I’m sure many of you, like myself, watched Vince Cable’s interview on the Politics Show last week where he denied breaking any promises to oppose a rise in tuition fees, with a certain feeling of discomfort. But now I think the time has come to discuss a change in narrative.
Lib Dem MPs and Ministers (including up until now Vince Cable,) have a reputation for giving straight-forward honest answers to journalists questions without coming across as evasive or revisionist. However, with the tuition fee pledge to deny a promise was ever made and as such never broken is not a line we are going to be able to sell to anyone with half a brain.
Meanwhile Ed Balls has been busy admitting Labour’s mistakes on civil liberties in a clear attempt to begin wiping Labour’s slate clean. Now this is not a line that is easily sold to political anoraks or activists, however the public like to see politicians humbled, they like to see them admit their mistakes and apologise. Once that has happened the process of rebuilding trust can begin, not before.
With this in mind, isn’t it time Lib Dem ministers conceded that they broke a promise on Tuition Fees for the reasons Vince stated in his interview? IE: Rather than say ‘no we didn’t break any promises’, admit that we did make a promise that we couldn’t deliver because a) we are in a Coalition and b) the financial mess Labour left us with.
Once we acknowledge that we have broken a promise, perhaps then we should turn the discussion to the promises we have kept. Things like: restoring the link between pensions and earnings, raising the personal allowance on Income Tax, ending child detention in immigration centres, abolishing ID cards database, delivering a pupil premium for schools taking children from the poorest families and things we are committed to doing as part of the Coalition Agreement like electing the House of Lords
using Proportional Representation, having a referendum on the Alternative Vote for elections to the Commons.
When we add up electoral promises kept as part of the Coalition Government and promises broken, the kept promises far outweigh the broken, and not just in areas where we had consensus with the Conservatives.
Its time to change the narrative, to admit we have broken a promise, to explain why and to start emphasising the promises we have kept. Then we can begin to rebuild trust on the Tuition Fees issue.
David Parkes is a Liberal Democrat Member living in the Canary Islands, where he works as a web developer. He is an occasional blogger and primarily involves himself in the party by supporting Lib Dem online campaigns.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Sausage company launches free rural bus service
Friends of Balgay event on Saturday! #dundeewestend
The "Just War" tradition
Our kids need a lorra, lorra, larffs!!
Merlene Emerson
Michael BG
Joseph Bourke
Matthew Radmore
Roland
45 Comments
Is this not what Nick Clegg did when he said sorry, we shouldn’t have signed the pledge and then said that at the time they did not realise there was so little money in the pot?
The only time this subject will die is when it has been voted on and had a few weeks ranting about whatever the result is and our position in that result. We can’t please everybody all of the time and perhaps on tuition fees we can’t please anybody anytime!
The promise hasn’t yet been broken, though it seem some of our MPs will and some won’t. You’re absolutely right though. Trying to explain away an obvious broken promise is a bad idea. Those who do break the pledge whenever the vote comes round should admit they broke it.
I think Libby might have already flown. Flown away when voters (and members) saw the pictures of Clegg and Huppert holding their NUS pledges. Not only have (personal) promises been broken, but it looks like Cable was trying to spin very hard to say that they weren’t…
https://www.libdemvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Huppert-and-Clegg.jpg
I agree David. The best course of action is to admit the error, ask for forgiveness, and act in an humble manner. I would advise against compounding the error by lying about the reasons for it. Claiming that:
a) we are in a Coalition – The pledge was remarkable, if only for its non-ambiguous nature. Voters already knew what the LibDem manifesto commitment was. Most understood that in the event of a hung Parliament the likelihood of getting a majority LibDem government was slim. The personal pledges were an insurance policy for the voters, that in the event of an hung Parliament, or either a Labour or Conservative majority, all those that signed the personal pledges would vote against any rise in fees.
b) the financial mess Labour left us with – The official analysis of the proposals are that this will not improve the current state of the nations finances, quite the opposite in fact.
Admit your mistakes yes, but don’t continue to deceive.
Before the election I regarded Vince Cable as one of the good guys, but no longer. His denial of breaking any promises to oppose a rise in tuition fees is laughable and reveals that he cannot be trusted to be honest and straight with the electorate. He has lost all credibility.
However, it would not be good enough to simply do as you suggest – “admit that we did make a promise that we couldn’t deliver because a) we are in a Coalition and b) the financial mess Labour left us with.” The first excuse is not valid because you should have negotiated the terms of the Coalition such that you could still honour your promise to the electorate (after all the Conservatives did not promise the electorate that they would increase tuition fees, so there was no fundamental conflict of promises) – the Lib Dems were not forced to enter into the Coalition on the current terms. The second excuse is not valid because, contrary to all the rhetoric from the Government, the extent of “the financial mess Labour left us with” was known fairly accurately before the election (as anyone who has followed the financial analysis on programmes such as BBC Radio 4’s excellent ‘More or Less’ will be aware). It was just that none of the main parties – Labour, Conservatives or Liberal Democrats – were willing to be totally honest before the election – they all wanted to win power and did not want to unduly frighten the electorate.
There have always been viable alternatives to increasing tuition fees (and to introducing the equally unacceptable ‘graduate tax’ – people should be taxed more highly because they have high salaries not because they have jobs that require university-level education), and these alternatives are still available (primarily funding from general taxation).
All Lib Dem MPs (including Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and others in the Government) should honour their promise to the electorate and vote AGAINST a rise in tuition fees. To merely abstain is not good enough.
I agree that we need to come clean. We also need to be clear that we are not able to keep all our promises as we are not the sole members of the Goverment. However we have got ourselves in a pickle. We have Vince Cable, the ministerial champion of the hike in student fees, saying that it is his instinct to vote for the increases but he may abstain . What good is that to anybody other than to show that we are in total disarray.
What is most worrying is that our credability as a principled party is in doubt even amongst those who actually support student fees. The only decent thing our MPs can do is to vote against the proposals.
Peter Scorer, Chair, Southwell Branch
One other thing David, related to deception and spin, child detention for immigration purposes has not ended, the practice still exist to this very day.
Prior to the election all I kept hearing was that Vince was the only one who understood the reasons behind the economic disaster and how to get us out of it.
Blaming Labour and saying you didn’t know how bad the situation was is as bad as the blatant U turning Clegg & his chums have done since getting a seat at the big boys table.
You pledged to oppose. Abstaining is not the same. Or is this like the definition of fair and progressive..?
You’ll see how angry people are when the referendum comes. Turn out will be less than 35% – but it will be a resounding NO.
The problem with trying to explain away this broken promise on the basis of there being less money than Nick and Vince expected is that it doesn’t wash.
It may be the case that because of changed circumstances they need to deal with the deficit more quickly, but it isn’t the case that the debt is particularly bigger than expected.
So it doesn’t make any sense that a long term funding issue – higher education – should be particualrly affected by a short term deficit problem.
the problem is that Nick and Vince appear to think the proposals are good in themselves, even though they are the opposite of party policy and what a clear majority of members and activists beleive in.
I think I understand what Vince is saying about not wining the election’ but Terry is right the Libdems should have negotiated the right to vote against a rise in tutition fees not just abstain. Vince was also placed in the position of announcing the policy, surely he didn’t have to do that, politically insane not just naive. The Tories have got the libdems by the short and curlies, perhaps the only thing Clegg and Cable can do is offer the Party their resignation.
“The Lib Dems were not forced to enter into the Coalition on the current terms.”
Well, quite. In fact, we should remember what our Scottish colleagues did a decade ago. They approached a larger party with the message that they really wanted to negotiate just one big concession, one that would make their part in a coalition deal look worthwhile to the wider public. They chose, er, tuition fees. Having secured substantial concessions in that one area, they let Labour take power. Like all coalitions, the result was a mixed press – but a lot better than the storm of derision we are experiencing now!
Is it too late to re-open our negotiation of terms? We would, of course, have to give a substantial amount of ground to the Tories, in exchange for a new deal on fees. But to coin a phrase, I would suggest that “Things can only get better”.
@ Leviticus 18_23
It is worth remembering that a referendum on AV was not in the Libdem manifesto, it has only ever been in the Labour Party manifesto.
“a) we are in a Coalition and b) the financial mess Labour left us with”
A) The trouble is the coalition is not the problem. This is about personal pledges made by individuals standing for office. It was obvious that the Lib Dems could not win the election outright prior to May. Coalition was the best those that voted for the Party (like myself) could rrealistically have hoped for. The wording of the pledge has no wriggle room, it does not assume the election was either won, lost or hung.
B) The financial mess has turned out to be less severe than projected by either Cable or Osbourne so this cannot be a reason either.
The pledge is about personal integrity not Party Policy. Those who break it will have damaged their integrity in the voters eyes and it will be raised ad nauseum until May 2015. The USP of the party was integrity, if the majority vote for the measure or abstain they have lost this. No more broken promises will prove to be the most repeated line in the next few campaigns, the trouble is it will be Labour repeating it.
The only apology that will even start to work will be one without caveat.
Hi David.
Liberal Democrats keep making this mistake.
it is not about the promises being broken being offset by the promises you believe you have kept. (And BTW – some of the pledges are still being watered down and reversed. An elected House of Lords? After Cameron + Clegg have just filled it with politically motivated appointees?) If that was the case – Labour would still be in power. Indeed – Thatcher would still be.
It is a matter of public trust – in the same way that MPs expenses were a great source of anger as the public believed they were being cheated. As Clegg, Cable + the others have abused that trust and been seen to ‘cheat’ the electorate – their credibility has evaporated.
The reason why Clegg has become Public Enemy Number 1 is because whereas Cameron has not been seen to backtrack – Clegg has willingly become the fall guy. And as for Cable? His current position is a resignation offence in my opinion.
@roger
Even stranger then, that Clegg and Cable may abstain on a policy that they both evidently believe in, yet will go all guns blazing in support of a “miserable little compromise” that neither believe in. New Politics?
“Ladies and gentlemen, I am your Liberal Democrat candidate at this election. If you are looking for a man of principle, a man of honesty and integrity, then I, er, suggest you vote for someone else.”
I’m sorry to say Clegg has fallen into an elephant trap of his own making – all for the sake of a poorly thought out policy.
Oops! Something went wrong there. Try again.
The problem isn’t the pledge – it’s that Clegg and those who negotiated the coalition agreement forgot about it when they were doing the deal – unlike Cameron who has kept his pledges to rich pensioners despite the nonsense of paying winter fuel payments to those elderly retirees who are comfortably enjoying their big pensions – which we equally cannot really afford given Labour’s mess
A promise is a promise is a promise. A partner cannot say to their spouse, I know I slept with someone else but I kept all my other promises! Er….that’s alright then. And not being able to keep a manifesto pledge is quite different as it is predicated on being in power alone. Every single MP has signed a pledge they CAN keep. OK, it may cost them a lot more to keep than they originally bargained for, but they can keep it. No one “forgot” about the pledge when they agreed to the coalition agreement, they just ignored it, thinking presumably they would get away with abstaining. Those trying to amend this at the special conference were blocked. Steve Way is right, integrity used to be our USP…….try saying that on the doorstep again!
All the reasons given by Cable and Clegg on the subject of Fees are perfectly reasonable and understandable to me. The new fees policy, with its amended pay back scheme, raised earnings threshold, new deal for to part-timers etc, probably is better than the current system. However, nobody cares. There is a total unwillingness for anyone to listen and the populace has found something to focus on in order to vent all their fury about politicians and the cuts in general. Clegg’s name is now a by word for duplicitous behaviour. Is this warranted when compared to all the lies and broken pledges made by politicians over the years? Or even compared to Labour’s two broken pledges on the same issue? Probably not. But that is now the case. The only real way forward is to back track completely on the Browne report and think of a new way ahead. That probably means the best of the new payback scheme and lower university numbers rather than higher fees. The Labour policy of massive growth in university attendance was always going to be financed on the back of the students themselves, hence the broken Labour promises on fees and caps. The Coalition should have gone for lower student numbers and encouraged the growth of quality HE qualifications below BA level -much in the way HNDs used to function. This will make the degrees more competitive and reverse ‘degree inflation’ and provide more appropriate, and cheaper, courses for those wanting a more vocational education. Initially, probably not that popular but something on these lines will be better in the long run and does not involve shoving higher fees down the throats of a population unwilling to accept them.
Change for you
End the trail of broken promises
Say good bye to broken promises
The liberal democrats will keep their promises, trust us, and vote for Liberal Democrats…
Well, well
Turns out that is not quite the truth after all…
Now you can put the head in the sand, and pretend it is not happening, or face facts and demand that the MPs do the right thing, demand that they hold to the honour and integrity they professed to have…where is the morality that the party portrayed pre election… gone with the broken promises.
You have shown to the electorate the true face of the party, and you know what!
It was all lies
Nothing you do now, will save the Lib Dems at the next election
Say good bye to broken promises…. Say good bye to the Liberal Democrats
Sadly this will turn out to be true, trying to blame anyone else, like lab is like peeping into the wind, at least face the truth
j
“The new fees policy, with its amended pay back scheme, raised earnings threshold, new deal for to part-timers etc, probably is better than the current system. However, nobody cares.”
Unfortunately people keep muddling up two quite different things: (1) The proposed rise in fees and (2) the changes to the repayment scheme.
Even regarding the repayment scheme, the more information that emerges, the less progressive it looks. The trouble is that Browne’s recommendations have been altered by Cable and Co, so that the “raised earnings threshold” is, in effect, going to be £21,000 in 8 or 9 years’ time, not £21,000 now, or even in 2012 (despite Cable’s own mistaken belief to the contrary!).
If you do the sums based on the expected growth of wages, that will actually be lower in relation to earnings than the current threshold of £15,000. So a strong argument can be made that new the repayment scheme will be a backward step even in terms of annual payments. And of course the large rise in fees means those payments will continue for much longer than under the current scheme.
Ok. Let’s leave aside that no matter who you try and blame now, your MPs made a personal promise to vote against any fees rise and your party had a manifesto pledge to abolish fees. That you said it was affordable in April – when we thought the deficit was worse than it turned out to be. And that clearly coalition government was the only way you’d get into power – so you knew that when you made the promises, and decided you would sacrifice the policy before the election (and before signing the pledge), as the Danny Alexander document leaks clearly show. And that you are now completely backtracking on them.
Let’s leave that aside and live in your amazing world of delusion..
Yeah, change the narrative man! And do what? Remind people that:
child detention continues under your government? (and, if ever replaced, will be replaced by dawn raids – how liberal and lovely!);
you used to say you would halve the deficit over a parliament, now you support cuts that aim to reduce it all in one parliament?;
you promised 3000 more police on the street – and then delivered 20% cuts to their budget?;
you attacked the Tories for a VAT “bombshell” you called regressive, and now back increasing it because it’s apparently progressive now?;
you said the pupil premium would be additional money, but have delivered it funnily enough with a package of cuts that mean it’s not additional?;
you wanted an immigration amnesty, and now instead support an immigration cap?;
you argued that AV was a miserable little compromise, and yet now say it’s a great democratic reform?;
that you used to say free schools are terrible, but now you’ll vote for them?
etc etc..
It’s not the narrative that’s the problem. It’s the policies. And in trying to think of ways to spin a narrative so people can’t see that, you’re the problem too. “New politics”? “No more broken promises”? Is your party a surrealist movement?
Wow – I’m overwhelmed by the responses this piece has generated. Thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts. I’m going to try and limit my responses to people who have directly addressed points I raised in my piece and leave it to others to engage in the wider debate. Sorry if I don’t manage to address everyone
@Jayu – whilst full legislation ending child detention in immigration centres is still to be brought in… I draw your attention to the piece in the Guardian by Tom Brake MP published earlier this month.
“…the number of children in immigration detention centres right now… is zero.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/16/lib-dem-child-immigration-detention
@Linda jack – I honestly hope that come the vote more MPs keep their promises on Tuition Fees, but I disagree that you should judge a person, or worse an entire party on one broken promise by a number of individuals. Have you been able to keep every promise you ever made? I certainly haven’t.
@Ian, Liberal Eye & steve_way – I think there has been a lack of foresight over this issue. From signing the pledge in the first place knowing a coalition government was likely to forgetting about it at the negotiating table with the Conservatives – its another aspect of the mistake I think we ought to (internally) acknowledge and move on from.
@Cuse – bang on! The Lib Dem ministers have been hung out to dry on this, hopefully when it comes to electoral reform the Conservatives will have their awkward moments too.
Whatever the spin this won’t go away after the commons vote or even after next years elections.
It’s only going to start to go away with a new leader.
Trust is like virginity. Once you’ve lost it you can never get it back.
Let’s not forget that any MP who votes against the Uni funding proposals is breaking the NUS pledge, which talks about introducing fairer HE funding. Any MP who signed the pledge is damned however they vote, because the pledge has two parts which are mutually exclusive.
@Dave Page
Sorry you need to check the wording of the pledge. It was to vote against a rise in fees and to pressure government for a fairer alternative. So not mutually exclusive at all only one half requires action on a vote.
If the vote was split they could vote against the fees issues and for the other elements. As it happens it appears the initial vote will just be in allowing the rise in fees which makes it even more simple…
Ouch.
“As the sixth-largest economy in the world, Britain can easily afford to fund free higher education through general taxation. In public expenditure terms, the UK currently spends just 0.7 per cent of its GDP on higher education, a lower level than France (1.2 per cent), Germany (0.9 per cent), Canada (1.5 per cent), Poland (0.9 per cent) and Sweden (1.4 per cent). Even the United States, where students make a considerable private contribution, spends 1 per cent of its GDP on higher education – 0.3 per cent more than the UK does.
The coalition’s decision to triple tuition fees was a political choice, not an economic necessity. We are still waiting for an honest explanation from Clegg.”
From “Nick Clegg’s dishonest defence of his fees U-turn”
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/tuition-fees-clegg-choice
@ Dave Page – it’s not though is it there is a rather big AND there it certainly isn’t an OR. Besides which if the higher threshold comes in so far down the line that inflation has caught up it is in NO way better than what we have.
I think it will be seen as hair splitting and disingeneous to start to talk about ‘well we couldn’t vote against because that would have been breaking our promise on fairer funding’. Basically I think the situation as it stands is beyond a ‘new narrative.
Everything the parliamentary party does to ‘look good’ as a collective group is doomed to just make things worse and give the appearance of panic and angst basically because they can’t look good. So far in the past week they’ve tried far too many narratives out in an attempt to extricate themselves from the situation. Its understandable. No one likes to be disliked quite so vehemently and there are questions of civil order, conscience, integrity and party unity involved. However a deep breath might be wise right now.
There is not a chance that Menzies and some otheres will not vote against. Clegg should acccept that and move on. Vince has to vote for. It makes him a laughing stock to recommend a bill to the house and then abstain. I wouldn’t wish that situation on my own worst enemy. Clegg should accept that and move on.
Given the above the parliamentary party is already totally split publically. Accept it. The attempt to create some false unity is making things worse and feedng endless speculation. Let the vote go ahead. By my reckoning it will pass. We should not then spend forever belly gazing. We can apologise later, just as Balls has, following appointment of a new leader and our own ‘blank sheet’ moment.
Oh, and by the way,if this were an ideal world I personally would prefer the MP’s to keep their word and vote ‘NO’ (with the caveat of Vince himself as he’s up the creek without a paddle right now) for all the reasons outlined in the excellent posts above.
There is a danger in all this endless speculation (and I’m as guilty as most).
Concentration on detail such as the threshold figures (the more I examine this – And @ Anthony Aloysius Street has done good work exposing this) the more incredulous Clegg’s claims and spin look. It’s important in itself but…….
Much more insidiuous is the way in which this party has signed itself up to a wholesale retreat on the fundamental nature of what higher education should be about.
I suggest all Liberal Demcrat MP’s have a read of http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n21/stefan-collini/brownes-gamble just to remind themselves of what is at stake here.
Is Brownes vision of higher education’s future really what Liberal Democrats want to see??
@Mary
“I think it will be seen as hair splitting and disingeneous to start to talk about ‘well we couldn’t vote against because that would have been breaking our promise on fairer funding’. Basically I think the situation as it stands is beyond a ‘new narrative”
The coalition could be up to something.
Last night on the news, they said on the 9th December, The MP’s are only voting on 1 part of the legislation at the moment and that is the £9000k Cap.
They will not be voting on the rest of the policies for another couple of weeks, The repayment terms and levels etc, Then there is another white paper to be produced and voted on early next year.
If this is indeed the case, and the vote has been split into different aspects of the policy, And if indeed, next Thursdays Vote, is purely on the £9k cap, Then MP’s should feel free to stick to their pledge and vote against the rise in fee, as promised in the manifesto and the personal pledges. (It will look even worse for MP’s if the vote is just about the cap, and they abstain)
Then in a couple of weeks time, when parliament votes on the other aspect of tuition fee’s, MP’s should feel free to vote for those proposals, if indeed they are a fairer than the current system
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11892634
“The BBC’s Political Correspondent Carole Walker said Thursday’s vote would be limited to whether to approve the £9,000 fee ceiling for 2012-3 and other matters would be considered in the new year – when ministers are expected to publish a white paper on the future of universities.”
“Let’s not forget that any MP who votes against the Uni funding proposals is breaking the NUS pledge, which talks about introducing fairer HE funding.”
This really is desperate stuff.
As has been pointed out already, the vote next week will be on the question of raising fees only, so slippery excuses of this kind are not applicable anyway.
But in any case I wish people would explain in what respect they think these proposals are “fairer” than the current system. I was pleasantly surprised myself by the progressiveness of Browne’s recommendations – particularly the much higher repayment threshold. But – as I pointed out above – in the modified form of the proposals that the government has produced the threshold will actually be lower compared with earnings than the current one. (Even compared with prices it’s questionable whether it will be any higher than the threshold was when it was introduced in 2006.)
So in what way are these proposals “fairer”? I wish people would back that claim up rather than just repeating it over and over again.
I keep asking myself where we went wrong, and in particular why we were happy to support the concession in the coalition agreement which has caused us so much trouble:
“If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote.”
I think the problem is that we trusted our leaders to ensure that the Government’s response to Browne was at least consistent with the pledges all Lib Dem MPs had made to vote AGAINST an increase in tuition fees. After all, the Secretary of State would be a prominent and trusted Lib Dem MP who had made that pledge, and any differences between the parties were to be resolved through a committee with equal representation from both parties. Again our representatives in that process were all committed to voting AGAINST any increase.
So now it seems we have a Government response to Browne. Well, actually, we don’t. The Government has announced that it will be issuing a white paper on university funding next year, and the leadership has not yet ascertained whether the outcome of that exercise is one that Liberal Democrats can accept or not.
The vote next week is therefore premature and should be withdrawn until there has been a proper debate on university funding and conference has had an opportunity to tell the leadership what it thinks of the proposals.
However, if the vote goes ahead prematurely, there should be no compulsion under the coalition agreement for any Lib Dem MPs to abstain. The party has made clear time and time again that the mere idea of tuition fees (and certainly the idea of an increase in tuition fees) is something the Liberal Democrats CANNOT ACCEPT. If our MPs want to retain their seats, and save our party from disaster, they must vote AGAINST.
“So now it seems we have a Government response to Browne. Well, actually, we don’t. The Government has announced that it will be issuing a white paper on university funding next year, and the leadership has not yet ascertained whether the outcome of that exercise is one that Liberal Democrats can accept or not.
The vote next week is therefore premature and should be withdrawn until there has been a proper debate on university funding and conference has had an opportunity to tell the leadership what it thinks of the proposals.”
It does seem remarkable that this vote is going ahead at a time when so much of what is being proposed remains unclear.
Apart from the repayment threshold, another important example is the system of maintenance loans and grants. Again, Browne’s recommendations were praised as more generous than the current system, particularly where students from poorer households were concerned. But the government’s modified proposals appeared to be much less generous – another example of Cable’s department (presumably in the form of David Willetts) modifying Browne’s recommendations to make them _less_ progressive, not more.
The description of these arrangements given to parliament was sketchy, and ambiguous in some respects. I haven’t seen any clarifications since. Even apart from the level of fees, how can MPs judge the acceptability of the scheme when so many aspects of it remain vague and undefined?
I think it is quite plain to see what the coalition is up to here.
By splitting the vote into 2 parts. Next Thursdays vote on raising fees cap to £9k, they are hoping that Liberal Democrats, will Abstain on this part vote, Which will still allow the conservatives to get the policy through
Then the 2nd vote to take place early next year on the rest of the proposals, Repayment terms etc, The coalition Government hope that Liberal Democrats will see this as delivering a fairer system and so will vote in favour of the policy.
The Government will then try to claim that they have full coalition support for the changes to University Funding and Rise in Tuition Fee’s
*Liberal Democrat MP’s BEWARE!
Bringing forward the vote to next Thursday and by splitting the vote into 2 parts is not going to make this any easier for those of you who signed the pledge. In fact, It has made it more difficult for you to Abstain.
Your pledge was to oppose any rise in tuition fee’s, and since that is all you are voting on next Thursday, you should honour that part of the pledge.
Come next year when the rest of the proposals are put forward for Repayment terms, Maintenance grants etc, you will be free to vote with your conscience on whether you believe that is a fairer system.
matt
To be honest I think it’s more a question of trying to get the crucial vote over as soon as possible for the sake of the Lib Dem leadership. It’s obviously going to be some time before the details of the whole scheme can be voted on. The thought of the NUS campaign continuing for months must horrify Clegg and Cable.
But the price of getting it over quickly is that the issue is more clear-cut than it would be if it could be muddled together with the arguments about whether the repayment scheme is fairer.
@David
You may draw my attention to anything written or said by a LibDem MP, that doesn’t mean I have to believe a single word they say. Until legislation is brought in the policy still remains. It makes absolutely no difference, in principle, whether the numbers held is zero, one, or one followed by an infinite number of zeros. Would you claim control orders had been ended if all those subject to one had theirs lifted, but the policy remained?
I don’t want to offend, but I doubt this can be mended simply by saying ‘oops, butterfingers’. I’ve voted Lib Dem since the 90s, but the perception of honesty is key. f the promise had come from other parties known to have a flexible attitude to truth, few would’ve expected it to be kept. By contrast, I believed that the Lib Dem candidates had signed a ‘pledge’ and the candidates would do what they said on that issue*. Mea culpa, feel free to point and laugh, but my local Lib Dem (David Heath) seems a decent and honest guy. I feel like an old woman explaining how the fraudster got her money, “But he seemed like such a nice lad!” I The more Lib Dems squirm (‘It’s fair. Honest. We’re not explaining how it’ll work for part-timers and mature students. Fibbing about the details? Think of the deficit!’) the worse it gets.
In all seriousness: how should voters react to dishonesty? Reasonable suggestions welcome (no trolling please). Either the LDs follow their word, or they don’t; if they don’t, why bother voting? Why not vote for whatever looks most obviously satirical, on the basis that all parties are untrustworthy? I feel for the difficult predicament that Heath and others are in, but why and how does one choose between candidates if you can’t trust them? (True, it’s almost worth it just to annoy Annunziata – but is ‘more agreeable’ really motivation enough? Is it any better than voting for the best hairstyle, the tallest, or the one with the funniest marketing?)
* Yes, coalitions mean compromise. On virtually any issue that wasn’t backed up with a signed personal pledge, it’s quite acceptable for Coalition policy to differ from Lib Dem policy. But if promises mean nothing to any politician, then naive as this question is: what are we voting for?
@Anthony Aloysius St
“To be honest I think it’s more a question of trying to get the crucial vote over as soon as possible for the sake of the Lib Dem leadership. It’s obviously going to be some time before the details of the whole scheme can be voted on. The thought of the NUS campaign continuing for months must horrify Clegg and Cable.”
Your probably right, i just don’t see how Nick Clegg and Cable can come back from this to be honest, It seems to me the only viable option is for both of them to resign.
Other Liberal Democrat Ministers should really be considering their positions within government as well.
For example Jeremy Browne, He became an MP in 2005, and worked as Liberal Democrat spokesman for Home Affairs. He has voted against control orders every year since becoming an MP. He is now Minister of State at the Foreign Office. If he votes in order to keep control orders it would be an absolute outrage, The same if he votes in favour of 14 days detention without charge with the option to apply for further 14 days extensions with harsh bail conditions. For him to make a complete U-Turn, would be seen as bad as Cables fumblings with tuition fee’s.
It would surly be better to resign as minister now and take a back bench seat and keep your integrity.
The same advice would be for Chris Huhne , Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, For him to be promoting polices for 8 New Nuclear Power stations, Which goes totally against the parties policies with regards to nuclear power, Then have him essentially abstain on his own policies, will again be as ludicrous as Cable.
Liberal Democrats need to recognise that they made mistakes in the coalition agreement, especially taking Ministerial Jobs in positions which where going to make the party look bad.
Surely the best outcome for the Liberals would be to resign as Ministers, and salvage some credibility for themselves and for their party.
Clegg & Cable have to go.
As time will show to those who don’t yet understand. Tuition fees will cost more not less – certainly upfront and possibly in the medium-long term with non-repayers (both English and EU students). The HEPI report and others demonstrate this clearly.
This won’t be over with a swift vote. Devolution will make sure the inequity is felt long afterwards (every time English & Welsh students sit side by side in a lecture theatre) and when the bills come in.
The narrative of betrayal will never leave Clegg & Cable. The polls will continue to decline until the party rediscovers its core beliefs. All Clegg & Cable will manage to do (perhaps with a coupon agreement) is to keep the Tories in power.
Clegg and Cable have to go.
I don’t think that some people on here quite see the depth of the problem. Firstly, and most obviously, any claim that the party ever had to being, ‘different,’ and, ‘better,’ is now in tatters. I do not like the brand of politics where every issue is viewed through a single lens (and yes, I was uncomfortable reducing everthing about New Labour to Iraq), but it is here to stay and Lib Dems can not expect to be exempt. Nick Clegg in particular has nowhere to hide.
Secondly, there is nothing odd as such about going back on a manifesto promise. The Tories did not have a problem ditching their commitment on inheritance tax. But the personal nature of this does absolutely entitle voters to feel let down. If the party is going to make personal promises (often in the media) then that is necessarily going to distort the nature of Coalition politics. One can only wonder if anyone asked the tories or Labour if this promise was one that they could sign up to. If not, well that is just shabby.
Third, every time a student looks at the fees, this will be thought of as the Cable system. This is not going to go away following a vote and a sheepish apology.
But fouth is perhaps the most worrisome. On a strict definition, the proposals ARE progressive. The poor bear a relatively lesser share than the rich, just the overall burden soars. This, by the way was how Labour called losing 10p tax bands progressive. If this is the idea of progressive that the Coalition (as opposed to the party leadership) has then this is the first of many of these battles.
It may not be fair that the voters are taking this out on the party. But then the Tories quite frankly did not make a copper-bottomed promise. But what I am starting to worry about is how this is ever going to end. Best case – the economy improves over the next two years, the banks reign in bonus payments and make real repayments and the Lib Dems get some credit. Worst case, the Tories look at the polls, notice that they may well be able to win an outright majority and cash it in, leaving Ed Milliband to pick off Lib Dem candidates. Worrying times.
I’m one of those Joe Public, not very interested in politics, a Lib Dem voter who thought that I was voting for ideals in a democracy…. Probably my views are not actually of much interest to the average person on here who will see them as nieve… but this is how the majority of us who vote view democracy.
I agree that it is trust you have lost, we who vote see no grey areas, you didn’t do what you said you would… thats the issue.
Quite simply, you play politics, we live with the consequenses. In a country where it is hard to get the population to turn out to vote now, I expect that this will further alienate the potential voter. We are fed up with being taken granted for, we are fed up with with being unable to change anything, we are fed up with being ‘little people’ who views don’t count, because all the politician ignore us any way… so telll me why should I vote next election?