Farage & Russell Brand

Sorry, did you not read the rest of my comment? The bit about the OBR saying that Darling's economics would have been better for the country than Osborne's has been.

I said you have been taken over, but not by politics. By business-speak, just like many others have been. What's wrong with plain in the future, instead of going forward?

Have certain phrases become owned by politics durahamjen. How weird. I have used that phrase in business for years.

That little nonentity of a comment was pure obfuscation as you made no attempt to answer my comments but just went off on a tangent about how I write (speak).

"George Osborne’s failure to bring down the deficit as he first predicted poses a problem for the Tories: the figures show that Alistair Darling could have done as well or even better with much less austerity."

Except in the Guardian.

"Going forward"? You really have been taken over, gracesgran.

The office of budget responsibility says that the economy would be in a much better state if the government had gone along with Alastair Darling's lighter control. Strange that not much has been made of that in the media.

Pogs do you really believe that student fees are going to be the most important thing going forward?

Clegg would have been more honourable if he had not agreed to go into coalition with either party.

So you would not have minded if the economy collapsed durhamjen. It was certainly on the cards. With a minority government the majority opinion was that we would not get our loans at the rates we did, we would have had even more problems and you would probably seen Labour walking through the "yes" lobby backing cuts - including a change in the student fees - that you could previously not contemplate, just so we could survive.

As for whether the Conservatives would have agreed to any demands the LibDems made as a condition of their support, who knows, but you'd think they could have given it a try.

Neither you nor I can know if they did or not Ana. The assumption that they didn't is one that I feel (personal I know) stretches credibility. The Lib Dems - unlike the Conservatives - put the agreement to a vote of their MPs. I think they would have had to explain to them the ins and outs if the negotiations re the student fees and it would have to be obvious to them of the negotiators had any chance of getting this as part of the deal. As MPs have very little power most of the time I don't think they would have hesitated to use it if they felt they could have got a better deal by voting "no". As it was I think they did get a disproportionately high level of Lib Dem policies through and held back some of the most extreme Conservative ones (so far - who knows what is to come). As politics is the art of the possible I think they did well. If they had not made a pledge it would have been fine. But as I said, if you (one) are a voter to whom only that mattered you probably would not be voting for them this time round anyway.

Hyperbole - you said "you know that the Conservatives would have agreed to anything". This is simply not true; it is not a fact and, as it is a statement used to "evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally" (because we have no way of knowing), it is hyperbole.

Since the Coalition has been in government, Labour have said they would not have raised tuition fees and we all know the Lib Dems continue to say University education should be free/tuition fees abolished.

Question.

If Labour win the next election does that mean they will go back to the same tuition fee charges which were in place when they lost the last general election?

If the Lib Dems get into power will they end tuition fees ?

If neither of them do as they have said they would have done, won't the voter/public consider them both with the same distain as the Lib Dems are suffering at the moment ?

It will be interesting to see how much is made of reversing tuition fees in the Labour Manifesto and if the Lib Dems manifesto still adheres to abolishing tuition fees altogether. If they don't put their money where their mouth has been I think the toxic matter of tuition fees will haunt them both after the next election if they get into power.

I would like to know where Messrs Balls and Alexander will fund their stance on tuition fees or will it simply be a case of Universities getting less money from central government, one of those scenarios will have to take place surely.

Well, the latest Ukip candidate has just resigned, so maybe Hamilton will get his chance again.
I have just read that the government has managed to slide through an increase in the amount each party can spend in the runup to the next election without any other party noticing.

Clegg would have been more honourable if he had not agreed to go into coalition with either party. The Tory party would have had a minority government, but Clegg could then have sided with Labour on tuition fees and stopped the government from doing what it has done to the NHS. As it is, it has been seen to be in agreement with the Tory party on those and many other issues, for which it will not be forgiven for a long time.

I agree that it was highly unlikely that the LibDems would have formed an alliance with Labour, Gracesgran, but they had to be seen to be going through the motions.

As for whether the Conservatives would have agreed to any demands the LibDems made as a condition of their support, who knows, but you'd think they could have given it a try.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'hyperbole' in the context you used it. It doesn't make sense to me.

Has everyone forgotten that we seemed to be days away from meltdown at that time.

You say he was being "courted" by Gordon Brown Ana but the maths did not add up and it was quickly clear that as a solution that had no legs, even though it would have been the preferred option for many Lib Dems. With such a large majority over them how can you know that the Conservatives would have agreed to anything? That's hyperbole not fact. Even if Cameron had agreed he still had to get his MPs to vote and I cannot believe they would have done. He has had enough problems with the disparate army he commands without adding an early vote against him.

The policy was not wrong but the pledge was and Nick Clegg has apologised for that. Those who would never vote Lib Deb will be happy to make much of this one policy that they didn't get through rather than the ones they did but, to be honest, as far as the Lib Dems are concerned, so what. They need to talk to people of liberal/social democratic principles and get as many of them on board. Trying to appease the unappeasable is never going to work.

Interesting point- and perhaps he/they regret not doing so. At the time, in the heat and excitement of the moment... after waiting for so long for that time to arrive- probably was never discussed (but yes, I get it- it would have been better if ...). Thanks for discussing 'sensibly' all.

I agree. Clegg was being courted by both Cameron and Gordon Brown after the last election - it was the perfect opportunity for him to set conditions. Both sides were so desperate, they'd have agreed to anything to get the LibDems on board.

Clegg could have made it a condition of entering into coalition with the Tories.

I expect the lure of power was just too much for him to resist. He knew he made that pledge and if he couldn't honour it wholly (I personally thought it was foolish to say he'd abolish the fees), he should at least have insisted on fees remaining the same.

Granjura I think I just have to put smiles next to all your posts from 14-Dec-14 19:09:06

The Conservative's won 307 seats and the Lib Dems 57. How, sensibly Eloethan, could the Lib Dems get anything through that the Conservatives, a party with more than five times more members, decide they would not agree on. They would just vote it down. To say they were lying is simplistic in the extreme.

What a party has offered in it's manifesto up until the last election was what they would do if they were alone in power. This may not be the case in the future as smaller parties look set to get a similar proportion of the residual vote, over and above the two main parties, in this election as they did in the last. If we had PR as so many other countries do, we would be used to the negotiating. Already many of the smaller parties and the two larger ones are looking at their "red line" proposals rather than their "in power" proposals and it will depend on how many seats they get as to how many of these they could expect to get through.

Thanks for sharing. I am not a Lib-Dem party member, and never was- but I feel he is much maligned and never stood a chance to truly influence. But I get your point.

Not much time and haven't read it all since granjura asked me a question, but I will try to answer:

I don't think the Lib Dems thought they had a cat's chance in hell of being in government (it must have been a dream come true when the Tories asked them to form a coalition) so their manifesto could have been full of pipe dreams that they would never think they would be able to implement.

So Clegg may have said he fought hard re tuition fees (and he may well have done) but he must have known he had no hope whatsoever of implementing this particular vote-winner, and he knew it.

From the Independent today:

Speaking at Bishop Challoner Catholic School in East London, Mr Clegg admitted: “The Liberal Democrats made a pledge before the election not to increase fees, we couldn't deliver it. Not a policy that expensive at a time when there's less money to go around, and especially not in coalition when compromises have to be made.”

Mr Clegg, whose 2012 apology for the broken promise became an unlikely Internet hit when it was turned into a spoof video, said: “I’ve said I'm sorry for that, and I meant it. But what matters to me now is that you know you can still afford to go to university - and that you don't let the myths that have emerged crowd out the facts.” He is worried that many students and parents he has met do not fully understand the policy.

He told the students in his audience not to “lower your sights,” and their parents that they could still achieve their goal of seeing their children go to university. He said: “University may not be for everyone, but it is open to everyone. Getting a degree depends on ability, not ability to pay.”

The Lib Dem leader argued that his party fought hard inside the Coalition to prevent the Conservatives turning a degree into “a luxury for the very rich” – for example, by ensuring that student do not pay a penny in fees upfront and do not start repaying them until they earn at least £21,000 a year.

For an even worse and extreme example- Obama is the President, but there is nothing he can do, as the Republicans hold all the strings, and mainly the power and purse strings.

I know many 'tea'party' Republicans, very wealthy and with huge influence, who would rather scrupper the country than let Obama implement anything he believes in and promised his electorate- and he is officially in charge.

Honestly- he was NOT in charge, and could not have implemented as he wanted. I understand the anger about it- but looking at the reality of the coalition- the Tories were NOT going to allow the tail to wag the dog- and made very sure they put their foot down with a firm hand ...(whatever that means)- Clegg did not have any choice in the matte.

We can indeed learn from other countries, but whether we will or not is a moot point. I don't think the majority of UK voters (NI excluded) have any idea how something like STV etc works. See saw politics, such as we have, can indeed be counter productive.

Well, I'm sorry, but I think it is in effect lying to make an unequivocal pledge and then to do the exact opposite. I don't call that grown-up politics; I call it manipulative, dishonest politics.

I know many have said here they are no interested in how things are done elsewhere... And yet, 'ruling' by large majority if very much a British thing- and the result of 'first past the post' system which is unique. Most other countries are much more used to having to govern by coalition, where it is considered the norm. There are pros and cons the FPP system. One of the mains cons has been the see-saw politics-where successive gvts have cancelled anything that the opposition did previously- just because they'd done it- as a matter of principle rather than sense. We can all learn from each other- different countries, and also withing a country, different parties. See saw politics are very damaging and destructive.

I totally get how people who voted for Lib-Dems because of the abolition of Uni fees (rather than for their manifesto/principles as a whole) were truly disappointed about the trebling of said fees. But I am absolutely sure that Clegg was in no way responsible for this, tried hard as he may to fight it- but was told in nouncertain terms that he was very much in a minority coalition, and the Tories would NOT allow him to dictate- anything. He was indeed in a lose, lose situation- and damned or damned.

I think that there is a saying in Germany that the minor party in a coalition always loses. Because if the coalition does well, the major party gets the voter credit. If the coalition does badly, the minor party gets the blame. So it is indeed a lose lose. Doesnt appear to stop them doing it though.

I dont know the answer to your question Gracesgran, sorry.