Really really fed up of the 'we didn't win the election' argument, particularly with respect to tuition fees

[LilyBolero]

This is all I hear from the Lib Dems; "We didn't win the election, we are in a COALITION, we can't implement all of our manifesto."

I accept that. But each of the MPs DID win their constituency election, and that was where they campaigned on a ticket of " I promise "...(note, not "The LibDems will abolish fees)..." to VOTE AGAINST any rise in tuition fees ".

I read that as a PERSONAL promise, not a manifesto promise. If my kids say "I promise to tidy my room today" that means they will do it, it's not dependent on whether their new best friend does or not.

And if the LDs had won the election, there wouldn't have been a vote in which to vote against a rise, as they would be implementing their manifesto to abolish them (I'm being generous here). So the pledge would have been meaningless.

Phil Woolas has lost his seat for campaigning and winning votes based on lies. Shouldn't the LDs who vote to treble fees therefore have to fight their by-elections again (particularly those in university areas - one LD beat Charles Clarke by only 130 votes, student votes may well have made ALL the difference there.)

I think people are too harsh on the Liberals, they are very much the junior partner in the coalition so you've got to accept that there will be more Tory policys than Liberal ones. They are getting some of their policies implemented which gives some degree of satisfaction to Liberal voters.

"Why are we wasting time on the Bill for AV cos AV isn't going to happen. The country was never interested and will only use the vote as a way to kick the LibDems where it hurts."

Actually; reasonably sensible polls say that the no change and the yes to AV voters at present are pretty equal. So it could depend on if the people who would prefer a better type of PR accept AV as a step or not.

I'm also suprised that there is a total acceptance that it's fine for Labour to campaign against AV, despite running on a manifesto that supported it; but when the Lib Dems change something, like tutition fees, they're the enemy of the people or something? How does that work exactly? Is it okay because Labour didn't get a majority? Because ummmm, Lib Dems didn't either?

I think that some Lib Dem MPs will vote against tution fees - some have already said they will; in 'personal' capacity because as you say it was a personal pledge. Why not wait for the talk of betrayal and all that(obviously all the while making sure MPs are aware that you don't support the tutition fee cap lifting) until a. you see some actual legislation and know what they're going to be voting on, and b. until someone actually breaks the pledge they made.

I agree with Lily totally on this

My only fear is that Clegg has simply become the Tory whipping boy. The Tories have positioned Clegg, Alexander and Cable to take the flak while they ride roughshod over everything they touch, without a second glance or much criticism. This whole line of Clegg attacks is relevant but I see it diverting attention away from the hideousness that is the Tory policy.

Nick Clegg needs to go back to A Level politics and open his eyes to how he is being shafted good and proper

I actually don't think Clegg cares. He could swap over to the Tory party fairly easily, Dave would find him a safe seat. Cable - no idea what is motivating him. Danny Alexander really is a whipping boy. But I have lost respect for him over the forests - he is campaigning to save the Scottish forests from being sold off (he is a Scottish MP), whilst.....selling off the English forests. Because apparently 'it's a devolution issue, innit'.

I think the hatred of Clegg will be whipped up so much that even the Tories won't have him

I guess that may be true. He has contrived to make the LDs unelectable though - in our area their entire campaign was based on 'a vote for LD is the only way to keep the Tories out'.

Ours too - the LDs only got in because of that line of campaigning

And it will be interesting to see how they differentiate themselves from the Tories at the next election / by election. They have made a massive ideological leap in the pursuit of power and are finished, but it lets the Tories off scott free.

I don't think the Liberals have made themselves unelectable, the next election will depend on how the economy performs and if we're being honest no-one knows what impact the cuts will have on the economy. Clegg has gambled, if the cuts and the coalition is successful then it could boost the liberals to their former glories, if it fails then it could be the end of them

hmm, I'm not sure the Tories are getting off scot-free - because they are simply acting like Tories. Tory supporters will support the proposals, Labour supporters will oppose them. But the LIbDems will be hammered because it is LibDems who are being a part of implementing these policies, having campaigned on a much slower and shallower range of cuts. So people who voted LibDem will have to ask themselves what they voted for - and in future elections may choose to vote for a different party that better represents them, because the LDs have proved they cannot be trusted to hold a position.

I don't see it being about results. It is about integrity. Clegg has proven he has none and hence is he is unelectable

popelle - you see, I think if the coalition is successful economically, that will gain votes for the Tories, not for the LDs. It is too easy to put together a campaign of Nick Clegg saying one thing and doing another - they will not be able to hold their heads up and argue honesty and integrity.

I agree Tory supporters will support the proposals, etc, however I think the Clegg bashing is a helpful diversion for the Tories from the disastrous policies they are implementing, for example, in introducing elitism in education and letting market forces rule the NHS creating massive postcode differences and the erosion of universal healthcare.

I totally agree with LilyBolero on everything she has said.

You expect the tories to be like they are being - but the way that snivelling Nick Clegg has capitulated is disgusting. Mind you I have always disliked the liberals, nasty party, useless people.

I probably would vote 'no' to vote reform.

You see I think if we get an economic recovery then the liberals will be seen as having acted in the national interest and will be forgiven for things that they may have gone back on.

I think people remember liars. And never quite see them in the same light again.

I don't remember the tories saying they would increase tuition fees threefold and scrap child benefit for the middle classes in their manifesto.

Both lib dems and tories have brought in unpopular policies which were not in their manifestos but all the public anger seems to be being targeted at the lib dems. Why?

If the lib dems get fewer votes the tories will get more seats and an outright majority. Is this what everyone on this thread wants?

I'm really cross with the lib dems but also cross with the tories and was not happy with labour either. I've no idea who I will vote for next time.

Add increase VAT to that also miffy

Clegg is being well and truly shafted. I imagine Osbourne is behind it.

LadyBlaBlah I don't think any of the partys ruled out not increasing VAT. The real problem I think is that none of the partys were honest and realistic about the extent of the measures needed to eliminate the deficit in either their manifestos or the election campaign. Thats why we've got the coalition implementing so many policies that weren't in their manifesotos and the Labour Party who appear to have no plans on what to do either.

VAT increase ruled out by David Cameron here

He says we have no plans to raise VAT, that isn't ruling it out

I broadly agree with popelle, Clegg has gambled everything but if we're being honest it was probably the right thing to do. The chances of a Lib Dem majority Government were close to nil and at least by entering into a coalition they are showing that they are capable of governing. The decision the Lib Dems had to make was whether they were in politics to govern and implement some of their ideas and policies or whether they were a glorified pressure group shouting from the sidelines of opposition. Its a risk and could lead to their wipeout but what did they have to lose really.

I think we need to accept that a Lib-Con coalition was the only real option given the election result in May. We face one of the countrys greatest economic challenges and we needed a strong and stable Government in order to deal with them. The Government is going to implement policies that a lot of people don't like but what alternative is there, we can't bury our heads in the sand and hope it will go away because it won't. The real mistake was getting ourselves into this mess in the first place.

He should have made the tuition fees non-negotiable though. Had he said "I'm not compromising on that, we won't push for abolition of fees, but LDs will vote against any increase, as we promised to the students", then they would have been able to show they could govern AND retain some measure of integrity.

As it is, at the time Clegg signed the pledge, and made videos for students talking about the 'disaster' of raising fees, he was signed up secretly to raising them as part of a coalition.

The man wouldn't recognise truth if it bit him on bottom (and I wish it would!).

You guys do remember that Clegg called for
'savage cuts' pre-election don't you?

September 2009

November 2009

I sometimes think that a lot of people who claim to have supported the Lib Dems prior the coalition might not have actually read and understood their policies in detail. Not everyone, and there are things that I have concerns about too. But they do have common ground with the Tories, just as they have common ground with other parties in other area's. But they aren't an annex of either.

Has the Browne review not reported that a rise in tuition fees is needed in order to sustain higher education funding. The Liberal Democrats problem is that the policy of abolishing/not increasing tuition fees was not a sensible one particulary given the fiscal constraints that we currently have.