Students Rioting in London.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Oh come now, that excuse is wearing a bit thin. What is the point of them being in government at all, if they can't influence policy?

No they weren't. I asked if there was anymore footage of him on that day and the answer was "yes" and then the links to the videos. If the poster meant that it was about metaphors, he really should have said. I can't be blamed for someone not being clear.

There is a yawning, semantic chasm between 'influence' and 'dictate'. Blind Freddie can see that the Lib Dems have influence over Coalition policy - the referendum on AV being the prime example. Do not underestimate how hard that one is going to be for a lot of Tory backbenchers to stomach.

On the other hand, their position does not allow them to dictate - which is why there are some things they simply have to swallow hard and get on with.

What actually is wearing a bit thin is all the comedy jaw dropping that has been going on over the last few weeks, by supposedly intelligent, keen political commentators who are asking us to take seriously the idea that they don't understand the quite fundamental difference between single party majority and coalition.

This is not altogether dissimilar to the divisions that exist within all our political parties. They are all broad churches with differing views and priorities among members. The only difference is, those divisions are better managed and usually better hidden from the Press and public.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

There is a yawning, semantic chasm between 'influence' and 'dictate'....

Typically Flyboy seems to have missed that bit.... How long has the coalition been in existence again? A few months isn't it?.... Not exactly 13 years of excuses and lies then......

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Did david cameron and the tories promise no rises in tuition fee's did they ever say a thing about abolishing them no they didn't and whether some people like it or not the tories are the biggest party and the lib dems didn't win. This was the thing for the lib dems they were always able to promise just about anything they wanted knowing they would never form a government by majority vote anytime soon and now it comes back to bite them in the backside. That doesn't excuse a bunch of morons going on the rampage tearing up buildings and desecrating national memorials and if some feel they are justified in that behaviour then post your real address and invite them round for their next protest.

The pledge:

“I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative”

Now, it says nothing at all about, "unless we end up in a coalition with the Tories," or, "only if we win."

Point one: It says that the signatory will vote against an increase in fees. Each and everyone of them had the opportunity to vote against the increase. Only a handful did.

Point two: The signatory pledged to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative. Seeing as they did not specify which party, I don't think it should really matter who is in power.

There are increasing noises, around Westminster, that suggest the LibDems had actually decided not to honour the pledge, sometime before the election (I'm sure this has been debated already, but it does no harm to remind us all). They had ample opportunity to come clean and tell everyone their intentions. I do believe that some maverick former candidate is planning on suing his victorious opponent on the basis of fraud and a breach of contract.

---------- Post added at 22:20 ---------- Previous post was at 22:11 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

It was Clegg that promised it ,should he win the election ,he didn't so he can't

Originally Posted by Osem

You do like to keep reminding people of the facts don't you!!

Aah yes, the facts. When did Clegg say that he would only honour the pledge if they won?

---------- Post added at 22:25 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

I believe the "metaphor" comment was in reply to your earlier post, about Jody standing up in front of the police horses....

No, I think it was meant to show that he videos were to demonstrate it wasn't a metaphor. But the one who posted them implied it was footage of the tuition fees demonstration.

It is implicit in any policy statement, pledge or promise that it can only be delivered if the one making it has the power to do it.

Carry on playing with words and doing the shock-horror act if it makes you feel better FB, but the political agenda has moved on and, this measure having been dealt with at the very beginning of a 5-year Parliament, in the grand scheme of things it is unlikely to make very much difference at all to the political landscape.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Aah yes, the facts. When did Clegg say that he would only honour the pledge if they won?

Well perhaps he presumed that was obvious to anyone who wasn't a dyed in the wool Labour supporter and didn't need to be spelled out in words of one syllable. Being in coalition means having to compromise. What excuse did Blair and Brown have for failing to honour so many of their promises with a massive parliamentary majority by the way?...

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Osem

Well they've clearly influenced policy - on personal allowances, for example, so what's your point again? Influencing policy isn't quite the same as being able to dictate policy after all and they at least being in coalition affords them an excuse which Blair and Brown can't rely on when it comes to delivering on pre-election promises..

Of course you are correct, however, the fees pledge was rather fundamental to their election manifesto. In fact it was what many students and their parents believed when they voted for them. But their ability to influence policy comes not in the policy making meetings, but at the divisions. They should have had the courage of their convictions and voted against the government. It made them look as if they were more concerned over their positions of perceived power, than they were about their honour and integrity.

Originally Posted by Chris

It is implicit in any policy statement, pledge or promise that it can only be delivered if the one making it has the power to do it.

Carry on playing with words and doing the shock-horror act if it makes you feel better FB, but the political agenda has moved on and, this measure having been dealt with at the very beginning of a 5-year Parliament, in the grand scheme of things it is unlikely to make very much difference at all to the political landscape.

Except that the Lib Dems are going to have to work hard to get re-elected at council level and possibly at national level.

---------- Post added at 22:36 ---------- Previous post was at 22:31 ----------

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11988333

Peers have backed government plans to raise student tuition fees in England to as much as £9,000 a year.
Labour tried to throw out the proposals, which were passed by MPs last week, but the opposition amendment was defeated by 283 votes to 215.
The House of Lords' decision means that the higher fees are expected to come into force from 2012.

Well that would appear to be that.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

No, I think it was meant to show that he videos were to demonstrate it wasn't a metaphor. But the one who posted them implied it was footage of the tuition fees demonstration.

i and all that have seen the videos can clearly see that they was not from the tuition fees demonstration.
i posted them to show that he can stand and that he obviously is not just a innocent man in a wheelchair.

It is responsible to hold the parties to account somewhat on their pre-election promises. We have to accept that not all of them can be done and there will be an element of mix and match between the parties but the collation is not an excuse for the government to be exempt from being held to account when either party is diverging from what they promised their voters.

I can easily understand why Lib Dem voters feel betrayed that the party they voted for, who were against tuition fees, have now helped pass a policy increasing them.

Personally I dislike manifestos anyway. I don't think a government can be held responsible for promises made when events and circumstances can change over the course of a parliament. They should be less ambitious in terms of what policies to enact and broader in setting out ideals and visions that will influence policy over the course of the government.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Chris

It is implicit in any policy statement, pledge or promise that it can only be delivered if the one making it has the power to do it.

Carry on playing with words and doing the shock-horror act if it makes you feel better FB, but the political agenda has moved on and, this measure having been dealt with at the very beginning of a 5-year Parliament, in the grand scheme of things it is unlikely to make very much difference at all to the political landscape.

That one doesn't work I'm afraid. Because the pledge states that the signatory will vote against any government which seeks to increase the fees. Not only if they get into power.

Attempting to ignore it will not make it go away. People will not forget the LibDems' betrayal when it comes to the various elections between now and the next general election, which, if the bookies' predictions are anything to go by, will be a good deal sooner than you are hoping for.

---------- Post added at 22:41 ---------- Previous post was at 22:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Well perhaps he presumed that was obvious to anyone who wasn't a dyed in the wool Labour supporter and didn't need to be spelled out in words of one syllable. Being in coalition means having to compromise. What excuse did Blair and Brown have for failing to honour so many of their promises with a massive parliamentary majority by the way?...

Sorry, but to change the parameters of a signed pledge, after the event, is not a very honourable way of treating your voters.

---------- Post added at 22:44 ---------- Previous post was at 22:41 ----------

Originally Posted by vanman

i and all that have seen the videos can clearly see that they was not from the tuition fees demonstration.
i posted them to show that he can stand and that he obviously is not just a innocent man in a wheelchair.

Then why did you answer, "yes," to the question, "I would like to see more of this man's actions on the day. Is there any more footage of him?"

---------- Post added at 22:46 ---------- Previous post was at 22:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

It is responsible to hold the parties to account somewhat on their pre-election promises. We have to accept that not all of them can be done and there will be an element of mix and match between the parties but the collation is not an excuse for the government to be exempt from being held to account when either party is diverging from what they promised their voters.

I can easily understand why Lib Dem voters feel betrayed that the party they voted for, who were against tuition fees, have now helped pass a policy increasing them.

Personally I dislike manifestos anyway. I don't think a government can be held responsible for promises made when events and circumstances can change over the course of a parliament. They should be less ambitious in terms of what policies to enact and broader in setting out ideals and visions that will influence policy over the course of the government.

But without them, the electorate would find it very difficult to establish what the different parties stood for and what they intend to do. However, I believe "The Pledge" was a separate element to the manifesto.

[vanman]

Then why did you answer, "yes," to the question, "I would like to see more of this man's actions on the day. Is there any more footage of him?"
Originally Posted by Flyboy
That puzzled me as well. Could he be using a metaphor, or I he able to stand but not walk. I would like to see more of this man's actions on the day. Is there any more footage of him?

because i thought that I would like to see more of this man's actions on the day and Is there any more footage of him?
was two different questions

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by vanman

because i thought that I would like to see more of this man's actions on the day and Is there any more footage of him?
was two different questions

Aah, then I apologise for not being clearer.

End of the day if labour hadn't bought in the student fee's there wouldn't have been anything to raise but they did and to nowhere near the hassle there has been lately. I am laughing a bit at your attitude to all this Flyboy when it was labour you weren't so bothered about politicians sticking to what they promised and certainly weren't clamouring like you are now to hit them hard for going back on their word you wouldn't be being a little partisan by any chance would you. Oh and please no more repeats of what nick clegg might or might not have said before the election we all know and most of us get it.

Re the LibDems pledge.....

How is this different from the Labour promises in 1997 (T. Blair, 14th April, Evening Standard "Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education") and 2001 (Manifesto - We will not introduce top-up fees and have legislated to prevent them) to not introduce tuition fees, and not to increase them?

Or is there a major difference between a promise, a pledge, and a Manifesto commitment?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Re the LibDems pledge.....

How is this different from the Labour promises in 1997 (T. Blair, 14th April, Evening Standard "Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education") and 2001 (Manifesto - We will not introduce top-up fees and have legislated to prevent them) to not introduce tuition fees, and not to increase them?

Or is there a major difference between a promise, a pledge, and a Manifesto commitment?

I suspect, so far as Flyboy is concerned, that the difference is entirely subjective, selective and heavily biased in one direction. I may be wrong of course....

---------- Post added at 09:48 ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Aah yes, the facts. When did Clegg say that he would only honour the pledge if they won?

Well manifestos and pre election promises are issued on the basis that they're what the party intends to do if they win the election NOT if they only form part of a coalition which by definition necessitates compromise on the part of both parties which has to be thrashed out on the hoof.

You do seem rather fixated on the moral highground when it comes to the delivery of promises by Lib Dems operating in coalition don't you. Oddly, I don't ever recall you applying the same high moral standards to the myriad of cynical pre-election promises issued by Bliar and Brown over the years which, despite having huge parliamentary majorities for most of their tenure they either didn't deliver or simply reneged on. Unlike our current government, they couldn't even argue, in mitigation, that they'd been forced to compromise on policy and were so deep in the economic mire that their their hands were tied. Remind me, what was their excuse for misleading the electorate so cynically again?