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.)

Anastaisia - it is not the same thing that he said there needed to be savage cuts. All the parties said that. The problem is that Clegg has completely reversed his ideological stance on higher education. He hasn't just moved his stance slightly, it is a total jump from one side of the fence to the other.

And popelle - you are arguing semantics. David Cameron has gone back on what he pledged too.

I think one of the biggest problem is that some people percieved the Lib Dem to be some sort of susidary party to Labour. Liberalism is about having as smaller state as possible and as much personal freedom. Sice the orange book was published and particulary when Clegg took over as leader the Lib Dems have been moving to the right. Add to that economic conditions where reductions in spending are essential and unavoidable then we were always going to see deep spending cuts

Sorry - that point wasn't particuarly directed at the tuition fees debate and I should have been more clear about that. It was a more general comment on the way people are behaving about the Lib Dems and how betrayal isn't just coming up over this but almost everything.

I don't see it as a complete reversal - but I do agree after thinking about it more that you have a valid point about it being signed personally by individual MPs. I do still think that the coalition agreement arrangement to abstain is as valid in some ways; but I notice that at least 2 Lib Dem MPs who campaigned in university towns with an emphasis on fees have said thay are likely to honor the pledge; I assume that MPs who feel the pledge was a significant factor in winning their seat will be more likely to keep it? And the others will decide how to vote for themselves too, and there are bound to be huge changes in how people vote in the next elections based on many issues so perhaps some will loose seats over it.

Has it been mentioned that his reversal on tuition fees was well before the election, yet he carried on campaigning to say he supported the scrapping of them.

That is super disingenuous

here

Agree Vixel that Clegg is more right wing - and the problem not being with the electorate not understanding what he stood for - it was a deliberate tactic to mislead the electorate. The phrase a wolf in sheep's clothing springs to mind.

I don't think there was a deliberate tactic to mislead the public prior to the election. If you look at various speeches that he made since becoming leader he and other senior Lib Dems made no secret of their adjustment in political position. I think it was David Laws said that they needed to move away from soppy socialism and they have followed many principles laid out in the orange book.

- so do we Nick, so do we!

LadyBlaBlah - the reason Clegg campaigned on abolishing tuition fees (I'm talking about the manifesto, not the pledge) was that it was party policy. A Lib Dem leader has to campaign on quite a few things that they may personally disagree with, because they're party policy.

He and Cable tried to get the Lib Dems to change tuition fee policy at the 2009 autumn conference, but they didn't succeed. It's not "failing to stand up to the party", as LFN puts it - it's just the way the party works. Clegg has, in the past, managed to get the Lib Dems to change policy on the dropping of the 50% tax policy, for example, but tuition fees just weren't going to go that way.

Where I think he didn't stand up to the party enough was on the issue of the pledge. It shouldn't have been signed, IMO. As LilyBolero says, it doesn't even make sense assuming the Lib Dems got in by themselves.

That said, I think most backbenchers are voting against.

FWIW it was Charles Kennedy who got the Lib Dems moving towards more robust economic policies (mostly by dint of whom he promoted). The Orange Book was basically just written by Kennedy's front bench team at the time - the only reason Kennedy suddenly refused to endorse it was that he was a bit cautious and strategy-obsessed (IMO) and its launch didn't chime with something or other. Clegg on the other hand isn't the cautious type!

ok have just checked, and Kennedy did write the foreword to the Orange Book saying "I am delighted that this collection of essays sits so well within that tradition" (of radical and pioneering thought).... "not all of the ideas... are existing party policy but all are compatible with our Liberal heritage." etc. etc.

So Kennedy did endorse the Orange Book, but there was some fuss at the time about him not coming to the launch or something, I think b/c the suggestions in Laws' health chapter were being seized on by Labour as "wanting to scrap the NHS."

(and Clegg was an MEP when he wrote his chapter so not on shadow front bench)

vesela, I am not sure of your point.

He should never have done this if he didn't mean it. Or indeed if it was a shit policy with no means of realistically achieving it, he shouldn't have done it either.

I couldn't really care less about the rest of it. He was the party leader.

LadyBlaBlah - the thing is that the Lib Dem party leader has relatively little power over policy. He can't just say "We're changing our policy on tuition fees." He has to get a vote through conference, and that's easier said than done. I'm not saying Miliband has unfettered power, but the conference voting system is a key difference.

I wasn't referring to the pledge-signing (which I think shouldn't have happened, even if people say it relates only to Lib Dem policy).

Cameron isn't cutting universal pensioner benefits, because of the strength of his commitment before the election.

Economically he should, though politically it is a sound move - and if it keeps Labour out of power thanks to pensioner loyalty, it is worth the ideological compromise.

Clegg made a similarly strong pledge, and is breaking it. It is utter stupidity. The only saving grace is that the policy itself is (quite) good.

The Lib Dems deserve everything they get. It is the price they paid for being so sanctimonious and irresponsible, willing to sign any bit of paper flying around, before the election. If they want to be grown-up politicians instead of always carping from the sidelines, they should only make grown-up pledges.

See, for me the lack of integrity, values and ethics in the 'don't cut the pensioners because we need their votes' is horrific. What about the 'difficult decisions' they have to make?

You can't make a 'difficult decision' based on one set of criteria for one group of people (i.e. middle class don't need child benefit) and then completely abandon them for another set of people (i.e. middle class pensioners need the heating allowance)

Consistency and integrity again are compromised. He didn't, as you claim LFN, not cut the universal pensioner benefits because of the pledge he made. It was because of votes, as you also say (which is it?), and that is pathetic, sad and lacks a strength in conviction and a lack of leadership.

Politicians always make decisions that tend to be favourable to their core voters though don't they.

LadyBlaBlah If he hadn't been so unequivocal before the election, then he might have cut (or at least increased the age thresholds) for old age benefits.

It is a mixture of keeping pledges and maintaining the loyalty of a voting bloc.

The Tories have no integrity and no consistency. The vehemence with which they defended the cut to Child Benefit (which is a political cut, not an economical one - it is ammunition when they get criticised for cutting housing benefit, they can say 'we have made tough decisions for the better off) shows this - they refused to acknowledge the unfairness both within the policy (dual versus single income families) and between policies (HRT payers with children don't get CB, but millionaire pensioners retain WFA).

They should reverse the child benefit decision (which I believe was a LD policy, but so badly thought out), because it is a gross unfairness.