Which doesn't say much about the intelligence of our students if they can't figure out that a party who came a distant third in a UK general election can't be expected to standby policies that were unique to said party and that compromises have to be made in coalitions or else the entire system of government descends into chaos.
Had the Lib-Dems won the last election by a majority and tsubsequentlyreneged on that pledge then fair enough, but they were never given a mandate to fulfill that promise through the ballot box so it, along with the entire 2010 Labour manifesto is just so much rubbish for the recycling bin.
I think they have every right to be annoyed. He did sign this after all.
Interesting she says that considering the possibilities of a Coalition. Labour surely must be able to comprehend that they may need the Lib Dems to govern?
Madness
Yeah well, if it's "madness" then both the beloved leader and his faithful pooch were equally guilty of it prior to the 2010 election, but then, it's quite understandable that some would forget those facts especially when the Tories set about erasing anything they said pre 2010 from history. but for those who may have trouble remembering back to under 5 years ago, allow me to be of assistance,
Firstly we will start with the deputy PM and warnings of the consequences of electing a Tory government, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiymCgwXDK0
quite an interesting little video,
[Clegg] "There's a danger of having any government lead by a party which doesn't have a proper mandate across the country trying to push through difficult decisions, I think a lot of people will react badly to that"....
[interviewer] But rioting in the streets? that's a bit much? [Clegg] "I think there is a very serious risk"
"Madness" when one realises he was saying this about his great friends the Tories less than a month before the 2010 elections, I am certain any 'reasonable' person would agree?
and what about the Tories? what were their views or attitudes towards being in a coalition I wonder?
Actually I don't need to wonder because my memory functions quite well, but for those who need it, here is a little reminder.
General Election 2010: Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition talks continue
Talks between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats over a power-sharing government deal have continued amid signs of tension within both parties.
(basically they were quarrelling about who was going to betray the people who voted for them the most)
Listen to the language being used,
Earlier, Michael Gove, the shadow schools secretary and a close ally of Mr Cameron, appeared to concede the possibility of the Lib Dems getting Cabinet seats as part of a deal. However, a senior backbench Conservative warned Mr Cameron that many of the party’s MPs would not support a formal coalition with the Lib Dems.
Graham Brady, a contender for the chair of the 1922 Committee of backbench Tories told the BBC that it would be better for the party to try to go it alone than do a deal.
Simon Hughes, a leading left-wing Lib Dem MP, made a public attack on the Tories and suggested no deal will be possible.
“The further you go away from the leadership the more unreconstructed they are,” he said.
“Our party has not seen the Tory party as the party of constitutional and political reform,” Mr Hughes added. “Therefore they would be surprised if the Tory party delivered these things”.
and yet, here we are 5 years later with a country sold to the highest bidder for the sake of a brief period sitting in the posh seats.
I was totally opposed to any possibility of a Lib/Lab coalition back in 2010, I wanted the Tories to go it alone, at least that way they would have been voted down on some of their nastier anti poor legislation.
However, come next May, if the only possible way of getting Cameron and his mob out of office is to cuddle up to the yellows, then HELL yeah, I will take that as a last resort rather than see that......... (insert expletive) back in number 10.
Labour support = predominately working class = we hate the rich
UKIP support = predominately working class = we hate the immigrants
Which one do you hate more?:(
Tory supporters = predominately either the very wealthy, or those who have been conned into believing that they are wealthy, and they hate the poor and the working class even more than the true blue aristocratic Tories.
There is a potential perfect storm coming for Labour in Scotland and no amount of pleading that somehow this will benefit the Conservatives will prevent that.
it's 25 with an 8% swing from RedTory to Independence candidates
Only three Labour seats are vulnerable to a 5% swing to the SNP; but then comes a tipping point. An 8% swing would cost Labour 19 seats – and probably Miliband’s hopes of becoming Prime Minister.
The Lib Dems were over the second the whole Student Fees thing happened. Their core vote was students. They will never get that back.
The Lib Dem vote was decimated within a few weeks of forming the coalition with the Tories. Support leaked away still further over the course of the last four years, but the tuition fees fiasco itself had little impact, at least directly, on poll ratings.
Their strongholds in the south/west country would have hated a pact with Labour.
People don't seem to understand that the LD have always positioned themselves as nearer Labour or Conservative depending on where/which area they are fighting.
You don't get the same LD across the whole of the country.
You think they would have won Winchester, when they did, if they presented themselves as "Labour Lite"?
The one thing that the last election did was to expose LD duplicity.
Overall the Lib Dems have always positioned themselves as a Left Wing party, whether campaigning in the north or the south. Support for them in the South West seems to have remained pretty much intact. A large proportion of their (especially tactical) voters believed coalition with the Tories was all but impossible. This must be why they lost so much support immediately after the coalition deal was struck. The mere fact that the coalition was formed between Lib Dems and the Tories may have guaranteed a Labour government next time, no matter what happened in the intervening years. The only Lib Dem "lie" that mattered was the image they created for the party before they entered government.
We all do. Much of the electorate does, anyway. Harman could soon be laughing out the other side of her face if the Scottish electorate do what they are showing signs of, and desert the Labour party in droves for the SNP. Their crime? Getting in bed with the Tories over the independence campaign. This may have been a pivotal mistake!
The Lib Dem vote was decimated within a few weeks of forming the coalition with the Tories. Support leaked away still further over the course of the last four years, but the tuition fees fiasco itself had little impact, at least directly, on poll ratings.
Overall the Lib Dems have always positioned themselves as a Left Wing party, whether campaigning in the north or the south. Support for them in the South West seems to have remained pretty much intact. A large proportion of their (especially tactical) voters believed coalition with the Tories was all but impossible. This must be why they lost so much support immediately after the coalition deal was struck. The mere fact that the coalition was formed between Lib Dems and the Tories may have guaranteed a Labour government next time, no matter what happened in the intervening years. The only Lib Dem "lie" that mattered was the image they created for the party before they entered government.
BIB
No they haven't, and no they don't round here. They present themselves as "nice" tories, that is all. A party for those who have spare money and get to feel all fuzzy wuzzy if they have a bit of a social conscience.
And, of course, they are the only ones who understand the "local" issues and concerns.
And as you say, their vote has held up in the areas where that is their image.
The electorate didn't vote for it insufficient numbers so he (like any other political leader whose manifesto gets thrown in the bin the morning after losing an election) aint bound by it.
That's simply how it is. People need to get over it.
Tory supporters = predominately either the very wealthy, or those who have been conned into believing that they are wealthy, and they hate the poor and the working class even more than the true blue aristocratic Tories.
we can all generalise,
.........and if you are talking about the electorate you have to (life long Liberal / LD voter btw if that dig was aimed at me)
The one thing that the last election did was to expose LD duplicity.
Of course they're duplicitous they are politicians. What could be more duplicitous for example than the Tories on the English votes issue? Or indeed Labour on the same issue?
The Lib Dems do of course have a slight excuse (though only a slight one) in that they have to compete in an undemocratic voting system that massively disadvantages them so have to do what they can to make up for this. The same voting system of course encourages most politicians to have policies they don't necessarily believe in but instead appeal to the most significant minority in marginal constituencies.
The electorate didn't vote for it insufficient numbers so he (like any other political leader whose manifesto gets thrown in the bin the morning after losing an election) aint bound by it.
That's simply how it is. People need to get over it.
That's how it would be were it a manifesto promise rather than a personal pledge. Indeed, it was kind of ASSUMING they wouldn't win, because otherwise there'd be nothing to vote against.
They will pay the price, the minute they got into bed with the Tory #### they were finished.
The funniest thing of all, is some of them believed the comforting from the Tories saying it was all going to be okay, the same people who today deny Lib Dem unpopularity has anything to do with Tory association..
Tory supporters = predominately either the very wealthy, or those who have been conned into believing that they are wealthy, and they hate the poor and the working class even more than the true blue aristocratic Tories.
we can all generalise,
Tory voters are either rich sadists or a sadist turkey voting for Christmas.
Yeah well, if it's "madness" then both the beloved leader and his faithful pooch were equally guilty of it prior to the 2010 election, but then, it's quite understandable that some would forget those facts especially when the Tories set about erasing anything they said pre 2010 from history. but for those who may have trouble remembering back to under 5 years ago, allow me to be of assistance,
Firstly we will start with the deputy PM and warnings of the consequences of electing a Tory government, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiymCgwXDK0
quite an interesting little video,
"Madness" when one realises he was saying this about his great friends the Tories less than a month before the 2010 elections, I am certain any 'reasonable' person would agree?
and what about the Tories? what were their views or attitudes towards being in a coalition I wonder?
Actually I don't need to wonder because my memory functions quite well, but for those who need it, here is a little reminder.
(basically they were quarrelling about who was going to betray the people who voted for them the most)
Listen to the language being used,
and yet, here we are 5 years later with a country sold to the highest bidder for the sake of a brief period sitting in the posh seats.
I was totally opposed to any possibility of a Lib/Lab coalition back in 2010, I wanted the Tories to go it alone, at least that way they would have been voted down on some of their nastier anti poor legislation.
However, come next May, if the only possible way of getting Cameron and his mob out of office is to cuddle up to the yellows, then HELL yeah, I will take that as a last resort rather than see that......... (insert expletive) back in number 10.
You quite right - there is so much hypocrisy when you look at the long game that is being played especially in the run up to 2010 election. Every party slating each other. However fast forward to 2014 and 4 years of a Lib/Tory coalition and things start to take a different turned.
With the Lib Dems and the Tories in a working coalition there is a relationship that has been established which makes things very interesting on polling day. In the event of a hung parliament all sides will use back channels and talk - that is obvious and was open season back in 2010.however what makes thing different, is that the Lib Dems (dependent on the electoral arithmetic) probably have an affinity to the Tories having previously worked with them.
Labour in publicly trashing the LD's, have the issue that Nick Clegg and high command in the party may decide to withdraw support from Labour and approach the Tories again. As mentioned this is all dependent the arithmetic on the night. Don't forget rumor has it that Ed Balls and Gordo rubbished the Lib dems in negotiations and hence they formally approached the Tories.
Hit the Lib Dems too hard and they may withdraw support or force Labour to form a minority government.
Tory supporters = predominately either the very wealthy, or those who have been conned into believing that they are wealthy, and they hate the poor and the working class even more than the true blue aristocratic Tories.
we can all generalise,
Are you two trying to out do each other in the guff stakes?
I'm pretty sure that the GBP don't think in terms of left wing or right wing. They have issues that bug them and that they want sorted. From the research I've seen many people traditionally seen as supporting left wing parties have a big problem with Immigration and Europe. Since the left wing don't appear to want to help them, it's only natural they gravitate elsewhere.
Fair point but how important is Europe & immigration to Labour voters compare to say the NHS, minimum wage & the hated bedroom tax?
Labour voters in areas were their party cannot win might vote UKIP to stop the Tories & Lib Dems.
Comments
I think they have every right to be annoyed. He did sign this after all.
http://blogs.susu.org/sabbs/files/2010/11/Nick-Clegg-tuition-fees-pledge.jpg
Yeah well, if it's "madness" then both the beloved leader and his faithful pooch were equally guilty of it prior to the 2010 election, but then, it's quite understandable that some would forget those facts especially when the Tories set about erasing anything they said pre 2010 from history. but for those who may have trouble remembering back to under 5 years ago, allow me to be of assistance,
Firstly we will start with the deputy PM and warnings of the consequences of electing a Tory government,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiymCgwXDK0
quite an interesting little video,
"Madness" when one realises he was saying this about his great friends the Tories less than a month before the 2010 elections, I am certain any 'reasonable' person would agree?
and what about the Tories? what were their views or attitudes towards being in a coalition I wonder?
Actually I don't need to wonder because my memory functions quite well, but for those who need it, here is a little reminder.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7700952/General-Election-2010-Conservative-and-Liberal-Democrat-coalition-talks-continue.html
09 May 2010
(basically they were quarrelling about who was going to betray the people who voted for them the most)
Listen to the language being used,
and yet, here we are 5 years later with a country sold to the highest bidder for the sake of a brief period sitting in the posh seats.
I was totally opposed to any possibility of a Lib/Lab coalition back in 2010, I wanted the Tories to go it alone, at least that way they would have been voted down on some of their nastier anti poor legislation.
However, come next May, if the only possible way of getting Cameron and his mob out of office is to cuddle up to the yellows, then HELL yeah, I will take that as a last resort rather than see that......... (insert expletive) back in number 10.
Tory supporters = predominately either the very wealthy, or those who have been conned into believing that they are wealthy, and they hate the poor and the working class even more than the true blue aristocratic Tories.
we can all generalise,
it's 25 with an 8% swing from RedTory to Independence candidates
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/22/its-make-or-break-miliband-unloved/
Overall the Lib Dems have always positioned themselves as a Left Wing party, whether campaigning in the north or the south. Support for them in the South West seems to have remained pretty much intact. A large proportion of their (especially tactical) voters believed coalition with the Tories was all but impossible. This must be why they lost so much support immediately after the coalition deal was struck. The mere fact that the coalition was formed between Lib Dems and the Tories may have guaranteed a Labour government next time, no matter what happened in the intervening years. The only Lib Dem "lie" that mattered was the image they created for the party before they entered government.
We all do. Much of the electorate does, anyway. Harman could soon be laughing out the other side of her face if the Scottish electorate do what they are showing signs of, and desert the Labour party in droves for the SNP. Their crime? Getting in bed with the Tories over the independence campaign. This may have been a pivotal mistake!
BIB
No they haven't, and no they don't round here. They present themselves as "nice" tories, that is all. A party for those who have spare money and get to feel all fuzzy wuzzy if they have a bit of a social conscience.
And, of course, they are the only ones who understand the "local" issues and concerns.
And as you say, their vote has held up in the areas where that is their image.
The electorate didn't vote for it insufficient numbers so he (like any other political leader whose manifesto gets thrown in the bin the morning after losing an election) aint bound by it.
That's simply how it is. People need to get over it.
.........and if you are talking about the electorate you have to (life long Liberal / LD voter btw
Of course they're duplicitous they are politicians. What could be more duplicitous for example than the Tories on the English votes issue? Or indeed Labour on the same issue?
The Lib Dems do of course have a slight excuse (though only a slight one) in that they have to compete in an undemocratic voting system that massively disadvantages them so have to do what they can to make up for this. The same voting system of course encourages most politicians to have policies they don't necessarily believe in but instead appeal to the most significant minority in marginal constituencies.
That's how it would be were it a manifesto promise rather than a personal pledge. Indeed, it was kind of ASSUMING they wouldn't win, because otherwise there'd be nothing to vote against.
The funniest thing of all, is some of them believed the comforting from the Tories saying it was all going to be okay, the same people who today deny Lib Dem unpopularity has anything to do with Tory association..
Tory voters are either rich sadists or a sadist turkey voting for Christmas.
That's not a generalisation either.
You quite right - there is so much hypocrisy when you look at the long game that is being played especially in the run up to 2010 election. Every party slating each other. However fast forward to 2014 and 4 years of a Lib/Tory coalition and things start to take a different turned.
With the Lib Dems and the Tories in a working coalition there is a relationship that has been established which makes things very interesting on polling day. In the event of a hung parliament all sides will use back channels and talk - that is obvious and was open season back in 2010.however what makes thing different, is that the Lib Dems (dependent on the electoral arithmetic) probably have an affinity to the Tories having previously worked with them.
Labour in publicly trashing the LD's, have the issue that Nick Clegg and high command in the party may decide to withdraw support from Labour and approach the Tories again. As mentioned this is all dependent the arithmetic on the night. Don't forget rumor has it that Ed Balls and Gordo rubbished the Lib dems in negotiations and hence they formally approached the Tories.
Hit the Lib Dems too hard and they may withdraw support or force Labour to form a minority government.
Are you two trying to out do each other in the guff stakes?
Fair point but how important is Europe & immigration to Labour voters compare to say the NHS, minimum wage & the hated bedroom tax?
Labour voters in areas were their party cannot win might vote UKIP to stop the Tories & Lib Dems.