Fairly or unfairly (and obviously I think fairly), it IS the perception that the Lib Dems are sellouts though. And it's going to take exceptional circumstances to change that perception anytime in the foreseeable future.

 

I remember some lib dems saying at the time that they had to go into coalition, because if they didn't, people would think that "they'd never be willing to go into government in any circumstances"......I never understood why that would be a problem? It's another example of how the political world and the real world are parallel universes. In the political world, not being willing to give up your principles to enter a government is a sign that you're "not credible" or "immature". In the real world, that very same thing is admirable if you're putting principles ahead of your own careers. And that's something the Lib Dems still haven't grasped based on how their main pitch at the next election is going to be "our main priority is for us to stay in government, and we'll do a deal with either party at any price!"

To me it is pretty clear what would have happened if the Lib Dems had refused the offer of a coalition. The Tories would have ruled as a minority government. Within a year they would have called another election. Both the Tories and Labour would have said that a vote for the Lib Dems was a vote for instability. That tactic may not have worked but, if it had, we could now have a majority Tory government. After all, it is unlikely that they would even have tried getting their NHS changes, or anything else unpopular, through.

Oh, and on the final point, the Lib Dems would look pretty silly if they went into the election saying "our aim is to go back into opposition".

Fairly or unfairly (and obviously I think fairly), it IS the perception that the Lib Dems are sellouts though. And it's going to take exceptional circumstances to change that perception anytime in the foreseeable future.

 

I remember some lib dems saying at the time that they had to go into coalition, because if they didn't, people would think that "they'd never be willing to go into government in any circumstances"......I never understood why that would be a problem? It's another example of how the political world and the real world are parallel universes. In the political world, not being willing to give up your principles to enter a government is a sign that you're "not credible" or "immature". In the real world, that very same thing is admirable if you're putting principles ahead of your own careers. And that's something the Lib Dems still haven't grasped based on how their main pitch at the next election is going to be "our main priority is for us to stay in government, and we'll do a deal with either party at any price!"

 

because of course the Labour Party and the Tory Party NEVER under any circumstances ever ever alter any of their policies in order to get elected. Not ever in a million years. They always stick to their principles no matter what and they believe in exactly the same things they have always believed in. They also always entirely carry out their election promises. I think we can all agree that both parties have always done that, in every government following an election.

 

(PS I'm being sarcastic :lol: )

because of course the Labour Party and the Tory Party NEVER under any circumstances ever ever alter any of their policies in order to get elected. Not ever in a million years. They always stick to their principles no matter what and they believe in exactly the same things they have always believed in. They also always entirely carry out their election promises. I think we can all agree that both parties have always done that, in every government following an election.

 

(PS I'm being sarcastic :lol: )

I've lost count of the number of times it's been explained to you that abandoning one of your flagship policies is a little different. Neither major party would be naive enough to do so, so it painted the Lib Dems as not only unprincipled but amateurish as well.

I've lost count of the number of times it's been explained to you that abandoning one of your flagship policies is a little different. Neither major party would be naive enough to do so, so it painted the Lib Dems as not only unprincipled but amateurish as well.

The promise not to vote for an increase in tuition fees was one of the biggest political misjudgements in recent history. However, the Lib Dems compounded that error by allowing the Tories to leave the way open for opponents to rub their noses in it. The changes to the way tuition fees are paid has left us with a system that is a graduate tax - as previously advocated by the NUS - in all but name. As I said earlier, the Lib Dem publicity machine was not prepared for the difference between government and opposition. Their total failure to portray the changes as a graduate tax is the best example of that. In that sense the party was indeed amateurish.

 

As for the flagship policies, that depends on your definition. The manifesto highlighted four policy areas. The tuition fees pledge was not one of them. They were as follows.

 

Fairer taxation - increasing the basic allowance to £10,000. Done

 

A fair future - break up the banks and concentrate on green growth. Partially done. The banks will be split although not fast enough IMO. A green investment bank has been established but progress is slow.

 

Fair chance for every child - pupil premium done. Reducing class sizes, no progress.

 

Clean up politics - little progress with most proposals blocked by Tory backbenchers.

 

That's not a perfect record but not too bad for the junior partner in a coalition.

I remember some lib dems saying at the time that they had to go into coalition, because if they didn't, people would think that "they'd never be willing to go into government in any circumstances"......I never understood why that would be a problem? It's another example of how the political world and the real world are parallel universes. In the political world, not being willing to give up your principles to enter a government is a sign that you're "not credible" or "immature". In the real world, that very same thing is admirable if you're putting principles ahead of your own careers. And that's something the Lib Dems still haven't grasped based on how their main pitch at the next election is going to be "our main priority is for us to stay in government, and we'll do a deal with either party at any price!"

I think that's one where it is actually a bit fair (although obviously I think the Lib Dems should've held out for a far better deal) - one of the big things that they found in their internal polling was that the prime obstacle to a lot of people voting for them was that a. people presumed they would just always be an ineffective loudmouth opposition, so saw them as a wasted vote as they wouldn't go into government, regardless of how much they agreed with them, and (obviously to a far lesser extent) b. that if they did ever go into government it would only go with Labour and never with the Tories.

 

Of course obviously by not holding out for some more red lines they've made themselves look craven rather than actively doing something with government, but I'll put that down to them viewing polling results in black and white rather than shades of grey, and Clegg's obvious misunderstanding of how government works by giving himself such a nothing portfolio.

I think that's one where it is actually a bit fair (although obviously I think the Lib Dems should've held out for a far better deal) - one of the big things that they found in their internal polling was that the prime obstacle to a lot of people voting for them was that a. people presumed they would just always be an ineffective loudmouth opposition, so saw them as a wasted vote as they wouldn't go into government, regardless of how much they agreed with them, and (obviously to a far lesser extent) b. that if they did ever go into government it would only go with Labour and never with the Tories.

 

Of course obviously by not holding out for some more red lines they've made themselves look craven rather than actively doing something with government, but I'll put that down to them viewing polling results in black and white rather than shades of grey, and Clegg's obvious misunderstanding of how government works by giving himself such a nothing portfolio.

I think their biggest mistake was that they assumed that they would be in a position to form a two party coalition with either the Tories or Labour. That would have left them in a position to say to each of the other main parties "Give us a, b, c and d or we'll talk to the other lot". When the election delivered a result whereby the only two party majorities were Con / Lab and Con / Lib Dem they were unprepared. The Ashcroft money was targeted very effectively which meant the Tories won more seats than the other two main parties expected.

I think you're wrong there given that's what the Lib Dems effectively did anyway (hence the pretense of negotiations with Labour when you had the likes of Andrew Stunell just going actively hostile within them). One of the big misconceptions around coalitions in the UK is that the total has to add up to more than 325 for both parties. Take out Sinn Fein and the deputy speakers and the practical majority becomes ~318-320, and a rainbow coalition wouldn't even have needed forming given how much it would've hurt the SNP/Plaid/Caroline Lucas to ever back a Tory-led no confidence motion.

I think you're wrong there given that's what the Lib Dems effectively did anyway (hence the pretense of negotiations with Labour when you had the likes of Andrew Stunell just going actively hostile within them). One of the big misconceptions around coalitions in the UK is that the total has to add up to more than 325 for both parties. Take out Sinn Fein and the deputy speakers and the practical majority becomes ~318-320, and a rainbow coalition wouldn't even have needed forming given how much it would've hurt the SNP/Plaid/Caroline Lucas to ever back a Tory-led no confidence motion.

You are ignoring the number of senior Labour MPs who made their opposition to any sort of coalition very clear the day after the election. That handed an immediate advantage to the Tories.

Well, two of them.

Well, two of them.

If you're faced with the prospect of forming a minority administration, it is not a good start to have even two MPs stating their opposition. You must have realised from my posts over the years that I would have preferred a Labour / Lib Dem administration. However, the result of the last election made that totally impractical. Can you imagine how hard it would have been for a Lab / Lib Dem government with the majority of the press constantly going on about it being a government formed by the parties who came second and third? Of course there would have been more agreement among party activists but that would not have been enough. The press would have hammered home the message that the Lib Dems were supporting a party who had lost an election.

The press does what it can to take down the left in any case. The majority position on the economy would be governing. Presumably the people who voted for that majority position wouldn't start abandoning it just because the media started patronising their choice of vote.

I've lost count of the number of times it's been explained to you that abandoning one of your flagship policies is a little different. Neither major party would be naive enough to do so, so it painted the Lib Dems as not only unprincipled but amateurish as well.

 

and I've lost count of the number of times Ive replied B-)

 

I suggest you revisit Blair's 2005 manifesto. Or was the promise to deliver an extra 10,000 social homes per year by 2010 not an actual flagship policy? Or any of the other rose-tinted brave new world forever prosperous under Labour bull that headlined pages of self-promoting statements (and it turns out, a bit wrong in some big ways).

 

I don't think you'd have found anybody on the street who'd have named that an actual flagship policy though. It doesn't take much social intelligence to realise the consequences of going back on one of the three policies the public knows your party for.

I'd suggest that not putting up student fees is far and away nowhere near as significant (and apologies to students suffering under the policy that I in no way agree with) as failing to provide tens of thousands of much needed homes at a time when the building trade could have done with the jobs and money is thrown away in huge sums on private landlords, money that could come back to councils to maintain housing stock. Question of scale, and the principle remains the same - can't criticize one party for amending their policies in the light of financial problems when others have done the same, however far up or down the list of election promises it is.

 

Blair was promising a virtual utopia. Though I'm sure he believes it would have been if only the leader elected by the electorate hadn't been so cruelly removed from office by Iron Gord, the safest pair of Chancillor hands for the country since time immemorial. :lol:

 

 

I'd suggest that not putting up student fees is far and away nowhere near as significant (and apologies to students suffering under the policy that I in no way agree with) as failing to provide tens of thousands of much needed homes at a time when the building trade could have done with the jobs and money is thrown away in huge sums on private landlords, money that could come back to councils to maintain housing stock. Question of scale, and the principle remains the same - can't criticize one party for amending their policies in the light of financial problems when others have done the same, however far up or down the list of election promises it is.

 

Blair was promising a virtual utopia. Though I'm sure he believes it would have been if only the leader elected by the electorate hadn't been so cruelly removed from office by Iron Gord, the safest pair of Chancillor hands for the country since time immemorial. :lol:

"In light of financial problems". Right, that's why they went back on their promise (which for the record wasn't to not put up tuition fees, it was to scrap them. Not a big thing, only £10k difference for any undergrad...). Regardless of the relative impacts of both policies, that's not the point that anyone besides you was trying to make.

 

Neither of the main parties have experienced the same kind of haemorrhage in support in recent times because, regardless of principles or anything else, both understand politics a little better than to shamelessly court students and rely on them for a large proportion of their support before dropping them all completely in the shit.

Tuition fees had literally nothing to do with the financial situation, given the first repayments from the new system won't come through until after the next general election.

no, but the point I'm trying to make is that students loathe libdems over one broken (minor in the grand scheme of things) promise, amended due to circumstances (being in power with another party who had made no such promises and the toing of froing of give and take in policies. Being practical, some you win some you lose). Labour had no such excuse for what I consider an unforgivable lie. They didn't come close to trying, they never apologised for it and they never had the excuse of having to share policies and power. It was just failure.. At least I don't recall hearing an apology, please correct me if i'm wrong. "Twisting the truth" is not a uniquely Tory fault. The evidence is in print.

 

If I was a student, fairly sure I'd be pissed off. I was certainly pissed off when further education stopped being free as it should be. I work with young former graduates who have a huge stress-inducing albatross around their neck of ongoing debt that never goes away. What sort of party thinks it's OK for young people to start their working life in debt (except for the rich)? Apparently, all three....

 

As for "only me" making a point, the finance diversion was not the main point, the main point was broken promises and practical political realities of being in coalition, and I think Suedehead made some very fair and pertinent remarks which no-one has challenged. All I did was point out that parties NOT in coalitions frequently fail to fulfill pledges promises and ambitions. I see no difference in the same basic argument other than ill feeling over one understandably personal grudge over one policy. I see it as much worse to not deliver promises when there's no reason not to do so. At least the Lib-dems had a partial excuse and had they been alone in government with a majority, one would expect it would never have happened. To single one party out for one policy let-down without applying the same criteria to other parties is pure bias.

Edited August 19, 201410 yr by popchartfreak

Let's just remember the history of tuition fees.

 

Inn 1996/97 the Tories set up a commission to look into student finance. They did so knowing that by the time the commission reported - after the 1997 election - it wouldn't be their problem. In that election Labour said that they would not introduce tuition fees. When the commission recommended tuition fees, Labour accepted it and reneged on their promise.

 

In 2001 or 2005 (I forget which election) Labour denied that they planned to treble tuition fees. After the election they trebled tuition fees.

 

Before the 2010 election Labour took a leaf out of the Tories' book and set up a commission to look at the issue again. As with the Tories before, they did so knowing that it was unlikely to be their problem by the time the commission reported. The difference is that this time it was the Lib Dmes who were screwed rather than the Tories. As I have said before, the Lib Dems failed miserably in explaining the difference in the way tuition fees were paid. Instead of having to pay them up front, students now repay them by means of what is effectively a graduate tax. The NUS used to support a graduate tax but changed their minds when it was introduce - in all but name - by a non-Labour government. The Tories, of course, saw how much grief it was causing the Lib Dmes and sat back and let it happen.

 

So, Labour have reneged on their promise twice despite forming a majority government each time. The Lib Dmes have done so once as a result of being in coalition.

If you'd have told the NUS that the "graduate tax" introduced would be a flat rate for all students (which actually works out as a regressive tax given that wealthier graduates can pay it back faster and avoid some interest) then I'd bet they would have rightly told you to shove it.