Do we no longer live in a democracy?

I love you Scaryteacher

There are 2 real democratic deficits in the UK.

The first is the lack of real choice among the parties. Both parties have broadly similar tax and spend policies. The big argument about the "Tory cuts" is really splitting hairs. Both parties would have to address the deficit and the Tories have even stuck with the 50% tax and are talking about bringing in a "mansion" tax. Is there really a party for individual choice, localism and small government?

The second is the lack of referendums on constitutional matters such as reforming the lords and signing European treaties. NL were egregiously bad on the latter, always getting a dodgy legal opinion (they were the masters of those) that each treaty was not a fundamental constitional change, when it clearly was. I suspect that if we now had a referendum of whether to stay or leave the EC, we would get a good majority in favour of leaving. However, neither party will ever offer that. There are just far too many tax free retirement jobs going in Brussels.

FolkGirl, but the same thing about not being clear of the debt in 30 years time is also true now though, especially if you defer payment.

The threshold is a big thing though. In the same way that the LDs are keen to push for starting to pay tax at a £10,000 threshold which is a fantastic idea that I hope is seen out (its perhaps the best thing in all three party manifestos imho).

The current threshold of £15,000 puts much more of a strain on low earners straight out of uni who don't manage to find the graduate jobs they thought they would. The weight of how much you pay back should be inline with how much you earn in the same way as tax is. And the new system to all intents and purposes is a graduate tax minus some of the problems that would be associated with just making it a simple tax.

You can't just shift the threshold up without putting a greater burden elsewhere. If you are suggesting that people who earn £15k should foot a greater percentage than those who earn £21k I find that a somewhat perplexing argument.

But this is getting somewhat off topic...

mingofmongo, a lot of Lib Dem votes were from 'vote for us and keep the Tories out'.

However the Lib Dem strategy was in other areas to use leaflets that said 'vote for us and keep Labour out'!

It was a classic, divide and conquer move. It was about picking up voters of BOTH labour and tory parties and playing the lesser of two evil card.

It was a very deliberate strategy and one that was well publicised by critics at the time. It wasn't a huge secret.

The Lib Dems then found themselves in a situation where they were going to let down one group of voters whoever they entered into a coalition with...

One of the biggest beefs I have with politics is its short termist and being so populist. Its one of the most major failings of democracy.

The current pension crisis is it has been very foreseeable. (And I don't just mean public sector). And PIF is undoubtably the result of populist, short termist politics.

But in playing populist politics and not suggesting and making changes sooner everyone is far worse off for it.

That has been the fault of successive governments over a period of time. I'm not pointing at blue, red or yellow here but a public problem in our attitude too. We do have a situation where we are obsessed with the here and now and we do have a problem where the public at large expects everything and doesn't want to take the necessarily level of responsibility too where it is appropriate. Hence why previous governments have been so unwilling to admit to failings or make unpopular suggestions.

I think the public as a whole needs to be more willing to vote for unpopular things. Parties would be 'more honest' if the public was more realistic and more willing to take an intelligent response to some tax rises if it can be clearly shown what is being done with that extra money or why it is needed.

And I don't see that happening any time soon. Instead we are stuck with simplistic ideas which are impossible to deliver 'honestly' as the world, economics and politics are just so much more complicated than that.

Many lib deb votes were a result of a few convincing TV interviews from Clegg, and a not too subtle 'vote for us and stop the Tories' message.

To be honest, if that was all the thought that went into them then voters cant really complain when democracy doesnt democracy in their direction .

Perhaps the people who were making promises to the electorate about what they would and wouldn't do should have made it their business to find out whether what they were saying was possible.

I know that if I went to a job interview and made a lot of claims about what I could/would do and then, not only didn't deliver on those claims, but actually did the opposite, I don't think many people would be congratulating me.

AfterDinner - what you say about the university fees is right however, when you look at the repayment levels, there is a very steep rise once you are earning above the initial £21000 threshold. To think that you won't be free of that 'debt'/repayment for 30 years is quite demoralising.

And it is a debt (despite how some are marketing it) because those whose parents can afford to pay upfront will never incur that additional 'tax'.

'I think it is worth pointing out situations in europe where disagreement between parties have left them with a properly elected government for over 12 months whilst they hammered out deals. Thats a far worse situation.'

Actually, it isn't. Belgium still functioned without a govt for 541 days, however it has more powers devolved to the regions than the UK does.

As for no coalition if ideologically opposed - why not? One could argue that the Lib Dems have tempered the Tories (hampered I think personally) and that the Tories are having to look at policies that they wouldn't have otherwise, like how far we engage with Europe (Clegg afraid he may lose his EU pension) and when we deploy the veto over certain things. Politics is the 'art of the possible' as Bismarck remarked.

I don't think its lying actually. I think a lot of the current cabinet - particularly in the Lib Dems - got a hell of a shock when they came into government.

Even the best laid intentions and plans came up against a sudden reality that actually, no matter how much we believe in this and how much we want to do this, actually we can't deliver it and we have more pressing concerns that we are going to have to face up. Being in power is about making difficult decisions. Being good in government is sometimes about making difficult unpopular decisions in order to get a better deal overall.

Of course no one is going to vote for certain tax rises. It doesn't mean they aren't the right thing to do. And I don't think thats necessarily a betrayal on manifesto pledges. I think the word compromise is such a dirty one, especially in politics, but it shouldn't be.

I honestly think thats where the student fees thing fell, especially in terms of the Lib Dems getting more say on other issues. (I must note on that subject that the way the new system has been reported is actually very bad, as the reality is under the current one many students actually are paying far more than they would under the new one. There are a couple of good independent break downs on the subject - including from reputable places like moneysaving expert. Its definitely not as much of a betrayal to students as a lot of people would make you believe. Its been a real propaganda fight rather one based on reality. Its just a real shame that the upfront, rather than the long term figures, have put so many kids off applying for uni).

YABU OP.

I'm afraid democracy isnt measured in terms of the left getting everything it wants.

And to be honest, the constant MN whining about the cuts shows how out of touch with the country we have become. The people want reform - its what they voted for when they kicked Labour out. You dont speak for them.

LilyBolero, can you possibly write a manifesto in the 12 months before an election and then stick to it? Not you can't nor should you.

Politics is fast moving and ever changing. Whilst I agree to a point that no it is true that both parties in the coalition didn't plan certain things, I also think its very fair to say they were not fully aware of the true financial position of the country (i'm thinking of the horrendous - "there's no money left" note) and it would be impossible for them to have written it planning for the Euro crisis. Or indeed things like the Arab Spring.

I think there is a certain amount of pure ideology rather than being willing to accept harsher realities in your thinking here.

LilyBolero, how exactly, were the current coalition supposed to keep their manifesto pledges when the two parties involved had ideologically opposed pledges in the first place??

It was always going to be an impossible task to do that, and regardless of which political flag waving you might do, I think people need to realise that coalitions are going to be more problematic in that respect.

I actually have the biggest issue with Lib Dem voters who feel betrayed in that respect given the party's election support of PR. I'm not entirely sure whether they actually understood the implication of it - or why in places where it is used, it ends up with manifestos being thrown out the window in months of discussion over compromise which ultimately ends up being radically different from the original too.

I actually am relived we didn't have that problem and instead of fighting over the detail we just had a situation where both parties were pretty decisive and compromised very quickly and have done so continually since. There has been bickering between the two parties but on a much smaller scale than could have happened, and it means that decisions have been made rather than us all sitting around in limbo not going anywhere.

I think it is worth pointing out situations in europe where disagreement between parties have left them with a properly elected government for over 12 months whilst they hammered out deals. Thats a far worse situation.

We are never ever going to get a situation where we are going to be happy about every decision made and I think its loopy to suggest that no decisions should be made unilaterally either. There are situations where inaction is the great evil.

"This lost didn't even wait a few weeks. They never had ANY intention of keeping them."

They're a coalition with conflicting policies. Of course they can't all stick slavishly to all of their policies, that is possible. Or should they have said, "Well we don't agree on the economy so we'll just sit here and do nothing. Would you like to borrow my fiddle? Something appears to be burning."

Anyway, it's still a principle. If broken manifesto promises = lack of democracy it doesn't matter how big or small or when it happened.

If you don't like the current system, then stand as an independent or vote for an independent. There have been some highly successful results from this both on a council and general election level (campaigns to stop a local hospital being closed or Martin Bell kicking the Hamiltons out).

But we don't do this as its someone's responsibility to put an alternative on the table.

Or alternatively spoil your ballot. Spoilt ballot are counted and do get noted.

As for alternative electoral systems - don't see the point. They all have flaws. PR for example would give a greater voice to the BNP.

The problem isn't democracy itself. Its who gets involved in politics and who we allow to get voted in. We most definitely are not powerless and there are a great many examples to prove this. The problem is apathy and acceptance of the status quo as the only option.

So, you are all happy that the NHS continues to draw endlessly on the budget? That it employs only slightly less people than the Red Army in China? Do you not think that it is so inefficient because it is so big and unwieldy? Do you not think that were it to be reformed, (GP contracts?) and layers of bureaucracy taken out, that it might just make savings which could be used to further research or improve standards?

Take a look at other models of healthcare like the Belgian system for example; there is more than one model out there of how to run an efficient health system, and the monolithic and gargantuan NHS isn't cutting it at the moment.