Vince Cable on the subject of tution fees "We didn't break a promise. We made a commitment in our manifesto, we didn't win the election. We then entered into a coalition agreement, and it's the coalition agreement that is binding upon us and which I'm trying to honour."
So, basically they've now turned into power crazed tories.
So glad that I changed my habits of a life time and didnt vote for this mob.
So, basically they've now turned into power crazed tories.
Well they haven't have they?
They are admitting that they cannot keep to pledges they made should they get into power because, well, they are not in power. They are in a coalition.
Seems a reasonable admission of the facts to me.
I think it's the end of em after this condem nonsense, I think they've managed to piss off every one who voted for em,
I hope they enjoy what little power they've got cos they will never see it again for a loooooooong time
yes it is a pathetic reason for a complete capitualation on a matter of principle. they said no to tuition fees - now they are in the government I really hope they get a proper kicking at the by election in sadleworth.
Very disappointing hopefully their own MP's will MTFU and rebel
😯they are not in power
Who is the deputy PM? Who has cabinet positions? They are very much the government and in power. Can the tories also claim they are not in governement as well then? If so who the hell is then? Poor attempt at plausible deniability but everyone can see it is BS
That is a fair fair statement khani.
But for them I think it was a case of damned of you do, damned if you don't.
Reading Cable's statement (if its quoted verbatim) and cant see anything wrong with it. They were never voted in.
Numerous compromises re policy on both sides when drafting the coaloition agreement...and the was discussed for days pior to it happening at the time.
If your damned anyway at least retain your principles and be damned,
True colours showing now, they are on the gravy train and be damned to everyone else
Perhaps they shouldn't have gone into coalition with a party who you would think had the opposite views on pretty much everything.
How the hell can you have a liberal conservative government?
you think this is a compromise ? Reversing your stated position and the pledge you signed and then doing the complete opposite is a compromise?
As a politician you should not compromise on your principles or why are you in politics and why should anyone vote for you ?- whatever party /views you hold this must hold true or why bother with votes if they will do the opposite?
if they can't keep their pledges because "they're not in power", just why the hell did they even enter into the coalition? oh wait, it's because they ARE in power! who's the deputy prime minister? a lib-dem! 😮
As a politician you should not compromise on your principles
Politicians who stick to their principals are as rare as rocking horse poo. Politics by its very nature has to be a compromise otherwise you get a dictatorship.
It's a coalition, and LibDems are minor partners.
[url= http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sophistry ]pure sophistry[/url]
what he is actually saying is that they have sold-out on their manifesto, but that's ok because they are honouring the deal they sold it out for - the coalition agreement.
anyway, how they justify it is not the issue, the issue is the fiscal vandalism that is going on that will change the nature of life in the uk for the next 20 years as an absolute minimum in ways that only 1 in 5 of us gave tacit permission for.
[b]There are 18 millionaires in the cabinet[/b] - these people are [u]not[/u] in touch with what life is like, or is going to be like, for you and me. their priority is the success of big business. and don't talk to me about trickle-down and big society, it's all rubbish.
as for the bonfire of the quangos - mark my words they will be setting up quangos to dismantle quangos within a year. governing a country requires non-elected administrative bodies. it has always been so and always will be. We have had quangos in the uk since there was any sort of centralised government and that would be roughly AD43 under Emperor Claudius.
The only bright spot on this murky horizon is the government is now obliged to publish its accounts, so for the first time we, the people, can actually see where the b'stards actually spend our money, and it's going to be quite a surprise I think.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/nov/19/government-spending-files-live-blog?in ]Government spending analysis blog[/url]
OK then, seeing as most of you are missing or even ignoring the point - why did the Lib Dems go into coalition with the tories if it wasnt sheer power lust?
They're pretty much all useless and untrustworthy, in power or out of it.
OK then, seeing as most of you are missing or even ignoring the point - why did the Lib Dems go into coalition with the tories if it wasnt sheer power lust?
Trophy headlights? Money? Both? Did I mention money?
Money?
18 millionaires.
In the political prooving ground that is University elections the Lib-dem candidates are the one's too weak to be Tory or Labour. They are the also men and women of university politics.
Too hungry for the lime light to work behind a proper candidate, they walk a path in their political career destined to achieve nothing of any real significance.
Until now...
The naivety of forming a coalition; an attempt to be something just exposes their incompetence.
Actually they are usually closet tories who know they will never get anywhere as a tory candidate in a university election. there is a lot less distance between lib dem and conservatives than most people think. in fact they are quite suitable for a coalition - oh wait - that seems to be what happened, what a surprise.
the concept of a lib/lab coalition was always laughable and any show they made of considering it was just for the cameras.
Politicians in 'lying to the voters' shocker.
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-being-honest-is-no-longer-official-policy-2135933.html ]Entertaining piece about it here[/url]
on the nail khani 😥
Hia pitduck 😀
Politics by its very nature has to be a compromise otherwise you get a dictatorship.
You need to ignore the very reasons/principles that the people voted for you or we would have a dictaorship ❓ So completely ignoring the electorate who voted for your platform is democracy in action?
This is not a compromise is it a u turn, an about face, a capitulation an abondement of principle ..you get the picture.
Compromise is often required but the Tories could not achieve a great deal of what they have done so far [ whihx waslargly in their manifesto] with a minority govt had the lib dems stuck to their principles and the policies they stood for in the election.
the Tories could not achieve a great deal of what they have done so far... with a minority govt
I think that you've just missed the most worthy opportunity to use the phrase 'end of thread' that I've ever seen.
Its a clear breach of a manifesto promise and a stupid attempt to excuse it. Being honest would have been much better.
I think entering the coalition will prove to be a huge mistake for the lib dems and will finish them as a political force. I believe they should have negotiated a queens speech they could support ( moderate the Tories worst excesses and a vote on PR) and then vote it thru whilst leaving the Tories as a minority government and then everything else is dealt with on a case by case basis.
I really doubt they will be able to hold the coalition together. There is simply too much distance between the Tory right and the Liberal left. Some issue will crop up that both sides cannot be reconciled on.
Why did they join with the conservatives then?
A union with labour would still get them in power and allow them to hold onto their policies.
No?
I'm still confused as to how we managed to get into this position of getting properley screwed.
The maths did not allow for a coalition with labour.
I see nothing in Cable's statement that conflicts with the realities.
Democratic politics is about finding a way forward between conflicting interests and opinions that involves manipulation, changes of position and opinion dictated by changing circumstances, reacting to or trying to control media scrutiny, playing various vested interests off against each other, juggling the finances in the light of the free market conditions pertaining at the time, and much else besides.
The alternative, as Woody has said, is a dictatorship.
North Korea, anyone?
A hung parliament would have been a far better choice than this crud though.
A hung parliament would have been a far better
Would it have been better for international confidence in the UK financial position?
Would any possible reduction in international confidence in the uk's financial position have had worse effects than the effects of the current crud we are faced with?
How the hell can you have a liberal conservative government?
Financial liberalism and the Conservatives go pretty well together.
More specifically, Clegg was / is a key proponent of so-called [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Book:_Reclaiming_Liberalism ]'orange book' liberalism[/url]:
In the book the group offers liberal solutions – often stressing the role of the free market – to several societal issues, such as public healthcare, pensions, environment, globalisation, social and agricultural policy, local government, the European Union and prisons. It is usually seen as the most economically liberal publication that the Liberal Democrats have produced in recent times. As such, along with its impact upon the party, it has helped cause the dividing line within the party: those who advocate a social market economy observing social liberal values such as the Beveridge Group and those (such as authors, contributors and supporters of the Orange Book) who advocate a free market economy.
The harder fit to argue for would have been the Liberal Democrats with the authoritarian Labour Party.
Would any possible reduction in international confidence in the uk's financial position have had worse effects than the effects of the current crud we are faced with?
Which is what? The effect of taking spending back to the levels of the mid-noughties (definitely for want of a better phrase!)?
In Scotland, we've already had terms of coalition and minority government. Both seem to have worked reasonably well. One issue with the latter is that the non-governing parties are forever crowing about broken manifesto promises despite having voted against the legislation designed to introduce them.
In 2008 Nick Clegg went on the record to tell us they wanted to scrap tuition fees (official LibDem video):
Now the Tory puppet named Vince Cable says "a promise isn't really a promise when you're a politician". In any normal job they would be disciplined, sacked or even deported.
Two-faced, U-turning, lying scum.
As Druidh asys
A couple of interesting points with the current minority SNP government - the tories with a very few seats have used their influence to get a few things they wanted, labour have adopted a dog in manger attitude and have been made to look petty and small minded and have got nothing.
salmond has had to make compromises and some stupid but popular things have been done However on the whole it has produced decent government when policies have to stand on their merit - not just on dogma and rely on whipping to get them thru
when policies have to stand on their merit - not just on dogma and rely on whipping to get them thru
Good point in support of minority government, cause pretty much I guess it's what we all want, regardless of who is in power.
'[url= http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-dog2.htm ]dog in manger attitude[/url]'... hadn't heard that before!
Dog in manger is perhaps not quite right. A bit of " its my ball and unless I win I am going home and taking it with me"
Scottish Labour will just oppose anything the SNP put forward - even when its sensible or even when its stolen london labour policy.
They have managed to make Salmond look like3 a statesman
Compromise is often required but the Tories could not achieve a great deal of what they have done so far
this I [u]have[/u] to hear....please elaborate
I see nothing in Cable's statement that conflicts with the realities.
Woppit they have sold up the river, in a barbed wire canoe, without a paddle, the chances of you/your kids finishing higher education less than £40,000 in debt [u]each[/u]. is this glorious non-statement all you have to say about it?
With a minority government the tories could not have relied upon getting policies voted thru without the support of other parties. so some of the more extreme and / or stupid things would have not have got a majority so would not have been passed. Every policy is done on a case by case basis
With a coalition the minor partner is obliged to support teh whole package or the coalition falls - thus the stupid / extreme nonsense has got passed.
Teh proposed reorganisation of the NHS is one such. Totally against Lib Dem policy, clearly a stalking horse for privatisation, no one wants it not even the GPs. There is no way this would get past the house as every one bar the tories would vote against it.
trailertrash - MemberI see nothing in Cable's statement that conflicts with the realities.
Woppit they have sold up the river, in a barbed wire canoe, without a paddle, the chances of you/your kids finishing higher education less than £40,000 in debt each. is this glorious non-statement all you have to say about it?
Erm, yeah. Pretty much.
As for fees, I think the Daily Mash nailed in the last thread on that subject.
Glad to see you've reduced your central heating bill by the steam coming out of your ears.
What a horrible government we have now. Much worse than the last one. At least the last one din't want to dismantle the NHS and education system to sell them off, and want to rip the guts oout of the very poor and most vulnerable peope in our society.
Regardless of all the Left/Right political nonsense; this government will only ultimately damage this nation. It's not even about Tory V Labour any more, it's about the people of the UK V greedy self-serving scum who want to sell our country out from under us.
Thing is, we'll probbly let them, too. 😥
why did the Lib Dems go into coalition with the tories if it wasnt sheer power lust?
The current situation is our fault - we caused this situation with our confused voting. What were the options:
1. form an unworkable minority government with discredited, leaderless Labour leading to another election in months
2. another election
In both cases, the Conservatives would have increased their vote. So the least worst case is to support the Conservatives and hang on, for the good of the country. The LibDems know they will get caned for this, but did it anyway.
So the least worst case is to support the Conservatives and hang on, for the good of the country.
It's not for the 'good of the country' though, is it? It's for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the many.
[i]Never before, in the field of British society, will so much be done, by so many, to serve so few.[/i]
I'm sorry but dont buy this Lidems not having any power crap, they have plenty, if they say no the government falls. They dont have to bend over and take it unless they want to.
I never understood the logic behind the Milk-Snatching disaster of the early 70s: cut free school milk to save money and appease the voters, appear to be delivering on promises to cut spending. So, cut something which had been proven to have a clear and significant benefit to children's health.
Fast forward 30-40 years. People with rotten teeth and poorer health = increased burden to NHS.
POLICY FAIL.
Short-term gain. Line yer pockets while there's still something in't coffers.
Close the mines: Yeah, ok, necessary maybe because they're uneconomic (hmmm). But where are the jobs for all these unemployed people? How will they survive? Oh on benefits. And how will you pay for these benefits? Oh, with the proceeds from North Sea Oil and Gas....
Marvellous.