MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I find it quite difficult to care about the opinions of parties not in power because they, erm, aren't in power.
Back on the previous Brexit thread when every third post was Binners spitting vitriol about Magic Grandad I couldn't help but think "so what?" What an opposition party should be doing is opposing and I'm 100% in agreement with him on that point, Labour have been Tory Lite for some time now because yay populist politics. They haven't just dropped the ball but are busy tunnelling to New Zealand with it. But beyond that though... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm also finding it quite difficult to care about the referendum any more. It was 2016, that was (are you sitting down?) seven years ago. It's as relevant today as Milliband not challenging the Tories over tuition fees. They won we lost get over it.
Politics doesn't just have a vote and then stop. Or as someone cleverer than me once said, a democracy that cannot change its mind ceases to be a democracy.
align on trade and regulation
Labour has ruled out any alignment.
I agree that if they were to promise in their manifesto to increase alignment, that would be useful and I'd quite probably be able to support it. I don't expect them to promise an immediate rejoining. I do demand (at an absolute minimum) that a vote for them cannot be interpreted as support for a hard Brexit. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I will wait to see what they actually put in their manifesto before making any final decision. Starmer has already abandoned almost all of his pledges when he was campaigning for the leadership, so he might u-turn an odd number of times between now and the election. Currently he's headed in the wrong direction.
Labour has ruled out any alignment.
Citation?
No single market, no customs union, no freedom of movement = no aligmnent withthe EU
He said it more specifically and recently on a podcast, think it was an interview on the News Agents. Not just something far-field about the SM, but about alignment in general.
Citation?
"We will not be joining the single market. We will not be joining a customs union."
Kier Starmer, Monday 4 July 2022 / 7:30 PM
https://labour.org.uk/press/keir-starmer-sets-out-labours-5-point-plan-to-make-brexit-work/
Theres also this...
https://labour.org.uk/stronger-together/
We proved that we’re stronger together. Labour wants to harness that spirit to start building a fairer, greener future for everyone in Britain.
He's just a talking head with no policy, just scratting around for populist votes, via trite & contradictory sound bytes...
In this respect he's a lot more closely alligned to Boris Johnson than he might care to admit.
So @cougar
I’m also finding it quite difficult to care about the referendum any more. It was 2016, that was (are you sitting down?) seven years ago.
Politics doesn’t just have a vote and then stop. Or as someone cleverer than me once said, a democracy that cannot change its mind ceases to be a democracy....
... They won we lost get over it.
All in one post too, impressive! so What is it? 😉
No single market, no customs union, no freedom of movement = no aligmnent withthe EU
I don't think that's the case. There's more to "alignment" than being in the SM/CU, surely this is obvious?
All in one post too, impressive! so What is it? 😉
A white hole?
I don’t think that’s the case. There’s more to “alignment” than being in the SM/CU, surely this is obvious?
Nothing of any significance that will make any real difference. Regulatory alignment diminishes one small barrier to trade while allowing all the rest to remain
What else could he do? its just gaslighting by now. What else will make a significant difference now he has ruled out on multiple occasions the basic preconditions for any meaningful arrangement?
So what else do you think he will do that will actually make a concrete difference?
We did this to death in 2016.
Whatever issues there were / are, leaving the EU was never going to solve them. It was a scapegoat.
Sorry, but I don't think it's black/white on a number of things. Leaving the EU removed FoM, even though it didn't have to. So if you worked a trade, for example, you could expect to see less competition for work. If you are a banker, you're expecting to see more financial deregulation. If you were a UK manufacturer competing against cheaper imports, your position has improved.
There was an example on the HoL report which struck me, something like an 80% drop in school trips to the EU. To me, that's an awful impact. But logically, you'd expect a significant increase in school trips inside the UK. And there are a LOT of people who would see that shift as a positive thing.
So what else do you think he will do that will actually make a concrete difference?
Well the first 6 years post vote were antagonistic political showboating, pretending that we didn't really need the EU at all. Perhaps a less combative approach would help?
So what else do you think he will do that will actually make a concrete difference?
I'm not an international trade expert. Maybe find one in Twitter.
When (if?) Labour get back in to office then the post Brexit conversation can begin. Up until then, it's just a humongous but invisible elephant in the room.
I blame Corbyn anyhow. He walked down the steps of a bus (ironic eh?) waving a piece of paper like a tramp version af Neville Chamberalin and said ; "I've had a think about it and on ballance, I think we're probably better off in than out".
Liar. As someone above mentioned, he was secretly dreaming of a pie-in-the-sky socialist Brexit and sold us all down the river.
With pro EU Cameron not campaigning because he 'was a good egg' and wanted to stay above the fray and Corbyn p**sing on our backs and telling is it's raining, Remain was left with no one to front the campaign.
I hate Corbyn. I blame him even more than Cameron. If Cornyn had been honest and told us the truth, that he was pro Brexit, then Remain would have won.
And did I say I hate Corbyn?
ARM decided to list in the US (not London)...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/02/arm-brexit-float-us-hermann-hauser-uk-london
Due to....
Brexit idiocy....
It’s them sunny uplands, right?
Again with the rather childish straw men. It’s almost like you don’t want to engage with the substance of the discussion.
again?
because it's been done and i've posted lengthier responses on it on several threads and a number of these threads are now intertwined. people, some of whom have a habit of repeating that they couldn't vote for labour under any circumstances, are determined that they know better how to achieve removal of the tories from office. i would humbly suggest that being a voter probably doesn't qualify them any more for the task at hand than it does someone who has received an education to run a school.
do i think KS is better than a.n.other leader of a political party, well, anywhere? no. in fact now that johnson has been removed i think him too much alike sunak for the job at hand. a technocrat. lacking in charisma. general election results have a fr greater correlation to the leader's approval ratings than the party's polling. i think the next general election is going to be a lot closer than people think and that there is a dangerous apathy, similar to that over the referendum and we saw how that turned out.
he's what we've got and i feel like i need to work with that. you may not. your choice.
it would be easy to write off those who voted for brexit, particularly those who were effectively screwing themselves over while gleefully thinking they were screwing others, and frankly i'm all right jack, at least for the moment, but despite that i'd rather live in a better country that actually makes attempts to improve people's lives and the lot of the next generation despite having no children of my own.
a large part of the business of elections is not having the better argument. if you think it is, well that's OK, but if it were i'd suggest we wouldn't be where we are now, out of the EU, and with our 5th Tory PM in 7 years. did nigel farage have the better argument? did johnson? you want to treat the electorate as grown ups? crack on and see how far it gets you. i'm not being dismissive of the electorate when i say that, or at least not in my head i'm not, but people have busy lives. if all they learn about politics is from 15 minutes snatched watching ITN or BBC news over a ready meal that wraps up with a happy-ending story about a lost dog how far do you think a nuanced argument about MMT is going to get? (to get in my own 'crossing the streams' of threads 🙂 )
i think i take a pragmatic view. i'm sorry if i come across as childish but we're all here, shouting at clouds, brought together by the pursuit of riding bikes around in circles in the woods so...
ARM decided to list in the US (not London)…
yep. despite the personal intervention of several PMs.
So what else do you think he will do that will actually make a concrete difference?
I’m not an international trade expert. Maybe find one in Twitter.
Not needed. The only things that would make a significant differnce are CU and SM - to take those need the freedoms. Starmer has ruled that out. that means there has to be non tarriff barriers to trade - thats how the EU works. Regulatory alignment will help a little but thats all. Other non tarrif barriers will still exist.
We are not going to get any sort of close relationship with the EU without breaching Starmers red lines
"We will not be joining the single market. We will not be joining a customs union.”
Kier Starmer, Monday 4 July 2022 / 7:30 PM
And I'll add to that:
“We have exited the EU and we are not going back - let me be very clear in the north east about that. There is no case for rejoining."
Kier Starmer, 14 February 2022 / 9.15 AM
This is a former QC stating that there is no case to rejoin. And flushing his own credibility down the toilet in the process.
Sure, Brexit corrupts everything with its various looking glasses, but it is his choice to take this stance. So let's hope that his advisors are right, because he isn't getting my vote.
I'm basically just saying the same thing over and over again in slightly different words now, so unless something new* and pertinent to the thread comes up, that's me done for a bit.
*Probably another lost company operation or investment or research funding or opportunity for cultural enrichment - to add to the list. It won't be long until another lost opportunity comes up.
Miolgrips - its pretty strightforward stuff
You said there must be more that would help other than CU /SM. But you cannot back it up and then slag me for making my case.
its really not hard to grasp the basics with a bit of reading. Detail is very complex but the basics are not
Do not join CU / SM and refuse the 4 freedoms then trade barriers will still remain - significant ones.
Miolgrips – its pretty strightforward stuff
I.. what..
I don’t think that’s the case. There’s more to “alignment” than being in the SM/CU, surely this is obvious?
Quote from you
So if its obvious what is it?
There’s more to “alignment” than being in the SM/CU, surely this is obvious?
Go on then, @molgrips, please tell us what the more obvious things we can do are, as a country to allign ourselves...
please tell us what the more obvious things we can do are, as a country to allign ourselves…
I didn't say the things were obvious. I said that it was obvious that there would be things we could do.
Just a few possibilities:
Regulatory alignment
Acceptance of each others standards
Recognition of each others' qualifications
Easy and/or persistent visas for workers (this isn't the same as FoM)
Trade deals
Participation in European programmes
None of which will make any significant difference to trade. I even mentioned regulatory alignment
thiose things will not alter the relationship in any material way, will not solve the trade issues and visas will not bring more staff into the UK.
thiose things will not alter the relationship in any material way
If you say so boss.
will not solve the trade issues
I did't say they would solve trade issues. I said they were things that could move the UK closer to the EU without rejoining, which is what you asked for.
An inch closer when we moved miles away - of no significance whatsoever and I really wouldn't consider them " moving closer" anyway.
TJ, don't you think you're being slightly disingenuous? How could easier access to working Visas not bring more staff to the UK? In the same way that tightening the rules would naturally reduce the number of people.
Regulatory alignment
Acceptance of each others standards
Recognition of each others’ qualifications
Easy and/or persistent visas for workers (this isn’t the same as FoM)
Trade deals
Participation in European programmes
Youv'e literally just descibed single market and customs union with the EU.
Easy and/or persistent visas for workers (this isn’t the same as FoM)
This particular bit we had already as a hard fought bonus/special concession, but will not get back if we re-enter.
TJ, don’t you think you’re being slightly disingenuous? How could easier access to working Visas not bring more staff to the UK?
Staff in some categories can now get visas. guess what? No one hardly came. Why take a visa to the UK at cost and without much in the way of rights when you can go to Germany earn a higher wage without a visa and have full rights
Very few EU workers are going to come here on a visa.
Staff in some categories can now get visas. guess what? No one hardly came. Why take a visa to the UK at cost and without much in the way of rights
What I am saying is that they could change the terms of visas...
Youv’e literally just descibed single market and customs union with the EU.
Yes and no. But those are all things that could be done to some extent or other unilaterally or bilaterally that would being us closer to the EU without actually joining it. Which is what was asked.
That's exactly my point TJ. Make visas expensive, difficult to obtain and with extremely limited rights, it is hard to attract people. Change that, and you will attract more people. As already stated, of course it isn't as good as FoM.
Yes and no. But those are all things that could be done to some extent or other unilaterally or bilaterally that would being us closer to the EU without actually joining it. Which is what was asked.
Starmer has categorically ruled this out, see my links above.
Labour are a racist, populist, nationalist, insular, inward looking party with no new ideas, or long term plans.
Labour are just as bad as the Tories.
To hell with them.
Starmer has categorically ruled this out, see my links above.
Just read these (again) looks like Starmer is categorically ruling IN quite a few of the things I suggested:
"However, we will seek to find new flexible labour mobility arrangements for those making short-term work trips and for musicians and artists seeking short-term visas to tour within the EU."
"Labour will maintain Britain’s data adequacy status meaning our data protection rules are deemed equivalent to those in the EU, enabling UK digital services companies to compete."
"We would seek to agree mutual recognition of conformity assessments across specified sectors so that our producers no longer need to complete two sets of tests, or two processes of certification, to sell their goods in both the UK and the EU."
"Labour will seek mutual recognition of professional qualifications to enable our world leading service industries to do business in the EU."
"Labour would eliminate most border checks created by the Tory Brexit deal."
So basically, what I've been saying. Moving closer to the EU without joining CU/SM. This is rapprochement, and it is likely to continue slowly until we are eventually in the CU/SM in all but name, at which point we can start to talk about rejoin. But that's many years away.
If you were a UK manufacturer competing against cheaper imports, your position has improved.
Has that happened?
but logically, you’d expect a significant increase in school trips inside the UK.
Has that happened?
As far as manufacturing goes, we manufacture relatively little. IIRC it is - excuse me, was - something like 20% of our GDP, possibly less. Rather our big selling point is - er, was - services. I am not aware of any UK manufacturer currently going "well, thank god for brexit, we're so much better off!!" (Please, if you know different I'd love to hear it.) The threat of cheaper imports was never really from Europe but rather the Far East, and in leaving the EU we've ****ed our export market which was surely exponentially greater than any domestic trade we could hope for.
As for school trips, well, a huge uptick in excursions to Blackpool instead of Krakow isn't something I'd be cheering on. Is this even actually a thing anymore? When I was at school I remember two school trips, an Accounts trip to London, and the heady heights of Ribchester for History. There were skiing trips too but they were the exclusive domain of the rich kids.
Labour are a racist, populist, nationalist, insular, inward looking party with no new ideas, or long term plans.
Perhaps, but,
Labour are just as bad as the Tories.
No they aren't.
Given the choice between being kicked in the bollocks or shot in the face I'll take the bollocks, thanks.
I agree with your sentiment, but we had the same nonsense from Corbyn with his perpetual fence-sitting and refusal to take a position on brexit. Turned well last time.
Labour are a total car-crash of B-S....so they are certainly giving the tories a run for No.10 in that respect.
Half of that is just wishful thinking and the rest is just tinkering around the edges and will have no significant effect
“We would seek to agree mutual recognition of conformity assessments across specified sectors so that our producers no longer need to complete two sets of tests, or two processes of certification, to sell their goods in both the UK and the EU.”
This one in particular is really important for me.
And Mattyfez, I have not seen a series of governments as downright dangerous as these Tories in all my days. I'd vote for anything within reason which could remove them from office. My vote will be irrelevant in terms of electing an MP, but should still have meaning in the wider context.
the rest is just tinkering around the edges and will have no significant effect
Hmm, not really quality analysis that, so I'll withhold my judgement.
"We would seek to agree mutual recognition of conformity assessments across specified sectors so that our producers no longer need to complete two sets of tests, or two processes of certification, to sell their goods in both the UK and the EU.”
“Labour will seek mutual recognition of professional qualifications to enable our world leading service industries to do business in the EU".
Now those would be useful.
In my line of work we had to piiiish away somewhere between quarter and half a MILLION quid to duplicate our accreditations in an EU based country as well as in the UK.
THEN have to maintain and re-accredit 2 systems each year.
And the profit for those EU projects gets recognised in the EU. The Co paid tax on that profit in the EU, not the UK.
In other words, leaving the EU was utterly shiiite for business AND the UK Economy AND the exchequer income.
Why does it matter ? Well, I'm one of the rare people in this country that brings foreign €€ in for the work I do - you know - to offset the fhooking mahooosive balance of trade deficit and to pay for all those services we'd like to have working like the NHS, public transport, publicly paid for education, rossers on the streets, etc.
Given the choice between being kicked in the bollocks or shot in the face I’ll take the bollocks, thanks.
Or you could vote lib dem?
Not aimed at you, but people bleat on about the troubles of the two party system, whilst also upholding it by voting labour or conservative.
It's lib dem policy to get back into the EU, It's lib dem policy for PR voting.
All of which Labour and the tories have rulled out.
Vote Labour!
We are absolutely usless and self-serving, but we are marginally less usless and self-serving than the tories!
Not really confidence inspiring, is it?
That was a rhetorical question, BTW.
As far as manufacturing goes, we manufacture relatively little. IIRC it is – excuse me, was – something like 20% of our GDP, possibly less.
This sentence in a nutshell makes a very clear point for me. I don't care that manufacturing is 20% of GDP. I do care that I've spent 100% of my working life in manufacturing. And yes, there are UK based manufacturing businesses that are definitely going to benefit from the extra expense and customs challenges involved in sourcing materials from the EU.
Let's be clear, I voted to remain, want to rejoin THe EU, would have voted for a federal europe if I'd ever had the chance. I just think that repetitively pronouncing that no one and nothing is better after Brexit is a logical fallacy and needs to be challenged. For example, lots of already very wealthy people have done very well from Brexit. It's been great for them. Can we talk about that?
Did you feel like you lived in a better society at the end of the Thatcher era or the end of new labour? Or at the end of new labour and current times? Under the last labour government you would see a definitive course of treatment start within 18 weeks of contact with the health service. Under the Tories, what? 18 months?
Rich Penny +1
Mattyfez, there's a decent chance I could vote Lib Dem, but that won't be increased by blatant lies about Labour being worse than the Tories.
It’s lib dem policy to get back into the EU, It’s lib dem policy for PR voting.
All of which Labour and the tories have rulled out.
Actually, the Lib-Dems are for getting into government and against not getting into government. The problem with voting Lib-Dem is that you don't know which of their policies are going to get thrown on the bonfire of compromise in order to secure as many cabinet posts as possible.
What you want from a junior party in a coalition (in a FPTP voting system) is for them to have one issue that is their single demand and for them to then basically wander the halls of Westminster covered in petrol holding a lighter saying, 'I'm going to do it! I'm going to do it!'
Say what you like about the DUP, they knew how to be a junior coalition partner.
Actually, the Lib-Dems are for getting into government and against not getting into government. The problem with voting Lib-Dem is that you don’t know which of their policies are going to get thrown on the bonfire of compromise in order to secure as many cabinet posts as possible.
Welcome to the reality of PR and coalition government.
We are so NOT used to it, we can't understand it, and in our dumbed down, social media soundbite, everything is black or white world, it blows our tiny brains.
LibDems empowered some of the Tory disasters when in power. They also slowed others. Things got worse after the coalition once the Tories had persuaded everyone it was the LibDems fault.
I'd happily vote LibDem if it meant stopping a Tory candidate. Of the three main parties, they've done the least damage to the country in the last 10 years.
In my line of work we had to piiiish away somewhere between quarter and half a MILLION quid to duplicate our accreditations in an EU based country as well as in the UK.
THEN have to maintain and re-accredit 2 systems each year.
And the time you spend working on this is time you can't spend doing actual profitable work.
Re Lib Dems, I absolutely would vote for them if it were the best chance of getting rid of Tories. You can't complain about people not voting positively for the policies they want - FPTP doesn't reward that, so people don't do it. That's the problem with it.
I would probably vote Plaid if I could vote however I wanted. It was my second vote in the WG elections.
Welcome to the reality of PR and coalition government.
The UK doesn't have PR. It's not like you've got four years to do some of your policies and then a decent chance of another four years after that to pursue the rest.
If a party finds itself as the junior partner in a coalition (or supply and confidence or whatever) then you have a very limited amount of time to maximise your impact.
You don't have time to be a sensible party of government.
https://getprdone.org.uk/ten-years-after-the-av-referendum-what-are-the-lessons/
The Lib-Dems had their shot at making lasting change (and possibly even saving the UK) and they blew it in order to be in a 'proper' government.
Sure, they slowed things down for a couple of years. They could have stopped them completely.
Absolute waste of space.
Lib Dems slowed nothing down in coalition with the tories. they enabled a tory government. Refusing to go into coalition would have led to a weak tory minority government that would have soon collapsed.
And an election. And probably the 2015 Tory majority would have come in 5 years earlier.
I also think the LibDems often made the wrong compromises in office, but once they were out of office… well… things have been “a bit choppy” since then, to say the least.
Actually, the Lib-Dems are for getting into government and against not getting into government. The problem with voting Lib-Dem is that you don’t know which of their policies are going to get thrown on the bonfire of compromise in order to secure as many cabinet posts as possible.
As said, that's the reality of compromise, I'd say you don't understand it but presumably you've lived under it long enough to know better 🤷♂️
Yes they compromised on the wrong things but are people still hanging on to this 'sins of your fathers' nonsense that happened 13 years ago? Is anyone of that administration even around now?
There's a lot not to like about the Lib Dems but that point is just getting silly now.
I find it quite difficult to care about the opinions of parties not in power because they, erm, aren’t in power.
Yeah, but the past Brexit enthusiasms of Labour are relevant when our resident political strategists are, erm, advocating for Labour to blame Brexit on the Tories.
Yes they compromised on the wrong things but are people still hanging on to this ‘sins of your fathers’ nonsense that happened 13 years ago? Is anyone of that administration even around now?
Yes, and none of the Lib-Dems who said they were going to abolish tuition fees in Scotland and reneged on that promise as soon as Labour offered them some seats at the table after the first Scottish Parliament election are around either.
The question is what makes you think things are going to be any different this time if the Lib-Dems are offered a sniff of power, given the last two chances they've had they've burned the people who voted for them?
If they rebrand as a bunch of lunatics who are not going to do anything other than fix the electoral system and rejoin the EU I might reconsider.
Pretending that they were just acting like any other coalition partner in a functioning democracy ignores the fact that there have been coalition governments in the UK for exactly 5 of the last 78 years.
The lib-dems had not just a once in a lifetime chance but a once in a multiple generational chance to alter the course of the UK forever. Maybe it wouldn't have worked and maybe they would have suffered at the next election for it but that's just the reality of being committed to a cause.
The Lib-Dems have no cause. They are the absolute worst kind of career politicians. Those who don't even have the guts to go play with the big kids in Labour or the Tories. They are absolute nothings of politics.
There’s a lot not to like about the Lib Dems but that point is just getting silly now.
Pragmatism would suggest sometimes you need to hold your nose and look forward.
Or you could carry on fighting lost battles and see the Tories get back in.
Principles are great.
If you vote for the lib dems all you are doing is helping the tories.
Yes, and none of the Lib-Dems who said they were going to abolish tuition fees in Scotland and reneged on that promise as soon as Labour offered them some seats at the table after the first Scottish Parliament election are around either.
Um, what?
I went to uni during that administration and never paid a penny of tuition fees. That was a Lib Dem policy and one they negotiated as part of the Lib-Lab coalition.
What parallel universe are you typing from?
The lib-dems had not just a once in a lifetime chance but a once in a multiple generational chance to alter the course of the UK forever.
The Tories had over 6 times the MPs of the Lib Dems and outnumbered them in ministries 3-1. I don't think they had half the chance you seem to think they did. The only thing going for the coalition was that at least it represented a majority of the voting public - 59%, which was a first for any modern government.
The lib dems problem is they said at the beginning that they would not collapse the government. that means they lost all power and became lapdogs because the veto power of collapsing the government was all they had. Once the tories realised this they basically ignored the Lib Dems - and even made them do things like Cable selling off the royal mail
As a result we just got spineless enabling.
What parallel universe are you typing from?
The one where, if you started university in 1998, you paid tuition fees for your entire university career.
I, and a lot of others, voted for the Lib-Dems in 1999 specifically because they said abolishing tuition fees was a non-negotiable tenet of their manifesto.
Turns out it was very negotiable and tuition fees (or endowments or whatever it was called that month) weren't actually abolished until the SNP was in power in 2007.
Now, which universe are you typing to us from?
The Tories had over 6 times the MPs of the Lib Dems and outnumbered them in ministries 3-1. I don’t think they had half the chance you seem to think they did.
Unlike the DUP who, with 10 MPs, completely changed the shape of Brexit (and got an extra billion for NI just for shits and giggles). Their influence was undoubtedly bad but it was undeniable.
A junior partner in a coalition holds massive power over the senior partner IF it is prepared to sacrifice everything else for a single goal.
Electoral reform should have been the Lib-Dems only goal of that parliament. Instead they were offered a sniff of power and they went for it like the good career politicians they are.
I, and a lot of others, voted for the Lib-Dems in 1999 specifically because they said abolishing tuition fees was a non-negotiable tenet of their manifesto.
Much as I like beating up on the Lib Dems...manifestos are promises to do things if elected to government. The Lib Dems were never elected to government and did not have a mandate to govern. Did they promise not to join a coalition that would not reverse tuition fees?
Much as I like beating up on the Lib Dems…manifestos are promises to do things if elected to government. The Lib Dems were never elected to government and did not have a mandate to govern. Did they promise not to join a coalition that would not reverse tuition fees?
We're talking about Scotland where the government ended up being a Lab-Lib coalition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_tuition_fees_in_the_United_Kingdom#Scotland
I voted for them with the understanding that tuition fees was non-negotiable, ie, the Lib-Dems would not enter a coalition government that didn't abolish tuition fees.
I did not vote for them so that they could commission a report, replace fees with an endowment, only for the SNP to come to power 7 years later and abolish the whole lot immediately.
If they had told the truth I could have just voted SNP in the first place (although I wasn't paying attention to the SNP at the time and couldn't tell you what their policy on tuition fees was).
I have not seen a series of governments as downright dangerous as these Tories in all my days. I’d vote for anything within reason which could remove them from office.
If I thought it'd cost the Tories a seat I'd vote UKIP.
Or you could vote lib dem?
And that would be a wasted vote.
Hyndburn 2019 GE results (where I lived at the time):
https://electionresults.parliament.uk/election/2019-12-12/results/Location/Constituency/Hyndburn
Unlike the DUP who, with 10 MPs, completely changed the shape of Brexit
Because May was a minority government, unlike Cameron who wasn't. They're totally different scenarios and the DUP had influence way beyond their numbers would've normally given them, their votes literally meant all the difference . The two aren't comparable.
The one where, if you started university in 1998, you paid tuition fees for your entire university career.
Yeah that was a UK Labour policy, your own link says that.
From 2000 (the year before I started uni) tuition fees were scrapped for students in Scotland and instead the endowment was introduced. I don't know about you but I'd still rather have paid a £2-2.8k endowment on graduation (so if you drop out you're off the hook) than £3k per annum in tuition fees. I wasn't a maths student but even I can work that one out.
You were unfortunate in that you fell in between the two systems but you can't blame the libs for that. They got a hell of a better deal than what was already on offer for a lot of people in Scotland.
unlike Cameron who wasn’t.
Camerons government would have been a minority government without the lib dems.
They’re totally different scenarios and the DUP had influence way beyond their numbers would’ve normally given them, their votes literally meant all the difference .
The difference was the DUP had a single goal and didn't give a **** about blowing everything up if anything threatened that goal.
The Lib-Dems had no goal other than being in government. They gave up pretty much all their influence in order to get jobs in government. They completely abandoned the idea of electoral reform and the AV referendum was a fig leaf in order to say, 'Oh well, at least we tried'.
There is absolutely no sign they wouldn't do the exact same thing again if the opportunity arose.
From 2000 (the year before I started uni) tuition fees were scrapped for students in Scotland and instead the endowment was introduced. I don’t know about you but I’d still rather have paid a £2-2.8k endowment on graduation (so if you drop out you’re off the hook) than £3k per annum in tuition fees. I wasn’t a maths student but even I can work that one out.
You were unfortunate in that you fell in between the two systems but you can’t blame the libs for that. They got a hell of a better deal than what was already on offer for a lot of people in Scotland.
Bit better, sure. And yet the SNP came in and just abolished them altogether which begs the question, how hard were they trying?
Still, at least they didn't make the exact same mistake in 2010...
"Refusing to go into coalition would have led to a weak tory minority government that would have soon collapsed."
That's a fair point tj but it wouldn't stop me voting Lib Dem in the future.
The Lib Dems took a gamble and it didn't pay off. In the same way Corbyn's gamble with Brexit didn't pay off but it wouldn't stop me voting Labour in future either.
I wouldn't blame the current Lib Dems for it either. I don't think making big mistakes, being "spineless" or gambling is party policy, is it?
The Lib Dems took a gamble and it didn’t pay off.
That is literally the opposite of what they did.
A gamble would have been to bet the house on forcing the issue of electoral reform at the expense of everything else. The pay-off would have been guaranteeing their relevance as a party into the future (and as a happy coincidence, possibly saving the UK from Brexit and break-up). The risk would have been becoming an irrelevance (which happened anyway so they are not only risk-averse but also incompetent).
They took the safe option, that happened to involve minister salaries, and they are rightly being punished for it and should continue to be punished for it until they finally decide to come up with an honest-to-god purpose that they will pursue at the expense of everything else.
If only there were some burning issues that are being ignored by all the major parties...
The difference was the DUP had a single goal and didn’t give a **** about blowing everything up if anything threatened that goal.
And are now still behind Sinn Fein in the polls, and have been for months and months now. Seems being a junior partner in a coalition with the Tories doesn't benefit anyone who tries it.
And are now still behind Sinn Fein in the polls, and have been for months and months now. Seems being a junior partner in a coalition with the Tories doesn’t benefit anyone who tries it.
And your point would be valid if there weren't some fairly significant, shall we say, cultural issues driving voting patterns in NI.
The DUP aren't losing votes because of their arrangement with the Tories. They are losing votes because of an unstoppable demographic shift.
Trying to destroy their own parliament probably isn't helping either.
I voted for them with the understanding that tuition fees was non-negotiable, ie, the Lib-Dems would not enter a coalition government that didn’t abolish tuition fees.
Okay, but who said that?
Manifestos are wish lists for which you have a mandate if you form a government. The manifesto didn't break down the education proposals into negotiable and non-negotiable ones. How could they? They had no idea ahead of time who they'd be negotiating with or how strong they'd be.
The Lib Dems did say "A Parliament elected by fair votes also makes it very unlikely that any one party will command an overall majority. Politicians should remember that it is the people who will elect the Parliament. We will respect the voters' choice and are committed to making the Parliament work. In the likely event of no party gaining an overall majority, we will try to secure an agreement for a stable partnership government. Our strategy therefore is to set our own distinctive policies before the electorate and point out that the more people who vote for us, the better the chance that those policies will be implemented after the election. This manifesto sets out these policies..."
Lib Dems didn't win. Labour was never going to concede on tuition fees given the previous 3-4 years.
Edit: sorry, forgot the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/scotland_99/manifestos/libdems/index.htm