Stop the Cuts - National Demonstration

OK. As previously stated, admittedly flowery, politics isn't any longer able to make anything like the radical changes as are continually promised. The more useful and 'radical' these promises are, such as scrapping tuition fees, then the less likely they'll happen. Hence foreplay - no follow through. He did it because he was incapable, and knowingly so, of carrying out his promise. Simple as that. It's not complicated at all.

Maybe not complicated to you, to me it's a fucking maze.

So far I am up to "he did this because he knew he couldn't do it".

He didnt forget promises, he always knew he was gonna have to go back on them.

And I reckon he is doing it because he wants to get to the top, and obviously he doesnt really care too much about what he has to sacrifice to get there.

Or he could really believe in what he is doing and that its for the good of the nation and all that he is driven by is an honest and sincere belief that he the best man for the job of leading our country.

tl;dr

any one come up with a single reason why people who desire to become middle-class or more middle-class shouldn't have to invest in themselves via university?

I don't think anyone is making that approach to the argument, the direction at the moment seems to be 'emotional' stuff 'it's not fair' (and it is not fair) and 'but he said he would and now he hasn't' (and he [nick] did break his promise).

That sounds a little sarky and unfair, I don't mean it like that - but beyond those two arguments I can't see any reason why someone would not want to go to college - even with this less attractive / less fair system.

I’d like to ask you a very simple question Tynan. Do you still, if you ever did, believe in emancipatory politics? There’s really no other useful kind – anything else is just bland accountancy. If the answer’s no, which I suspect it is, then you’ll know why any politician of whatever persuasion never follows through with great pledges. They just can’t, and never intend to.

If somehow they can, then they’ll rob Peter to pay Paul. Maybe something is scrapped, but some other area will be taxed to pay for it. There’s no other way out of this double-bind. Politics is sloganeering and empty rhetoric. How many times have you heard ‘time for change’?. From what, to what? Change is supposed to mean difference, another way, but nowadays it means anything but, and serves as the de-facto, cop-out position. It means less than nothing.

I happen to like politics despite my opinions on it, but the truth of it, if there’s such a thing, is boringly straightforward; it’s really as full of shit as you fear it to be, and as brazen with its disregard to ethics and honesty that all of us find so mind-boggling and predictable.

^^^^ Agree.

I’d like to ask you a very simple question Tynan. Do you still, if you ever did, believe in emancipatory politics?

Give me a brief overview of what you mean by emancipatory politics and I will have a go at answering.

Politics that will make a profound difference to your life, on whatever basis you care to mention - financial, social, cultural, ethical.

Politics that will make a profound difference to your life, on whatever basis you care to mention - financial, social, cultural, ethical.

Do I "believe in" politics that will make a profound difference to my life, on whatever basis I care to mention - financial, social, cultural, ethical ?

Well, I don't think it exists, if it did I suspect everyone would subscribe to it, I certainly would.

In which case, the shortcomings of politics, and politicians, stands to reason.

I don't mean to be preachy, but it gets on my tits how politicians implore us to vote/believe in them, when I wouldn't trust any of them to wash the car I don't own. It's vapid nonsense, which didn't used to be and certainly shouldn't be. It should have a use, a role, but as it seeks out which use/role it can fulfil, it steadily destroys itself further.

I feel really strongly that this isn't right, and that politics must change beyond its current incarnation before it hits home with the people who matter most, and who can make it a success on the ground - the likes of you and I.

It has in the respect that with a majority they would abolition tuition fees altogether.

Ok, a straight up question, answer it as honestly as you can.

Why do you think Nick Clegg made the promise and then reneged on it ?

That might be because she is not in a coalition with the conservatives, given that position she might find herself in an equally difficult position.

Tynan, I'm not going to get in another silly argument with you. You described the ill will towards Nick Clegg as naive - stating that people are upset because the things he promised, were he to win, were not kept. That is, you wrote this:

People need to be realistic, running around burning effigies of Nick Clegg is probably great fun and gets everyone excited, but they made various promises about what they were going to if they won power, they didn't win power, but joined a coalition as the (very) junior partner so are unable to do as they please.

You might as well march around burning effigies of Caroline Lucas . . . look what the Green Party's policy on education states:

I read this as an insinuation (or perhaps outright claim) that people were angry with him because of unfulfilled promises he made were the libdems to come into power. I simply wanted to point out that that is wrong. He made a promise not to vote a certain way, and has broken that promise.

And being part of a coalition does not require you to vote with said coalition. An MPs first duty is (in a SMP system, especially) is to their constituents, not their party, and most definitely not the party they are in a coalition with.

And beyond that, the libdems were seen as a party of the left with progressive views. To be bending over so readily to the Conservatives is, if only in spirit, an absolute betrayal in the minds of those who voted for them. This is why Nick Clegg is now the least trusted of party leaders.

To be honest, I don't think the anger towards the libdems is silly at all. They should be ashamed of themselves, in my opinion. And once again, I'm happy to see people expressing this anger rather than, like the libdems, rolling over and doing what they're told.

I feel really strongly that this isn't right, and that politics must change beyond its current incarnation before it hits home with the people who matter most, and who can make it a success on the ground - the likes of you and I.

Me !?

Have you been drinking ?

I am not going to make anything a success !

I don't think I want to, I don't really 'believe' in anything, certainly not politics.

Have you noticed these sentences are getting progressively longer.

Except for that last one.

And that.

Tynan, I'm not going to get in another silly argument with you.

Ok.

[QUOTE=tynan;1841780]

Have you been drinking ?

Have you noticed these sentences are getting progressively longer.

Yes.

Disproved.

No. Not the LibDems; a few of the LibDem leaders, secretly, without consulting the MPs who they knew were now campaigning on promises their leader had no intention of keeping.

I think he had every intention of delivering what he said he would deliver - which would be that a Lib Dem government would abolish tuition fees.

They could have decided this was one policy they were not prepared to compromise on; whether or not they were right to is another matter.

Agreed, this seems to me (a non-politician not privy to the machinations of the behind the scenes dealings) to be at least an option, but from what I can work out it didn't happen that way, I can't tell you the reason - but I am not as yet sold on the idea (so far the only idea forwarded) that this was done because they could do it and/or they wanted 'power'.

Also I am going to have to keep the idea that they could have decided this was one policy they were not prepared to compromise in the possible box - perhaps they didn't have this choice ?

So why would you not single out Clegg for your anger?

Because the whole issue is much more complex, more nuanced than the black and white, us or them, effigy burning side-taking absolutism doing the rounds.

Also, when you say "People need to be realistic" isn't that one of those debating tactics you normally deplore?

No.

Realistic in this case being whatever* you* decide it is?

No, I think we should all try as best as we can to take a rational look at these kinds of issues, the temptation, as far as I can see it, is for people to quickly take sides even before they have even looked which way they are running.

And beyond that, the libdems were seen as a party of the left with progressive views. To be bending over so readily to the Conservatives is, if only in spirit, an absolute betrayal in the minds of those who voted for them. This is why Nick Clegg is now the least trusted of party leaders.

To be honest, I don't think the anger towards the libdems is silly at all. They should be ashamed of themselves, in my opinion. And once again, I'm happy to see people expressing this anger rather than, like the libdems, rolling over and doing what they're told.

It's fine to be angry at the LibDems, but to me the real villain of the piece is not them. The LibDems are imploding while the most divisive party doesn't even have to do anything, as they have the perfect lightning conductor in the LibDems.

Since I can't sleep.....
I think your view of other people being unrealistic is patronising.
The LibDems did a lot worse than they expected to do at the election. They could have entered a coalition with Labour but that would have meant keeping a very unpopular PM in office from a party that, by any reckoning, had no mandate. They could have chosen not to enter a coalition with the Conservatives and forced them to form a minority government which would probably have led to another election in six months or so. They would have been portrayed as being selfish at a time when the country needed a stable government. They probably also thought that in that second election they would do even less well.
So they chose to enter a coalition with the Conservatives in exchange for various concessions; a referendum on changing the electoral system being the main one. It was probably seen as a once in a generation chance to achieve one of their main political goals.
As has already been established Clegg had decided before the election that he would not stick to the party's pledge to vote against tuition fees. It is obvious now, in fact I think Clegg has admitted it, that he regretted ever making that pledge. Presumably he made the calculation that agreeing to the Conservative policy on tuition fees was a price worth paying for the other rewards he saw coming from sharing power. It looks as if he underestimated the reaction and the Conservatives have been pretty clever at letting him take the flack for his 'betrayal'.
Many people, many LibDems, though, are wondering just what they are getting out of this coalition, other than 'power' and a taste of being in government, ministerial titles, offices, salaries and other perks for a few. If they win the referendum on AV maybe they will think it has been worth it. At the moment though it seems more likely that even if they do win it they will face the great irony of being destroyed under a voting system they thought would make them more powerful.

It's fine to be angry at the LibDems, but to me the real villain of the piece is not them. The LibDems are imploding while the most divisive party doesn't even have to do anything, as they have the perfect lightning conductor in the LibDems.

I'm not sure. I've struggled with this. I assume you mean the Conservatives, who I'm not a fan of. I can fault their policies all I want, but they are their policies. They're governing the way they said, and the way you would expect, they would. The libdems may not have the power to set the agenda, but they are not hostage to the one the Conservatives set.

I think your view of other people being unrealistic is patronising.

It's not meant to be. - 'People' - now becomes 'other' people. - oh dear, he we go.

I've tried to explain it reasonably, if you don't accept or believe what I've said then let me attempt to clarify it before it grows inside your head (now that is patronising):

People seem to me to be levelling their argument against a Lib Dem party who got into power and failed to deliver what they said they would deliver, I think people need to be realistic, the Lib Dems didn't even get one fifth of the seats that 2nd place labour got.

That's what I am trying to say.

The LibDems did a lot worse than they expected to do at the election. They could have entered a coalition with Labour but that would have meant keeping a very unpopular PM in office from a party that, by any reckoning, had no mandate. They could have chosen not to enter a coalition with the Conservatives and forced them to form a minority government which would probably have led to another election in six months or so. They would have been portrayed as being selfish at a time when the country needed a stable government. They probably also thought that in that second election they would do even less well.

Yep, agreed, very difficult decisions - all what you have said - along with possibly hundreds of other issues, forces, promises, constraints, hopes and risks that I am sure we could identify - and many we might not be aware of.

So they chose to enter a coalition with the Conservatives in exchange for various concessions; a referendum on changing the electoral system being the main one. It was probably seen as a once in a generation chance to achieve one of their main political goals.

Not really, they didn't even get that, there is the A.V. thing, but that's never been one of their main political goals, not even a political goal, the Conservatives simply wouldn't have given them a referendum of PR, there was little chance they could hope to swing that one past the Conservatives.

As has already been established Clegg had decided before the election that he would not stick to the party's pledge to vote against tuition fees . . . . .

. . . . . if the Lib Dems didn't get elected and found themselves in a coalition where they knew they would not get their own education policy past either Labour of the Conservatives.

Presumably he made the calculation that agreeing to the Conservative policy on tuition fees was a price worth paying for the other rewards he saw coming from sharing power.

Well I'd leave the personal politics stuff out ('rewards he saw coming from sharing power') (?) - but generally, yes, I think you're right.

I'd say - the Lib Dems made the calculation that agreeing to the Conservative policy on tuition fees was a price worth paying to get other Lib Dem policies onto the statute books.

That's pretty much a straight-up description of compromise / coalition.

Many people, many LibDems, though, are wondering just what they are getting out of this coalition, other than 'power' and a taste of being in government, ministerial titles, offices, salaries and other perks for a few.

I think they took the decision to enter into a coalition as they could get a few of their policies enacted. I am not sure about the more cynical stuff ("power' and a taste of being in government, ministerial titles, offices, salaries and other perks for a few".) - I can't see that myself.

If they win the referendum on AV maybe they will think it has been worth it. At the moment though it seems more likely that even if they do win it they will face the great irony of being destroyed under a voting system they thought would make them more powerful.

I think they will do ok at the next election (well, no worse than the last time), I don't think the tuition fees issue will be a major factor half a decade down the line, but who knows what will happen between then and now.

Anyhow . . . I am going to retire from this thread before I am lynched, I leave it pretty much as I came into it, naked, drunk and still ambivalent about the rise in tuition fees.

I'll let you all slug it out.

The effects will be felt immediately, in fact even before they are implemented, the effects being sought will be felt on the day the policy is announced.

I meant economic benefits for 'our society' / nation / debt etc.

The government are still paying the same amount of money but instead of giving students £3,500 to pay the unis and then paying the remaining (im guessing £5,500) themselves. They are giving students £9,000 through the loans company and making them pay it back much later. But this 5.5k isnt coming back into the economy this year or the next........

My own reading of the fees saga for the lib dems from what i have read is that clegg wanted to nove away from the scrap tuition fees stance begun under charles kennedy. Moves were made to do this way before the election but these moves were defeated by rank and file lib dem membership at party conference in a straightforward vote(lib dem constitution means policy is voted on by members at annual conference)

now having had the policy decided for them and being different to the other two parties they campaigned strongly on the subject among other issues. If elected with a majority lib dem govt he could have enacted it but he wasnt and i suspect at heart clegg is realistic about the cost of scrapping tuition fees and the practicalities of this especially in these times of austerity. So in coalition, presented with a review which seemed sensible and addresses longer term issues of funding he took a plunge and dropped the pledge. Basically what got him in the position of making a promise he couldnt necessarily keep was out of his hands and in his party's

now we have heard mention of 'real villains' of the piece and i think this is a bit ott. But if we are looking for villains how about the previous government for intoducing fees in first place then raising them later? this set the precedent both for fees and for voting in rises. They then set up the review the findings of which the latest policy is largely based on. This gradual increasing of fees was inevitable once fees were introduced in the first place and i am sure you can find plenty of mps saying so at the time.

So in my opinion the increase was inevitable, clegg was left no room to manouvre due to internal lib dem decision making processes and the subsequent lib dem handling of communications has been woeful. The protests seem a bit hysterical to me and the proposals whilst amounting to a significant increase seem reasonable in the method of paying off. Discuss

ps tynan dont go

now we have heard mention of 'real villains' of the piece and i think this is a bit ott. But if we are looking for villains how about the previous government for intoducing fees in first place then raising them later? this set the precedent both for fees and for voting in rises. They then set up the review the findings of which the latest policy is largely based on. This gradual increasing of fees was inevitable once fees were introduced in the first place and i am sure you can find plenty of mps saying so at the time.

Oh, of course introducing fees in the first place was, in a way, a worse offence.

The Lib-Dems were in an enviable position during the election campaign in that they were able to make all sorts of unachievable promises that each and every one of them knew (unless they were genuinely deluded) that they would never have to deliver, because there would never be any chance of them winning power.

I'm with Tynan in that I don't think you can compare being a very minor coalition partner, having polled one of the lowest votes in their history as "being in power". All promises are null and void because they were never deliverable anyway; it's the Lib-Dems.

I think Nick Clegg had a choice between proving his party to be utterly irrelevant by not attempting to form a coalition, which would probably have killed the party for good, or of forming a coalition in a vague hope that they would be able to make enough of an impression in government that the electorate actually gets used to the idea of a Lib-Dem government and votes for them in substantial numbers next election. The prize was potentially a genuine 3 party system as opposed to the 2+stalking horse we have now. Of course should the rest of this parliament go as badly for them as it has so far, then they may just have guaranteed a genuine 2 party system instead.

I'm with Tynan in that I don't think you can compare being a very minor coalition partner, having polled one of the lowest votes in their history as "being in power". All promises are null and void because they were never deliverable anyway; it's the Lib-Dems.

Then you're with everyone else, because no one thinks that. That is, in my experience, no one is upset that the Libdems did not act out their election manifesto.

On the other hand, individual MP votes, which one makes a campaign promise on, are something else entirely. And if your MP tells you they will vote on an issue one way (tuition fees, war in Iraq, vat cuts, whatever), and then does the opposite, you have every right to be upset at them. In this sense, it has nothing to do with being a coalition partner.

However, by being a coalition partner, it would have been interesting to see how this would have played out: They could have told Cameron that this was an issue they could not go along with. They had made promises to their voters. It is something they believed in. Cameron would have caved, imo. And if he didn't, and the government fell, the libdems would looked better for it (they kept their promise to voters, the Conservatives were an unwilling coalition partner, etc.).

I suspect Will is right. Clegg is only worried about AV now, and will do anything he can to stay in power until the referendum happens.

If the lib dems had forced the government to fall over a rise in tuition fees then they would have appeared self indulgent. the ensuing election would most likely have returned a tory majority. Or it would result in another hung parliament and more deals and more uncertainty in markets.

One of the reasons tuition fees have gone up is cos students dont vote. Oaps do hence the winter fuel and bus passes not touched.