Eh?

Yeah I’m not really interested in attempting to have a sensible discussion with you Z-11, I know the futility of such attempts.

I have clearly acknowledged that Labour made pre-election pledges when I posted : And give me one example of a Labour election pledge where a Labour government has then deliberately done the complete opposite.

That’s the whole point. I am suggesting that there is not one single example of a Labour election pledge where a Labour government has then deliberately done the complete opposite.

But of course you want to misrepresent what I’ve said. Nothing very surprising there.

Ernie, I thought your point was the publicity and theatre about signed pledges

However, since you mention it, I certianly can remember Labour pledging something and thrn going and deliberatley doing the opposite, and that was university top up fees!

2001 election manifesto: “We will not introduce ‘top-up’ fees and have legislated to prevent them.”

Either I’m really crap at explaining what I mean or you’re a little daft. I’m sure it must be me, no one’s that daft.

😀

There’s nothing wrong with publicizing your pledges, that’s the whole point of having them.

And of course there is a difference between a “pledge”, ie, a solemn and binding promise, and an inclusion in a manifesto. But you knew that.

Just like you also knew that I had said (twice now)

Yes all politicians have a tendency to make all sorts of promises which they know they won’t be able/willing to keep. But the betrayal of trust, and the breathtaking hypocrisy, as displayed in the video below, puts the LibDems in a league of their own.

Were. Nick has promised not to do that again.

And of course there is a difference between a “pledge”, ie, a solemn and binding promise, and an inclusion in a manifesto. But you knew that

Spinning for England now Ernie!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1160403.stm

Were. Nick has promised not to do that again.

You mean that you trust him to keep his promise, even though he can’t keep a pledge ?

Anyway when he’s EU Commissioner it won’t be up to him what the LibDems promise/pledge

Now that’s the tricky bit isn’t it 😆 I wonder if he makes more pledges he will then apologise for not keeping his promise? Maybe he’ll then suggest that he was a bit daft to make such a promise, and assure us that he won’t do it again…

Is it reasonable that a non-graduate earning a national average salary is effectively subsidising those earning thousands of pounds more?

You know when this argument was trotted out at the time of the introduction of tuition fees it pissed me off then and it hasn’t improved. If anyone really wants an honest answer to that then they would have not only have to look at the cost of a tertiary education borne by the taxpayer gnerally but also the benefit that the taxpayer receives. Not just through the personal taxation from the graduate but also the wealth that is generated by having the graduates. Only then will you be able make an informed choice.

So don’t vote Labour – they introduced the fees.

We were discussing whether the new system was better than the old one, and hence the income below which graduates now pay less “graduate tax” in total. Because realistically the Lib Dems had zero chance of scrapping Labour’s tuition fees.

Of course your argument also applies to the taxation of bankers’ bonuses. Bad old Labour again.

So don’t vote Labour – they introduced the fees.

I never said I did.

Of course your argument also applies to the taxation of bankers’ bonuses

Hmmm possibly, but only for those banks that have received significant aid from the state. Where it gets really awkward is around other state “benefits”. Should those who have recieved significant treament from the NHS pay more more tax to compensate? How about those who received unemplyment benefits? That’s where the questions get really uncomfortable.

I have always voted labour, however their message and delivery is lacking and more incoherent than ever. I am tending towards Lib Dem. I think some of the kicking they are taking is unwarrented, however tuition fees are a massive black mark IMO. I would not like to be a graduate these days lumbered with such large debt.

Ed Milliband is attempting exactly the same thing this time round. But whereas Dave was a crafty, devious and slick operator, with a compliant press behind him, not asking too many questions, Miliband is a clueless ****-wit, who glazes over and looks like an escaped mental patient when pressed about his lack of policy detail. So its not really working.

Ain’t that the truth. 🙁

Yes all politicians have a tendency to make all sorts of promises which they know they won’t be able/willing to keep. But the betrayal of trust, and the breathtaking hypocrisy, as displayed in the video below, puts the LibDems in a league of their own.

That hurt too, as a previous LibDem voter. In their defence though, I don’t think they ever believed that they had a snowball’s chance in hell of gaining any semblance of power…

Bring back Paddy. 😀

So who do you vote for (between you and the ballot box, so don’t feel obliged to answer, it’s a rhetorical question)? It seems they’ve all got their fingers in the pie of imposing fees on students, and if you accept JY’s argument rather than mine, then the Tories and Lib Dems are just as much to blame.

Of course your argument also applies to the taxation of bankers’ bonuses
Hmmm possibly, but only for those banks that have received significant aid from the state.

Not really – “the benefit that the taxpayer receives. Not just through the personal taxation from the banker but also the wealth that is generated by having the bankers.”