The government could fall because of this issue and it's extremely arrogant to think otherwise. The problem is if there is a general election that the electorate could elect yet another hung parliament. All the main parties are not popular...
There's nothing "arrogant" about holding an opinion that this won't be an issue that brings the Government down. It was foreseen, which is why there's a clause in the coalition agreement allowing Lib Dems to abstain. Naturally a lot of LD backbenchers will rebel; but as per my post #8, even if the Government loses a vote because of it, so what?
In your opinion. In mine, it is a fairly reasonable compromise, given that the Lib Dems have no Plan B (well, they had a Plan B, but that got shot down in flames; not that this has stopped Labour from attempting to exhume it) - though IMO certain MPs would have done better not to sign such silly pledges in the first place. Opposing something for the sake of it when you don't have an alternative game-plan that's credible - we'll leave that to Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
And, in my opinion, I don't believe the Lib Dems entered into coalition government out of some honorable sense of duty towards their country. It was their first sniff of power in a very long time and an opportunity too good to miss, at least for those who would end up with ministerial jobs.
Fine, that's your opinion. However, since it is merely your unsubstantiated opinion, I'm rather inclined to dismiss it. Any reason why I shouldn't? After all, the easy, opportunistic route for the Lib Dems to take would have been to let the Tories flounder in minority government and reap the electoral rewards further on down the line, rather than go into a coalition that a lot of the party wouldn't be happy about (a comment which would have applied to a coalition with either of the two largest parties). Opposition is, after all, easy, particularly when you've had as much practice as the Lib Dems have.
Although, of course, there'd be the slight snag that the Lib Dems would have been well and truly condemned in the Press for taking such a course of action, with claims that they're not a serious party and not up to the job of participating in government...
Are you familiar with the phrase "damned if you do, damned if you don't"?
What exactly did they expect to happen in the long term? It is extremely unlikely that coalition government is to become the norm in British politics. We will soon be back to the usual system, and the Lib Dems will be back in opposition, their identity tarnished and confused.
On what basis do you consider it "extremely unlikely" that we'll see coalition governments in future - even as a matter of course? If you look at the general trend of voting - never mind short-term gains and losses, look at the trend - since the 1950s, support for the two largest parties has been steadily eroding over time. Liberals/SDP/Alliance/Lib Dems, Nationalists and "others" have been steadily gaining votes and seats at their expense. There's no data to support the notion that this trend is in any danger of being reversed - no matter what might happen to the Lib Dems in the next five or ten years.
Maintaining one's distinct identity in coalitions, in the public perception at least, is invariably a challenge - but so what? Such is the lot of third parties in coalitions.
What this situation does do, at least if things go according to plan, is slay a few sacred cows of political received wisdom, to whit: that the Lib Dems are Labour-lite; that coalitions don't and can't work in Westminster; and that the Lib Dems aren't up to the job of acting responsibly and taking difficult decisions at a Westminster level (yes, even if that does p--- off a lot of people who voted for them). Whatever one might think of those decisions, or of any climb-downs the LDs may have to make, or how the LDs fare in the polls over the next decade or so, I don't think the long-term value of that should be underestimated.
It's silly to dismiss the almost guaranteed catastrophic impact this will have for the Lib Dems. Whether you agree with the proposals or not and I, not being a fan of the administration, generally support them.
I do think it's odd that a report commissioned under Labour is now being attacked by them. I'm a Labour party member but I don't like this odd game of 'politics', if that's what you call it. Surely they wouldn't have dismissed their own report had they still been in power?
But besides all that to dismiss the potential for harm as "Labour sour grapes" or to sweep it under the carpet as an issue is ignorance to the point of delusion.
This is a HUGE issue for the Lib Dems. Potentially, one of their biggest. This isn't just a change in any old policy. When you see senior Lib Dems such as former leader Campbell saying he will not back any increase in tuition fees and current deputy leader Simon Hughes giving a strong hint on Newsnight that he would also intend to vote against the proposals should they recommend an increase in tuition fees, you have an issue that will quite probably in my view, through the parliamentary party into absolute unprecedented chaos of the kind it will not survive without being seriously fractured, if not permanently.
Argumentation by assertion. I put it to you that your assessment owes more to wishful thinking than to any real evidence.
Sure, it's a big issue for a sizeable body of vociferous (former?) Lib Dem voters - and granted, it's an issue on which a lot of MPs will rebel. But rebellions on single issues do not, in general, bring down Governments or split parties.
So what is this talk of "permanent fractures"? Tuition fees are not the Lib Dems' twenty-first century version of "free trade", and it's rather silly and alarmist to suggest otherwise. If the Government brings forward proposals and loses a vote over this, then it loses - why the drama?
The lib dems have always been vocal about tuition fees, its always been one of their most fundamental of policies & to see Cable go against it must have cut to the core for many. yes you'l get a few of the malcontents voting against it, but i cant see it bringing the coalition down, it may prove embarrasing for Clegg that a few of the parties 'grandees' have made for choppy waters, but then how many times have the tories & labours stalwarts been vocal when a much cherished policy or ambition has been given the chop?
To me the whole issue has been a fiasco. Instead of getting to grips with the sheer numbers going to university & getting it reduced & then getting technical colleges/polytechnics back to the fore for the skilled trades we need, they've gone down a path thats going to be of no benefit to anybody.
To me the whole issue has been a fiasco. Instead of getting to grips with the sheer numbers going to university & getting it reduced & then getting technical colleges/polytechnics back to the fore for the skilled trades we need, they've gone down a path thats going to be of no benefit to anybody.
I don't disagree with what you say but the problem is once the numbers expanded to such an extent under Labour and most of the unis were only too glad to go along with it how do you reverse that.
A policy that introduces a minimum requirement of say 3 good A levels or a 20% limit going to uni would now probably be impossible to implement so perhaps the only way is to let the cost of going and the likely long term rewards sort out the numbers.
Mithy I can't be arsed making long multi-quote posts, so I'll just respond to some of your points in one go
Firstly, my opinion on the Lib Dems' reasons for entering into coalition with the Tories are no more or less valid than your own. It's just an opinion.
Secondly, I base my views on the future of coalition government on the fact that we've only had a few in the last hundred years, and all but one - the current one - were a consequence of national crises.
Yes, voter apathy has been on the increase. However, I believe part of the reason for this is because for the last 15 years people haven't really had much to complain about. For the most part they've been fairly well off. The next few years are going to be 'interesting times' and once people are aggrieved they will be more likely to vote.
Support for the Lib Dems has slumped once again, precisely because people don't know what they stand for, especially after they joined the Tories. This in itself will probably reduce the possibility of another coalition government in the near future, but we have yet to see how effective Ed Miliband may or may not be in his role as opposition leader.
Mithy I can't be arsed making long multi-quote posts, so I'll just respond to some of your points in one go
Firstly, my opinion on the Lib Dems' reasons for entering into coalition with the Tories are no more or less valid than your own. It's just an opinion.
Indeed - and no reason whatsoever for anyone else to take yours seriously, particularly if you don't care to address rebuttals of that opinion. Do you deny that Lib Dems would be sitting easier with their consciences if they didn't have the inconvenience of having to take responsibility for Government decisions? Do you deny that any sort of arrangement with the Tories would sit uncomfortably with many Lib Dems? Do you deny that it would have been the easier route to sit on the sidelines, hug our principles close and not sully ourselves with Government?
Secondly, I base my views on the future of coalition government on the fact that we've only had a few in the last hundred years, and all but one - the current one - were a consequence of national crises.
That's also a matter of opinion: arguably the current one could be a consequence of a national crisis.
Yes, voter apathy has been on the increase. However, I believe part of the reason for this is because for the last 15 years people haven't really had much to complain about. For the most part they've been fairly well off. The next few years are going to be 'interesting times' and once people are aggrieved they will be more likely to vote.
It's not just about voter apathy. It's people drifting off to other parties: the SNP, Plaid, the Greens, UKIP, the BNP to name a few.
Support for the Lib Dems has slumped once again, precisely because people don't know what they stand for, especially after they joined the Tories. This in itself will probably reduce the possibility of another coalition government in the near future, but we have yet to see how effective Ed Miliband may or may not be in his role as opposition leader.
(My emphasis) - yes, in the near future. But that's a short-term view - the very thing you accuse the Lib Dems of. The trends have not changed.
Oh, and the Lib Dems haven't joined the Tories. They might be sharing a Government with them, but they're still a separate party.
I'm not sure why you're taking such an aggressive tone with regards to the validity or otherwise of my personal opinion.
Yes, it would have been easier for the Lib Dems to stay out of government, but self-interest got the better of them. In my opinion. And they will suffer for it.
I'm not sure why you're taking such an aggressive tone with regards to the validity or otherwise of my personal opinion.
Aggressive? No, I just think your personal opinion amounts to a load of pejorative nonsense that doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny. This is a discussion forum, and if that's what I think, I do believe I'm allowed to say so, and illustrate why.
Yes, it would have been easier for the Lib Dems to stay out of government, but self-interest got the better of them. In my opinion. And they will suffer for it.
There's little in the way of self-interest involved in joining a Government that is likely to turn out to be the most unpopular for years - and this, too, was known back in May. As for them "suffering for it", I am supremely indifferent to the short-term electoral prospects of the party going forward. Of course, given your insistence that joining the Government has nothing to do with the national interest, I don't expect you to understand that.
Again with the bitchy comments. If that's how you're going to respond to people there's not much point arguing with you.
Well, I'm sorry if you're apparently so thin-skinned that you can't take criticism of your opinions or forthright and robust airing of alternative viewpoints that contradict your own. Perhaps you would be better off not responding, indeed.
Well, I'm sorry if you're apparently so thin-skinned that you can't take criticism of your opinions or forthright and robust airing of alternative viewpoints that contradict your own. Perhaps you would be better off not responding, indeed.
I have better ways of wasting my time than arguing with someone who clearly got out of the wrong side of bed.
Aggressive? No, I just think your personal opinion amounts to a load of pejorative nonsense that doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny. This is a discussion forum, and if that's what I think, I do believe I'm allowed to say so, and illustrate why.
There's little in the way of self-interest involved in joining a Government that is likely to turn out to be the most unpopular for years - and this, too, was known back in May. As for them "suffering for it", I am supremely indifferent to the short-term electoral prospects of the party going forward. Of course, given your insistence that joining the Government has nothing to do with the national interest, I don't expect you to understand that.
Of course there's self-interest involved however short sighted it may be.
The 25 or so (not sure of the actual figure) Lib Dems now in government jobs and all the perks/privilege that comes with it was a very heady prospect for all those MP's who thought they'd spend all their political life on the backbenches shouting from the sidelines.
Indeed they put personal self-interest ahead of that of their own Party and it's principles.
Of course there's self-interest involved however short sighted it may be.
The 25 or so (not sure of the actual figure) Lib Dems now in government jobs and all the perks/privilege that comes with it was a very heady prospect for all those MP's who thought they'd spend all their political life on the backbenches shouting from the sidelines.
Indeed they put personal self-interest ahead of that of their own Party and it's principles.
Does not compute. The party wouldn't go along with it if it was just down to that. People seem to have amnesia over the fact that the coalition agreement was endorsed by backbenchers, Peers, the FPC and by the special conference consisting of delegations of ordinary party members. What's in it for them?
Does not compute. The party wouldn't go along with it if it was just down to that. People seem to have amnesia over the fact that the coalition agreement was endorsed by backbenchers, Peers, the FPC and by the special conference consisting of delegations of ordinary party members. What's in it for them?
They went with their leader's endorsement without realising just what they were signing up to.
Be interesting to see how well he's received at their next conference when realisation has set in.
They went with their leader's endorsement without realising just what they were signing up to.
Ah, I see. So the Lib Dems are a party of 25 Machiavellian oligarchs and several tens of thousands of activists - including councillors, AMs, MSPs - without a clue between them, nor any experience of coalitions, nor any knowledge of the party's history. Okay, thanks for sharing.
Be interesting to see how well he's received at their next conference when realisation has set in.
Ah, I see. So the Lib Dems are a party of 25 Machiavellian oligarchs and several tens of thousands of activists without a clue between them. Okay, thanks for sharing.
Nope, as will become increasingly clear in the next twelve months
Nope, as will become increasingly clear in the next twelve months
Forgive me if I treat your assertion with the total dismissal it richly deserves. Leading the Lib Dems is like herding cats; the notion that the delegates were somehow hoodwinked, bullied or cajoled en masse by Nick Clegg and his team into accepting the coalition agreement is comical.
Actually I take that back he probably won't be at their next conference as he'll probably be a fully fledged signed-up Tory by then
Yawn indeed. Have you actually anything constructive to say, as opposed to silly predictions? I thought this was a forum for discussing politics. Maybe I was mistaken.
Yawn indeed. Have you actually anything constructive to say, as opposed to silly predictions? I thought this was a forum for discussing politics. Maybe I was mistaken.
I've got to agree with what Bagpipes said earlier.
I usually enjoy the banter on here but your juvenile attempted insults are tiring.
I've got to agree with what Bagpipes said earlier.
I usually enjoy the banter on here but your juvenile attempted insults are tiring.
Ah, so you're prepared to stir the pot and make juvenile insulting comments of your own, but if someone responds, then they're the one making juvenile attempted insults. Riiight.
Comments
There's nothing "arrogant" about holding an opinion that this won't be an issue that brings the Government down. It was foreseen, which is why there's a clause in the coalition agreement allowing Lib Dems to abstain. Naturally a lot of LD backbenchers will rebel; but as per my post #8, even if the Government loses a vote because of it, so what?
In your opinion. In mine, it is a fairly reasonable compromise, given that the Lib Dems have no Plan B (well, they had a Plan B, but that got shot down in flames; not that this has stopped Labour from attempting to exhume it) - though IMO certain MPs would have done better not to sign such silly pledges in the first place. Opposing something for the sake of it when you don't have an alternative game-plan that's credible - we'll leave that to Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
Fine, that's your opinion. However, since it is merely your unsubstantiated opinion, I'm rather inclined to dismiss it. Any reason why I shouldn't? After all, the easy, opportunistic route for the Lib Dems to take would have been to let the Tories flounder in minority government and reap the electoral rewards further on down the line, rather than go into a coalition that a lot of the party wouldn't be happy about (a comment which would have applied to a coalition with either of the two largest parties). Opposition is, after all, easy, particularly when you've had as much practice as the Lib Dems have.
Although, of course, there'd be the slight snag that the Lib Dems would have been well and truly condemned in the Press for taking such a course of action, with claims that they're not a serious party and not up to the job of participating in government...
Are you familiar with the phrase "damned if you do, damned if you don't"?
On what basis do you consider it "extremely unlikely" that we'll see coalition governments in future - even as a matter of course? If you look at the general trend of voting - never mind short-term gains and losses, look at the trend - since the 1950s, support for the two largest parties has been steadily eroding over time. Liberals/SDP/Alliance/Lib Dems, Nationalists and "others" have been steadily gaining votes and seats at their expense. There's no data to support the notion that this trend is in any danger of being reversed - no matter what might happen to the Lib Dems in the next five or ten years.
Maintaining one's distinct identity in coalitions, in the public perception at least, is invariably a challenge - but so what? Such is the lot of third parties in coalitions.
What this situation does do, at least if things go according to plan, is slay a few sacred cows of political received wisdom, to whit: that the Lib Dems are Labour-lite; that coalitions don't and can't work in Westminster; and that the Lib Dems aren't up to the job of acting responsibly and taking difficult decisions at a Westminster level (yes, even if that does p--- off a lot of people who voted for them). Whatever one might think of those decisions, or of any climb-downs the LDs may have to make, or how the LDs fare in the polls over the next decade or so, I don't think the long-term value of that should be underestimated.
Argumentation by assertion. I put it to you that your assessment owes more to wishful thinking than to any real evidence.
Sure, it's a big issue for a sizeable body of vociferous (former?) Lib Dem voters - and granted, it's an issue on which a lot of MPs will rebel. But rebellions on single issues do not, in general, bring down Governments or split parties.
So what is this talk of "permanent fractures"? Tuition fees are not the Lib Dems' twenty-first century version of "free trade", and it's rather silly and alarmist to suggest otherwise. If the Government brings forward proposals and loses a vote over this, then it loses - why the drama?
To me the whole issue has been a fiasco. Instead of getting to grips with the sheer numbers going to university & getting it reduced & then getting technical colleges/polytechnics back to the fore for the skilled trades we need, they've gone down a path thats going to be of no benefit to anybody.
I don't disagree with what you say but the problem is once the numbers expanded to such an extent under Labour and most of the unis were only too glad to go along with it how do you reverse that.
A policy that introduces a minimum requirement of say 3 good A levels or a 20% limit going to uni would now probably be impossible to implement so perhaps the only way is to let the cost of going and the likely long term rewards sort out the numbers.
Mithy I can't be arsed making long multi-quote posts, so I'll just respond to some of your points in one go
Firstly, my opinion on the Lib Dems' reasons for entering into coalition with the Tories are no more or less valid than your own. It's just an opinion.
Secondly, I base my views on the future of coalition government on the fact that we've only had a few in the last hundred years, and all but one - the current one - were a consequence of national crises.
Yes, voter apathy has been on the increase. However, I believe part of the reason for this is because for the last 15 years people haven't really had much to complain about. For the most part they've been fairly well off. The next few years are going to be 'interesting times' and once people are aggrieved they will be more likely to vote.
Support for the Lib Dems has slumped once again, precisely because people don't know what they stand for, especially after they joined the Tories. This in itself will probably reduce the possibility of another coalition government in the near future, but we have yet to see how effective Ed Miliband may or may not be in his role as opposition leader.
Indeed - and no reason whatsoever for anyone else to take yours seriously, particularly if you don't care to address rebuttals of that opinion. Do you deny that Lib Dems would be sitting easier with their consciences if they didn't have the inconvenience of having to take responsibility for Government decisions? Do you deny that any sort of arrangement with the Tories would sit uncomfortably with many Lib Dems? Do you deny that it would have been the easier route to sit on the sidelines, hug our principles close and not sully ourselves with Government?
That's also a matter of opinion: arguably the current one could be a consequence of a national crisis.
It's not just about voter apathy. It's people drifting off to other parties: the SNP, Plaid, the Greens, UKIP, the BNP to name a few.
(My emphasis) - yes, in the near future. But that's a short-term view - the very thing you accuse the Lib Dems of. The trends have not changed.
Oh, and the Lib Dems haven't joined the Tories. They might be sharing a Government with them, but they're still a separate party.
Yes, it would have been easier for the Lib Dems to stay out of government, but self-interest got the better of them. In my opinion. And they will suffer for it.
Aggressive? No, I just think your personal opinion amounts to a load of pejorative nonsense that doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny. This is a discussion forum, and if that's what I think, I do believe I'm allowed to say so, and illustrate why.
There's little in the way of self-interest involved in joining a Government that is likely to turn out to be the most unpopular for years - and this, too, was known back in May. As for them "suffering for it", I am supremely indifferent to the short-term electoral prospects of the party going forward. Of course, given your insistence that joining the Government has nothing to do with the national interest, I don't expect you to understand that.
Well, I'm sorry if you're apparently so thin-skinned that you can't take criticism of your opinions or forthright and robust airing of alternative viewpoints that contradict your own. Perhaps you would be better off not responding, indeed.
I have better ways of wasting my time than arguing with someone who clearly got out of the wrong side of bed.
I'm fine - if anything, I'm bemused at your defensiveness over your own personal opinion.
Of course there's self-interest involved however short sighted it may be.
The 25 or so (not sure of the actual figure) Lib Dems now in government jobs and all the perks/privilege that comes with it was a very heady prospect for all those MP's who thought they'd spend all their political life on the backbenches shouting from the sidelines.
Indeed they put personal self-interest ahead of that of their own Party and it's principles.
Does not compute. The party wouldn't go along with it if it was just down to that. People seem to have amnesia over the fact that the coalition agreement was endorsed by backbenchers, Peers, the FPC and by the special conference consisting of delegations of ordinary party members. What's in it for them?
http://images.newstatesman.com/articles/2010//20100908_20100907_nus_photo_w_w.jpg
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Education/Pix/pictures/2010/10/14/1287054028232/Charles-Kennedy-with-pled-006.jpg
http://www.john-leech.libdems.org.uk/images/sites/82.165.40.25-434cd12e1751f8.09494781/186.jpeg
Doesn't that rather presuppose that the outcome of any vote is a foregone conclusion?
In any event, as I've already noted, most if not all Lib Dem backbenchers are expected to 'rebel' and vote no to any rise in tuition fees.
Lib Dem Ministers can't do that because, quite simply, the Government can't vote against the Government.
They went with their leader's endorsement without realising just what they were signing up to.
Be interesting to see how well he's received at their next conference when realisation has set in.
Ah, I see. So the Lib Dems are a party of 25 Machiavellian oligarchs and several tens of thousands of activists - including councillors, AMs, MSPs - without a clue between them, nor any experience of coalitions, nor any knowledge of the party's history. Okay, thanks for sharing.
Didn't people say that about the last one?
Nope, as will become increasingly clear in the next twelve months
Actually I take that back he probably won't be at their next conference as he'll probably be a fully fledged signed-up Tory by then
Forgive me if I treat your assertion with the total dismissal it richly deserves. Leading the Lib Dems is like herding cats; the notion that the delegates were somehow hoodwinked, bullied or cajoled en masse by Nick Clegg and his team into accepting the coalition agreement is comical.
Oh dear. <sigh>
Oh dear <yawn>
Yawn indeed. Have you actually anything constructive to say, as opposed to silly predictions? I thought this was a forum for discussing politics. Maybe I was mistaken.
I've got to agree with what Bagpipes said earlier.
I usually enjoy the banter on here but your juvenile attempted insults are tiring.
Now I've got to get back to work, Bye
Ah, so you're prepared to stir the pot and make juvenile insulting comments of your own, but if someone responds, then they're the one making juvenile attempted insults. Riiight.
I can only take so much hypocrisy. 'Bye.