. economically Thatcherite but liberal on crime/civil liberties/social issues - problem is, Brits are on the whole pretty left-wing economically and very conservative on issues like crime, so it's a recipe for disaster.

Not for Lib Dem voters. Your explanation only shows that Clegg et al valued getting seats in Cabinet ahead of keeping their principles, in the form of a looser arrangement with the Tories which would've allowed them to oppose tuition fees.

Yeah, a "referendum" on AV, the "miserable little compromise" (Clegg's words) which the Tories will have no qualms about unleashing the power of Ashcroft and Coulson on to ensure it fails. I'll believe House of Lords reform when I see it - every government promises that, as did the last Tory manifesto. You really think the sentencing policy from Ken Clarke, the veteran Tory, can be credited to the Lib Dems? I'll give you CGT though.

I think Clarke used the coalition to express his real views rather than the policies he was forced to support as Home Secretary.

 

As for the referendum, yes AV is only a slight improvement on the current system. However, if it is defeated (as seems quite likely atm), it would still be possible to go back after the next election with a referendum on real reform, preferably STV. If next year's vote was on STV and it was defeated, it would be hard to try again for 15-20 years. So the fact that it is AV may actually prove to be a good thing in the medium term.

 

Of course, Labour promised us a referendum on 1997 and never got round to it.

AV for me is a sensible system, am I right in saying that STV is just the same as AV+?

AV for me is a sensible system, am I right in saying that STV is just the same as AV+?

No. STV is similar to AV but it is used to elect more than one MP per constituency. Each constituency would effectively be made up of several existing constituencies. You still vote for candidates in order of preference but each party would have several candidates to match the number of people being elected. The counting process is fairly complicated but it gives a more proportional result than AV.

 

With AV+ most MPs are elected by AV but then additional MPs are elected from a list to make the result in each area more proportional (but not necessarily totally proportional). It was designed by Roy Jenkins to achieve a compromise which made the result more proportional but still made majority governments possible. In 1997 Labour would still have had a majority but nowhere near the 179 majority they actually achieved.

I'm pretty sure AV+ is what we have up north. It sounds about right, we have list MP's and i think we elect the normal MP's by AV

I'm pretty sure AV+ is what we have up north. It sounds about right, we have list MP's and i think we elect the normal MP's by AV

The difference is that in Scotland the list MPs are used to make the final outcome very close to being wholly proportional. Under AV+ only a minority (around 20%) of MPs would be elected from a list in each region. So the result would be significantly more proportional then under the current system but it would still be possible for a party to win a majority without getting 50% of the vote.

That's it, I never remembered how STV worked. To me, AV+ is just a slightly desperate compromise although it does offer the best realistic balance.

There's another protest/march happening in London tomorrow (well, it's happening all over the country, there's one also happening in MK where I live), but I reckon I'll be in London tomorrow. :D

University of Dundee are joining the walkout too! Just had an email from DUSA about it lol.

 

11am we walk out, not that i am even on campus tomorrow

Bugger, I'm on a university visit tomorrow :lol:

There's a walk-out here at Newcastle too, but I can't make it as I'm at my work experience at the time :(

Didn't make it to London (overslept), but got down in time for the MK protest, was fantastic!

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs576.ash2/149815_478362496304_144144931304_5800922_1105449_n.jpg

 

I love how thousands are still going at it, lots of marches leading to town hall's and stuff, not much rioting or anything, something is up in London though, with protesters being "kettled" by police (i'm not sure what this means but i'm guessing being trapped in, however police are handing out water and there are portaloos.

 

and also this van,

 

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/11/24/1290612977503/The-police-van-that-was-s-007.jpg

Kettling means keeping the protestors in a confined space, generally for several hours, before letting them go a few at a time. The police have said they will apply the same tactics to protestors as young as 14.

Kettling means keeping the protestors in a confined space, generally for several hours, before letting them go a few at a time. The police have said they will apply the same tactics to protestors as young as 14.

 

and yet again our police force shows a lack of ethics. ffs.

police charged at the protesters in the "kettle" on horses :mellow:

 

police need to learn to do their f***ing jobs right, all they are doing is fuelling violence.

I MADE IT ONTO THE NEWS LOL.

I MADE IT ONTO THE NEWS LOL.

PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN