Surely what they are implementing is just a graduate tax in disguise isn't it? The more you earn the more you will have to pay back and there are no upfront tuition fees, when I was at uni I had to pay the fee at the start of the academic year (although obviously it was only £1100 then)
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Yougov poll shows Lib Dems at 8%
- Thread starter CHAPPERS
- Start date
Surely what they are implementing is just a graduate tax in disguise isn't it? The more you earn the more you will have to pay back and there are no upfront tuition fees, when I was at uni I had to pay the fee at the start of the academic year (although obviously it was only £1100 then)
The headline figures are not a secret but surely they would have needed to do a fair bit of auditing to get all the facts. I'm not very knowledgable when it comes to politics but that seems to make sense. I'm certainly not saying it's a valid excuse either, they should never have made excuses they could not keep
I would think the ultiate desire for a political party would (or at least should) be to serve the nation the way they see best in line with their mandates and supporters. Not to say anything just for power and then make themselves look stupd.
Agreed. It's been a disaster for them. They've had to rip up key manifesto pledges to help form a government and in exchange they have some flimsy promise of electoral reform which doesn't begin to address the electoral problems that they themselves see.
They are an absolute shambles under Clegg.
For some reason, listening to Ed Milliband this morning saying what he would do if if he was a Liberal Democrat MP, I started humming this ditty:
"If I was a LibDem, and you were Labour Leader,
I'd stick my **** up your ****hole,
You Stuck-up little bleeder".
What i call my "Julian Clary" moment...or maybe this is!
"If I was a LibDem, and you were Labour Leader,
I'd stick my **** up your ****hole,
You Stuck-up little bleeder".
What i call my "Julian Clary" moment...or maybe this is!
ROSM
Well-known member
It doesn't wash with me either. Trust me, if there had been any major 'cupboard of previously unknown invoices' they would have said by now. But in reality the debt is rising slower than the previous government had predicted and the shortfall is 10% less than had been predicted, income (notably from taxes) is rising faster and all this is without any ConDem policy being put in place. Even the Office for Budgetary Responsibility is saying that things weren't as bad as had been portrayed in the pre election forecasts and that the steps put in place by the previous givernment were having a positive effect.
This just smacks of a marginal party having to grow up and realise that things you say in opposition when you think you may end up as a stronger 3rd party may come back to bite you. Clegg has to be admired for his brass neck on this. The Murdoch media are calling it courage. I think it's more that he's had a taste of power and is not willing to upset his new Tory friends. Especially as he may need them to find him a safe seat in 4 years time
Hatterlovesbrighton
something clever
Not really. The graduate tax idea would mean that people who earned more would pay more for their education. There aren't any upfront fees with the Government proposals either.
Dandyman
In London village.
Election Calculus has this: http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
which is the average of recent polls. The Tories have not yet had any real negative impact which I suspect will come next year when unemployment rises and people feel the full impact of VAT rises and the double whammy of inflation and no pay rises for most of us while the Bankers carrying on counting their loot.
which is the average of recent polls. The Tories have not yet had any real negative impact which I suspect will come next year when unemployment rises and people feel the full impact of VAT rises and the double whammy of inflation and no pay rises for most of us while the Bankers carrying on counting their loot.
Hatterlovesbrighton
something clever
I'd pretty much agree with this. Could see a situation where the Lib dems split up, with some going to the Tories and others to the Greens or Labour.
Clegg was voted as Lib Dem leader in 2008 with a wafer-thin majority over Chris Huhne. I saw them both a a hustings in Worthing, Clegg tends to drone on but is straightforward, Huhne has too much of a Libdem Michael Howard about him; his personal life is complex as we know now, plus he is far more ostentatiously wealthy than Clegg.
Clegg and cameron have an appearance which says "I can do business with you mate, but you don't own me". Cameron and Huhne? Too much like the "Two Davids" of the 1980's, one would physically dominate the other.
Personally I think if Clegg were to fall, so would Cameron, they're too bound-up now; Dave must have a lot of enemies e.g Dave Davis , sharpening their knives with the prospect of a new election which would have to be called if both Clegg and Cameron went. The Tories and Labour would then fight over the Libdem carcase, sadly.
To be specific to your points, the Tories would IMHO in a minority government situation do excatly what Harold Wilson did in 1974, i.e complain of a lack of mandate and go back to the country.
I know there aren't any upfront fees that's what I said.
My point is that looking at the proposals a lot of graduates (lower earners) will never pay back all their fees. Increasing the threshold from £15k to £21k means that a much smaller amount would get paid back each month and most people simply wouldn't earn enough over the 30 years to pay the full amount back.
The other problem that the LD's have put themselves into is that of specific seats-targeting, which goes back way before the coalition, probably a strategy developed in Paddy Ashdown's time. This was to taget specific Pariamentary seats at a General election where the Party thought it had a good candidate and a possible chance of squeezing either the Labour or the Tory vote.
In 1997 the LibDems in Lewes targeted the Labour vote with certain Labour Party members publishing election material advocating a tactical switch to get Tim rathbone out, which worked. (Except for the labour supporters who were thrown out of their Party). Norman Baker crept in by 1,300 (ironically a "Baker's dozen" of the 100-vote bundles used in election counting).
But to refine this technique they needed to produce policies which would be specific to certain constituencies, like those with big University populations, where the LDs had identified an uncommitted young vote who could be lured with promises of grant reform, and indeed other attractions (voting at 16 for example).
I fear that this "targeting" policy has now come back to haunt them.
In 1997 the LibDems in Lewes targeted the Labour vote with certain Labour Party members publishing election material advocating a tactical switch to get Tim rathbone out, which worked. (Except for the labour supporters who were thrown out of their Party). Norman Baker crept in by 1,300 (ironically a "Baker's dozen" of the 100-vote bundles used in election counting).
But to refine this technique they needed to produce policies which would be specific to certain constituencies, like those with big University populations, where the LDs had identified an uncommitted young vote who could be lured with promises of grant reform, and indeed other attractions (voting at 16 for example).
I fear that this "targeting" policy has now come back to haunt them.
brakespear
Doctor Worm
this.
I won't defend it but before Labour supporters get all smug I'll remind you that they went back on their promise for a referendum over the Lisburn Treaty and THEY didn't have the excuse of being in a coalition government.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,093
I think voters need to grow up. The Lib Dems are a minority party in a COALITION government. The whip is not theirs to crack.
Their manifesto was based on them being the sole party in government but that isn't the case, so it's not fair to keep comparing their stance in coalition to their manifesto.
I'm bored by all the Lib Dem bashing. We all knew a hung Parliament was on the cards, so it was always likely the Lib Dems would be the minority party in government. Did people REALLY think their manifesto would be carried out verbatim by the larger coalition party.
Labour are the ones who f***ed up here. They could still be in power working with the Lib Dems, who are much more ideologically similar. Unfortunately, Balls and Mandelson weren't interested. You could see the Labour Party was still mentally f***ed when it chose Ed Miliband to lead.
As for students, there's too many of them doing too many junk courses.
Their manifesto was based on them being the sole party in government but that isn't the case, so it's not fair to keep comparing their stance in coalition to their manifesto.
I'm bored by all the Lib Dem bashing. We all knew a hung Parliament was on the cards, so it was always likely the Lib Dems would be the minority party in government. Did people REALLY think their manifesto would be carried out verbatim by the larger coalition party.
Labour are the ones who f***ed up here. They could still be in power working with the Lib Dems, who are much more ideologically similar. Unfortunately, Balls and Mandelson weren't interested. You could see the Labour Party was still mentally f***ed when it chose Ed Miliband to lead.
As for students, there's too many of them doing too many junk courses.
Leekbrookgull
Well-known member
Would have thought the Clegg is worried that the British electorate will not back him on the AV voting system and that at the local election ballots next May,the public will stick with 'First past the Post' something i think they would not have done had it not been for tuition fees ?
I disagree, I would have agreed if this was any other Lib Dem policy. However it is their flagship policy they have sold out on. They promised they would vote against a rise in fees, no matter what else happened. They specifically targeted students during the election campaign and now they have sold them up the river for the promise of a kiss.
For what its worth, I didn't support them because of their Higher Ed policy, I supported them because I thought Cable was the man to run the economy. However, for a party to abandon their number one policy, in my opinion, is unforgivable.
I appreciate that they had to compromise to form a coalition, but it seems to me that they have sold out on this issue and electoral reform. As I said, I take your point and if it was any other issue I would have agreed with you.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,093
Ok, I accept your point, but we'll agree to differ.
It annoys me that we're in the worst economic downturn, it's the first coalition we've had for decades and yet the student tuition fees issue is destabilising the government. There are simply more important issues that Cameron and Clegg have to deal with (and are dealing with) than this, and the electorate are behaving like a load of Newcastle fans. Give the coalition time, then judge them.
It annoys me that we're in the worst economic downturn, it's the first coalition we've had for decades and yet the student tuition fees issue is destabilising the government. There are simply more important issues that Cameron and Clegg have to deal with (and are dealing with) than this, and the electorate are behaving like a load of Newcastle fans. Give the coalition time, then judge them.
I absolutely agree. There are far, far more important things than HE policy.