to think Nick Clegg has sunk to new lows during this interview?

[NotFromConcentrate]

Jeremy Vine has just played the audio of Nick Clegg's election campaign video during which he categorically stated no more broken promises. He then went on to outline the lengths Clegg went to to drive home his promise not to allow the raising of tuition fees.

Asked to explain himself, Nick Clegg said (petulantly) "Well, we didn't win". So basically he's saying "Thanks for the votes, suckers, but I'm not in Number 10 therefore you can whistle for whtever crap I promised"

Apologes for the lack of coherence, but I am still spitting feathers!

P.S. Be gentle; this is my first AIBU (I think!)

Sancti - Ta but no ta - one DP is enough work for me!

Santas- so is your issue with what he has done or the presentation of it? Does it really matter if the shiny PR side of it isn't great so long as they actually do the appropriate thing? New Labour spent far too much time worrying about how things looked - maybe if they'd concentrated on substance rather than style they would be less of a mess for the coalition to sort out.

He has lost all credibility.

A minor parry like the LDs was never going to win outright, so he could make all the promises he likes, joking he'd never have to fulfill them.

Why would anyone ever vote for him again? You'd have to be mad or simple.

Trixie New Labour did indeed spend too much time on that. Which is one reason why I stopped voting for them. I am waiting to see what happens under the new guy before I make a decision now. politically I am labour; doesn;t eman I will necessarily support the people selected to present that philosophy. Sadly whilst I am absolutely certain of where I stand ideologically, I find the people at the top of all aprties rather worrying.

My issues with Lib Dems are mixed- I accept they ahd to form the coalition, but I beleive they are going about it the wrong way. If they were vocal about what they beleived there may be a chance for their survival long term, but there doesn;t seem to be any element of criticising the Tory policies. Now, imo that means they ahve either become lapdogs to a philosophy completely different from that which they stated they held, or are simply too wet or too power hungry to go against their masters. Neither is an attractive option.

At the moment I have joined the Labour party becuase I think a new leadership is my best chance of being able to vote for and encourage policies I can beleive in, and people to deliver them that I trust. I don;t do blind allegiance though and will drop them merrily should I feel the need.

I also think that it's a damned shame we don;t have a system where we can recall our votes if the person we awarded it to compeletely turns coat on us. Ok so it would be unmanageable in relaity but in any business deal it would be breech of contract, and we coudl call in a solicitor or trading standards.

Collective Cabinet Responsibility stops Clegg,Cable etc criticising Tory policies though doesn't it.

Probably, but it's something that they could ahve addressed during the agreement making stage.

It doesn;t take a genius to say 'Whilst we have accepted a majority decision to do X Lib Dem policy remains that....'

But you hear far more from dissenting Tory MPs than you do from Lib Dem ones. I;ve ahd jobs where I have had to go with maj decisions but it doedn;t mean I stop arguing publicly for my beliefs, esp. before a vote.

And as long as they remain quiet then people will acccept that the Libs believe what they are doing, much of it being contrary to their policies.

Santas; yes, I'm sure it was hard; I don't get the impression that Lib/Lab negotiations were intitially pushed for by the Lib Dems; but by some of Labour. I don't blame Brown for steeping down either; and you're certainly right about some of the comments. I seriously dislike a lot of Labour policy but I think that people make criticism too personal sometimes.

I think the coalition have handled press pretty badly at times, but I also think that the press can be very selective about what they print. It has to fit a view. I know you'd saying you hear less from dissenting Lib Dems; but I think that's for a couple of reasons. Firstly is that they were consulted on the agreement, and it was voted through by Lib Dem MPs and representitives of the wider party. I don't think that the Tory's had that type of consultation and I think that makes a huge difference. Secondly, I think that there is quite frequently debate but the LD party has always had it and they have channels for it; the Lib Dem MPs won't go running to the press to complain - they'll table a motion for conference to have the issue discussed by and in front of anyone from the party who attends. And last, I think that it suits the press to portray the coalition a certain way to make better news. Angry betrayed students with one or two rebel MPs makes far better stories than 'MPs sit down with cup of tea to tell Clegg what they think of the Browne Report'

I'm also interested in the people who talk about voting 'for Nick'. I think it sums up something really wrong with our voting system because only the people in his constituency vote for him. We're supposed to vote for our local representitive, and their party should only play a small part in that - but for many reasons it doesn't. I didn't vote for my Lib Dem PPC because I liked Clegg in the debates. I voted for her because she's been very helpful in her local councillor role, she's engaged consistantly with the public, is involved in a number of local projects, and keeps contact in a variety of way with interested people. I liked the fact she was Lib Dem, because being Labour would have meant I couldn't vote for her after all the home ed/civil liberties rubbish from them. But I voted for her not her party. I also believe that if she had won she would have voted against a tuition fee increase. The proposals don't bother me much because I like some of them, but I accept LadyBlaBlah's argument that the fee rise matters because it was a personal pledge. But other Lib Dem MPs have said that they will keep their personal pledges. So constituents voting them back in wouldn't be 'voting for Nick', they'd be voting for an MP who was prepared to stand up for what their constituents want and for their own previously stated beliefs.

All I can say is that I am grateful to our current government. Why is that? Because I have tried to encourage DH to vote for years, and he wouldn't - said it didn't matter as the common person's vote didn't count anyway. But all the nonsense going on now has made him adamant that he will be voting from now on, regardless. Although I can't say he will be voting LibDem or Conservative......

the country's broke.

the refuse to raise it from the banks because they're too scared they'll bail out of the uk.
So the public services have to pay.

What would make sense is for fewer kids to go to university.

I know it's not ideal but we are broke!

If we were broke we'd have a sovereign crisis, a terrible credit rating, inability to borrow to help Ireland out...

So I think broke is a slight exaggeration as I'm sure history will tell us in time.

It would absolutely make sense for fewer people to do degrees and post grad courses. And also for businesses to invest in staff development (maybe encouraged by tax in some way?) if they need to.

It would make lots of sense to put back all the money that Labour took out of adult education too (far far less expensive than uni education ever was) - so that people could still do courses for personal development, to increase their skills, make them more rounded members of society etc. Maybe they could be partially funded by govt and partially by the students. Maybe universities could offer short courses in some language and humanities along with FE providers who've done it for years? So people who want to study something at a higher level for pleasure or personal use could do so without needing a whole degree and a load of debt?

I don't like it more than anyone else but we're got our asses hanging out the window worse than Germany for example.
We are borrowing massively which leaves our grandchildren liable for paying some of this off!

And if interest rates get out of control then we may have to default at some stage.

We appear to be afloat but our economic situation has weak foundations and we are very vulnerable.

We have to spend less as a nation.

I wish it hadn't happened. I wish that the banks had been properly controlled but the whole world turned into las vegas and there were no gatekeepers.

Interestingly the establishment will suffer but not as much as people at the bottom of the pile but it was always that way wasn't it?

What's terrible is that a Labour government did nothing to strengthen our foundations but spent like idiots, looked after their cronies and kissed the banks asses from here to kingdom come. I doubt Tony Blair or Gordon Brown will be worrying about university fees do you?

Yes I wish this didn't happen either. I do resent the exaggerated talk though.

As for our grandchildren paying off our debts - yes it's disgraceful although we only a few years ago paid off the debts we owed to America relating to WW2.

The problem I have with this idea of "fewer to go to university" is that it's always the poor that can't afford to go. Because the wealthy won't have problems paying their fees.

"Interestingly the establishment will suffer but not as much as people at the bottom of the pile but it was always that way wasn't it?"

So that makes it alright then? What an easy phrase to toss out there.....

were they exaggerating about Ireland?

It's all about confidence. We're being lent to at the moment but if interest rates get out of control then we are vulnerable aren't we?
These are massive loans!

But surely the whole idea of the 'fewer go' is that the government could afford to pay 100% of up to a certain number going. So they could scrap fees or keep them low.

I suppose the real problem is that universities have grown to accomodate a ridiculous number and suddenly cutting it would cost jobs and cause lots of waste of resources and space.

Yes it's about confidence - so they have to say the right things to maintain market confidence. And Ireland has to keep the low corporation tax because the markets are so important. But if we were truely truely broke, I think we'd be in deeper sh*t.

We are not Ireland.

It's a messed up system, it really is.

Triggles, I'm saying it wryly, I just can't believe how short sighted Labour were and how far up the city's backside Gordon 'prudent' Brown was.
I feel he and TB let the country down terribly.
He seems to have spent his whole time in power being a paranoid eejit rather than genuinely trying to steer our economy into safety. He seems to have cared mostly about being PM. And Blair gave him far too much power.
I can't get over that Labour let us down so badly.
You expect it more from the Tories at least!

The Tories are still up the backsides of the city I'm afraid. All politicians will be.

triggles- Amen to that, sister! good on your DH.

As for fewer people doing post Grads- arf. the board at the local uni are talking about only taking people with an MA or similar for courses such as PGCE, and they are far from RG / equivalent status. I've been advised MA is the best route into Social Work now, and teaching similar.

WRT to the sumbiong down though- I spent some time working evenings in a further ed college back home and can absolutely state the kids worked so much harder than my peer group around 1990. And far more was expecetd of them as well. OK so there are obvious drops such a science modules teaching at A Level what was once GCSE stanbdard but you can't blame the kids for that. And you cannot assume that if the game was raised soemwhat they wouldn;t be able to raise theirs either- my generation wasn;t thick, it was full of huge underachievers and social outcasts. And I don;t think the old nasty social norms I was subjected to, such as council house kids leaviong school ASAP and getting a shite job, should come back- ever.

Iggy when you here economists talk (and I know, how useless are they considering how they didn't seem to warn us about what was coming)
they keep saying we ain't seen nothing yet I suspect that's much more true. I think it'll take a generation to sort it out.

Longstocking - well, use a {hmm} for god's sake from now on - now I'm all riled up and ready to argue and nobody to argue with!!!

oops... a I mean... see? completely rattled now!

The economists don't really agree though.
If they were that bad, why are billions being wasted on reconfiguring the NHS (for example?). If we had no money then such things would be unaffordable, no?

no they don't agree but you can see where we are in terms of borrowing next to Germany for example. We're not Ireland or Portugal but we are vulnerable. We've only been given these massive loans on the understanding that we enact this cost cutting drive.

What is true imo is our education system is a mess partly because the establishment have always opted out so don't care enough about what the rest of us get. Our education system has been blighted by this for 100 years and it will continue and probably get worse. This just isn't going to change I don't think.

I think the scrapping of the grammar school system was a mistake but I also suspect the university road is not for the vast numbers who are now going.

There should be more options for higher education but it's so unloved by politicians they don't care enough about it.