No, I'm not
Breaking the pledge was a really, really dumb thing to do, and I'm not attempting to justify that.

But it doesn't make any difference. Unless there were lots more LibDem MPs, tuition fees were going to rise. Doesn't make any difference whether or not a bunch of LibDems have been made Minister for Paperclips, or whatever.

It comes down to this: if you want a policy to be carried out, you have to vote for the guys proposing it. Labour would have put tuition fees up. The Conservatives would, and have. The only chance of stopping it was either to have the LibDems as the biggest party (far-fetched but possible) or the Greens (which would be lovely, but... calling Planet Earth). That didn't happen - why not? Because not enough people voted for them.
(ChaRleyTroniC is invincible with his chips and cheese, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:24, 3 replies)

I just have to pipe up here
because what you just said is a load of bumwad. There didn't need to be any more libdem MPs elected to stop the increase in tuition fees going through. All they neeeded to do was vote as they promised they'd vote and the bill wouldn't have passed. As it was it passed by 21 votes, and that's with 27 libdem MPs voting FOR the bill and 8 not voting at all.
(Hippo_of_Doom, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 18:19, closed)

What would the consequences have been?
If the Lib dems voted against this they would have destabilised the coalition government. It would almost certainly result in more instability in the government and probably a re-election. This is not what the country needs at the moment.

Lib dems are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They promised to support the Tories and agreed on a revised and improved tuition fee rise (without lib dem influence there would not have been a limit on the amount a uni could charge for tuition fees). At the moment the Lib dems best chance of power is in a coalition, if this one doesn't work and they don't get the electoral reform they need then the uk will effectively become a 2 party state.
(Little Animal Disaster isn't finishing what he started, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 20:04, closed)

are you saying we're better off with the tories slashing and burning there way through public services
as long as there's some stability in parliment for a while?
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Thu 23 Dec 2010, 20:35, closed)

You may not agree with Tory policy
...and I don't either, but they are doing what they think is best for the economy. It is yet to be seen if it will be successful in dragging us out of the mire, but at least they are doing something. With a minority government there would be so much politicking and in fighting that nothing would get done. The advantage of the coalition and stability is that the government can make plans for the economic recovery over the next 5 years. This involves things like tuition fees, the benefit the government will not see for 3 years.

If the coalition collapses next year and an election is called, say Labour get in, they will try and change everything and we will be back to square one, and worse off.

Economic recovery will not happen over night.
(Little Animal Disaster isn't finishing what he started, Fri 24 Dec 2010, 10:38, closed)

Eh?
the leadership of the libdems has shown itself to be the sort that will lie and manouver to get power. You are not going to convince me that these very same people would of somehow been a different breed if more people had voted for them
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Thu 23 Dec 2010, 18:29, closed)

They don't have power
Judge them if and when they do.

The lib dems would have followed through on all their election promises and had detailed plans and how they would do it and where the money would come from to allow them to scrap tuition fees. They weren't elected, they are makeweights in a TORY government. They are not covering themselves in glory, but the responsibility is on the voters for voting for a TORY government. If the Tories hadn't won so many seats and the Lib dems could have formed a majority government with Labour then they probably would have done (but I bet a lib-lab coalition wouldn't be scrapping tuition fees either). A re-election would have been a disaster for the Lib dems, it would have been a 2 horse race between Labour and Conservative, and all their work would have been for nothing. They had only one choice and that was to get in bed with the Devil.
(Little Animal Disaster isn't finishing what he started, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 20:11, closed)

The 'voters' didn't vote for a Tory government, they never got a majority...remember?
They are in power along with the Libdems, who's MPs are voting for policies against their own manifesto, rendering themselve un-electable for the forseeable. It's not complicated.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Thu 23 Dec 2010, 20:32, closed)

The Tories won the election
So they were chosen by the people as the most popular party. The Lib Dem manifesto was written on the proviso that they won the election, they didn't they don't have the power to enforce their policies. They have diluted some Tory policies, but if you think having a 16% Lib Dem Government means they will be able to implement their manifesto as they see fit then you are wrong.

If the lib dems had to make some sacrifices to make the coalition work, and they had to make a lot more sacrifices than the Tories because they won a lot less seats. If they hadn't made those sacrifices and formed a coalition then there would have been a re-election and everyone who was anti-tory would vote labour and everyone who was anti labour would vote tory. The lib dems would have been screwed.

Until the elctoral reform comes into play, which is what they fought most strongly for, they will never stand a chance in this country.
(Little Animal Disaster isn't finishing what he started, Fri 24 Dec 2010, 10:45, closed)

The Tories
DIDN'T win the last election thats the entire point. They didn't win enough votes to form a government and neither did Labour hence one party or another needed the Lib Dems or less likely a coalition of the other lesser parties to form a government. If Clegg and his cronies had been smart (and or had a spine or principals) they would have agreed to the coalition and then just stuck to their guns on their own policies. They had a chance at real power as the Tories cannot get anything done without their support.
As it is Clegg has made them unelectable for a very very long time
(andythepieman Is surfing the waves of indifference on, Fri 24 Dec 2010, 12:03, closed)

Your point is invalidated
by thinking that the Greens in power would be 'lovely.' I think that shows what a truly admirable and researched view on politics you have.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 19:27, closed)

You're reading a lot into that bracketed comment.
The Green party is a lovely prospect, and they have some wonderful ideas on their manifesto, but many of the same ideas are also impractical.

And the Earth is a prick.
( Extinct Jesus Dossier "...I think it counteracts Hitler's magic...", Thu 23 Dec 2010, 20:26, closed)