Anyone had their political views changed after the age of 25?

OK. Well I don’t know the full details of what went on in the actual vote – would it have been lost if all 57 LDs had voted against it as they pledged? Though we’ve debated student fees on here quite a bit, and my understanding of the situation is that whilst they broke the terms of the pledge, because fees are now higher, what we have got (which we wouldn’t have if they’d stuck to the pledge) is a repayment structure which is far more progressive than the old one.

Whilst opposing student fees on a point of principle, and opposing the raising of fees is a fine position to hold, and one I largely agree with, I’m also a pragmatist. The reality as I understand it (I’m open to being corrected if my facts are wrong) is that poorer graduates are actually rather better off under the new system. So what we’re actually complaining about here is the Lib Dems voting to increase the amount graduates earning above the national average wage have to pay towards their university fees. From a personal point of view, I’m lucky enough to have gone to university when we still got grants and being a rich sponsored student never needed to take a loan to support myself, but if I’d had to take out a loan to pay fees, I’m fairly sure I’d have been better off under the new system – am no longer “rich”!

Of course the other question is, if they had all voted against on this occasion, would they have achieved any of the positive things they have managed as the junior party in the coalition (for all the complaints people make about current government policy, it could be worse), or would the Tories have then played hardball with them?

On balance I think they were right to vote the way they did (before you all get righteous on me, see my comment above regarding my personal opinion about student fees). That’s if we ignore the political damage – taking that into account, clearly they should have stuck with the pledge however bad the resultant outcome.

My claim essentially is that socialism doesn’t work.

I think this depends to some entent on your definition of “socialism”. If you mean collectives, Marxism, etc. I’m inclined to agree. But the general Western European definition of socialism is simply “left of centre”. Many countries have oscillated regularly between left and right without total ruin.

Just to expand on the point I made yesterday, what are people’s thought’s on potential post may 7th Coalitions?

My take on coalition is that candidates voted in should form the Government (or Administration as I prefer to call it) irrespective of their individual parties. The concept of Government and Opposition is divisive and negative.

How does giving people a referendum equate to ‘out of Europe’? And if it did, then wouldn’t that be democracy in action?

You think that all the right wing loons in on the Tory backbenches (having ousted Dave for failing to win a majority) combined with their new right wing UKIP chums, wouldn’t just be demanding a straight withdrawal?

What exactly is so terrifying about allowing people to vote on an issue?

Because we’d have a rabidly anti-europe, right wing press, who would go into overdrive. But now backed by a rabidly right wing, foaming at the mouth, party in government. There would be very few sensible or measured arguments being heard, and it’d all be hysterics about straight bananas, and all that crap. So we’d be out. And that would be economic suicide!

I used to think Scottish Nationalism was a joke, but I ended up voting Yes because I just can’t identify with Westminster at all. Watching Inside the Commons (iPlayer) last night further exemplified the gulf, when overprivileged idiots like William Rees Mog can work to kill Bills by simply and genuinely talking shite, and someone who looked like they were doing right by people, get bought off e.g. Robert Halfon.

You would make a good spin Dr 😉

Whilst i get your argument i think they actually paid back more over a longer period so the monthly amounts were less but the total owed greater.
they also increased the threshold for payment from 15 k to 21 k but they also charged a real interest rate rather than inflation. IIRC it means low earners never pay it all back but they pay more for 30 years – not certain on that point.
The pledge was to not increase fees
What they did was increase fees [ 3290 pa to £9 k]and then use a fairer system than previously used to collect the increase. Its hard to spin that as anything other than a collapse and an increase and I imagine as a result 90% + of students pay more over their lifetime not least because they owe much more.

I dont think the Tories could have got it through with out their votes as labour [ irrespective of their view on it though they were against it] would have voted against it to beat the govt and call a vote of no confidence. Even as it was it was won by 21 votes with the majority cut by 3/4s

FWIW

Some 21 Lib Dems rebelled, while 27 – including the party’s ministers – backed the change, and eight abstained

a majority of Lib dems MP’s did not support it but abstaining on it was a proper act of cowardice IMHO. Stand up and be counted for what you believe in or support your party at all costs but to do neither is somewhat wishy washy IMHO

I have lived in the North East all my life. Makes no difference what anyone votes up here the political landscape is so heavily entrenched with the pits and ship building that Labour could skin new born babies alive and people would still vote Labour because their parents and grandparents have always voted Labour. I suppose my values would be traditional Lib Dem in principle but unfortunately that’s not their core value any more. They have tried to take up the middle ground between Labour and Tory Policy.

In my mind North East is going to be interesting in the election, as will many of the industrial heartlands that are Labour strongholds that they’ve ignored for so long as they were a shoe-in for a seat.

Do we only vote Labour because we hate the Tories so much, or do they really believe in the Labour ‘principles’. I kinda half think its the former (and I’ve been a union rep and worked on elections, and there are some fairly right wing thinking Labour ‘voters’, I can tell you).

If UKIP roll in saying they’ll kick all the Johnny Foreigners out of the country so jobs for the locals blah blah blah, depressingly they could easily get a bit of momentum going and be a viable alternative for those Labour voters. I can see a couple of seats going their way, alas.

In reality that might be the same story in Cons strongholds in mirror image – do they just hate Labour rather than wanting Cons?

I’m a realist, not a spin doctor. The changed threshold makes far more difference than anything else. I plugged a national average £26.5k salary into the calculators at http://www.savethestudent.org/student-loans-repayment-calculator Under the old system you’d pay £1035 a year for 24 years and pay off the debt after 24 years. Under the new system you’d pay £495 a year for 30 years and then it would be written off. The break even point appears to be when you’re earning £30k, old system £1350 for 18 years, new system £810 for 30 years (of course decreasing value of money and wage rises shifts that a bit, but it’s a good approximation to being the same repayment on both systems). So the socialists have a fundamental problem with people earning over £30k having to pay more “tax”?

The pledge was to not increase fees
What they did was increase fees

I understand and acknowledge that. I’m also a pragmatist.

a majority of Lib dems MP’s did not support it but abstaining on it was a proper act of cowardice IMHO. Stand up and be counted for what you believe in or support your party at all costs but to do neither is somewhat wishy washy IMHO

They pledged to vote against. Thanks for the info on the vote.

If UKIP roll in saying they’ll kick all the Johnny Foreigners out of the country so jobs for the locals blah blah blah, depressingly they could easily get a bit of momentum going and be a viable alternative for those Labour voters. I can see a couple of seats going their way, alas.

UKIP all but wiped out a 6,000 labour majority at the Middleton by election last year by doing exactly that! I’ve said it before, but I think labour are in for one hell of a shock in May. And they look absolutely clueless/oblivious to it. They already know they’re going lose seats to the SNP north of the border. But I think a lot of the previously rock solid labour seats in the north have absolutely had it with the labour party too. Constantly being ignored and taken for granted. Its like being in an abusive relationship.

Simon Danczuk saw it and described the alienation problem perfectly

I’m not saying that UKIP are going to win seats in the north, but enough people will vote for them, that it will then wipe out previously safe majorities in Labour Strongholds, and deliver up some really perverse results! They’re going to lose a lot of votes to the Greens too. So they’re haemorrhaging votes to the right and left.

Lets be honest…. the rise of UKIP stands as the most damning indictment possible of the two major parties, and their abject failure to even pretend to engage with the electorate any more

breatheeasy – Member

I have lived in the North East all my life. Makes no difference what anyone votes up here the political landscape is so heavily entrenched with the pits and ship building that Labour could skin new born babies alive and people would still vote Labour because their parents and grandparents have always voted Labour. I suppose my values would be traditional Lib Dem in principle but unfortunately that’s not their core value any more. They have tried to take up the middle ground between Labour and Tory Policy.

In my mind North East is going to be interesting in the election, as will many of the industrial heartlands that are Labour strongholds that they’ve ignored for so long as they were a shoe-in for a seat.

Do we only vote Labour because we hate the Tories so much, or do they really believe in the Labour ‘principles’. I kinda half think its the former (and I’ve been a union rep and worked on elections, and there are some fairly right wing thinking Labour ‘voters’, I can tell you).

If UKIP roll in saying they’ll kick all the Johnny Foreigners out of the country so jobs for the locals blah blah blah, depressingly they could easily get a bit of momentum going and be a viable alternative for those Labour voters. I can see a couple of seats going their way, alas.

In reality that might be the same story in Cons strongholds in mirror image – do they just hate Labour rather than wanting Cons? [/quote]

I am voting UKIP not because I believe them but rather I want all the political parties to fight each other like hell … they need to earn their living. They need to earn their living Hard and I need them to entertain me.

The politicians have had it so good for so long now I want them to feel the stress of earning a hard living.

I wonder why someone would vote for the same party again and again …

I wonder why someone would vote for the same party again and again …

I understand principles confuse you so I wont waste time explaining them to you.

So the socialists have a fundamental problem with people earning over £30k having to pay more “tax”?

Pretty sure you are a spin doctor describing it like that.

Also in terms of doing the calculations it makes more sense to use average GRADUATE salaries as the calculation

Your total debt is:£43500 = £1575 = 28 years
Your total debt is £24720 = £2115 = 12 years

The whole point of the change was to raise more money. It will not have failed in that respect despite your “massaging of the figures”

Everyone owes more and the majority will pay more back that was what it was meant to do. Its true less well off people are better off and therefore it can be called fairer.

So Farage kicked off Ukip’s campaign in my home town this morn… good/bad old Canvey Island.

How many more own goals can these berks score ??

You see if it wasn’t for our friends across the water … no not the peoples of Benfleet… I mean our European neighbours across the English Channel…. half of Canvey wouldn’t even exist.

Dutch migrant workers reclaim the land back in the 1600s and were given some of the new land for their work… a third of street names have Dutch origins.

In fact, I rode through the village of Lottem, which gives it’s name to street I grew up on, during a cycle tour of Holland with my school back in the late 80s.

Maybe Farage will repatriate the two Dutch Cottages that still stand ?

I don’t think my views have altered that much, which are generally left of centre and very much focussed on fairness and equality, but with a pro-military slant. However I think the political playing field in this country has.

I took this test a few years back and was surprised with the result – I was nearer to Gandhi than anything in the UK. The site is also quite fascinating too and worth a mooch round, tracking the changes in national and international politics.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Aracer – perhaps it should be (1) have problems with the transparency required to make the informed decision on whether going to Unuversity is worth the investment or not, (2) ditto but to compare different universities with each other and (3) allow our globally competitive institutions to compete on a level playing field internationally.

The issue here is that you expect the Tories to lie, but had unrealistic expectations of the Lib Dems.

If that’s how you feel aracer then you have completely missed the point. The LibDems plunged to new depths, they betrayed people’s trust even more, they undermined even further the credibility of politicians.

When did the Tories invite the national press and media to witness them sign a “pledge”, with all the publicity that entails, and then do the complete opposite?

And give me one example of a Labour election pledge where a Labour government has then deliberately done the complete opposite.

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.

When did the Tories invite the national press and media to witness them sign a “pledge”, with all the publicity that entails, and then do the complete opposite?

It wasn’t a signed pledge, but Dave promised to have “the greenest government ever” (but wants to introduce fracking, apart from in Oxfordshire) and that “we can trust them with the NHS” (trust them to slowly dismantle it, that is).

He probably meant “green” as in lacking experience.

And I’m sure he would still argue that “we can trust them with the NHS”, although he did say that there would be no reorganization of the NHS, which was obviously a lie.

The only thing I trust the Tories with is to behave like Tories. They never let me down.

It wasn’t a signed pledge, but Dave promised to have “the greenest government ever”

To be fair to Dave, he made lots of mood music about all manner of things in the run up to the last election, to ‘detoxify the Tory Brand’, but he eventually went into that election with virtually no solid policy commitments at all.

If people were gullible enough to swallow the vague, noncommittal, noises made by an oily PR man, and actually vote for him on the strength of some half-promised, barely-formed suggestions, then frankly they deserve everything they get

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.

The only thing I trust the Tories with is to behave like Tories. They never let me down.

Didn’t the Tories promise austerity? Who has the more restrictive fiscal policy, austerity george or our friends in Europe?

Over the last two years, austerity george has eased up on his promise and in fact last year fiscal policy was actually expansionary. So they lied in their pledge too (as have his critics who have misdiagnosed the situation)

“The only thing I trust the Tories with is to behave like Tories. They never let me down”.

Didn’t the Tories promise austerity?

As usual THM you’re not reading my posts properly, or deliberately, or accidentally, ignoring/missing the point I’m making.

I said………… “The only thing I trust the Tories with is to behave like Tories”. I’m not interested in their “promises”.

That’s the point I was making. So your retort “Didn’t the Tories promise ….. blah, blah, blah” is pointless. See ?

It might help if you state what behaving like Tories mean – as you will be aware many say that involves cutting government spending and as we know not even Maggie did that. Then they might talk about austerity or spending on certain services.

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

I’m going to let you try to figure that one out. But here’s a clue :

“as we know not even Maggie did that”

Thatcher, or Maggie as you like to affectionately call her, made a lot of promises, eg, cut taxation, cut unemployment, cut crime, cut government spending, increase growth, etc.

She failed in all her stated aims. In fact not just that but she achieved the complete opposite in most cases, eg, the tax burden increased, unemployment increased, crime increased, government spending increased. Average growth in the 1980s was exactly the same as average growth in the 1970s, so that was almost a success story. And all the while she pissed North Sea oil.

She did however behave very much like a Tory. I didn’t feel let down by her in that respect, despite the fact that she broke all her promises.

Of course she did achieve what she set out to achieve – that goes without saying.

So behaving like a Tory is not delivering on your promises, sounds like the LD then. QED.

So behaving like a Tory is not delivering on your promises

Behaving like a Tory is behaving like a Tory. Promises are completely irrelevant, is my point. Which you appear to be completely unable to grasp.

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.

Funny how right wingers always say we ended slavery when you point out we did it. What we did was indefensible and bringing it to an end is hardly a good thing

So what would you have done were you in power back in 1807? Just let slavery continue which is the implication of your statement above? What a bizarre argument to make……bringing something evil to an end is “hardly a good thing”.

think this depends to some entent on your definition of “socialism”. If you mean collectives, Marxism, etc. I’m inclined to agree. But the general Western European definition of socialism is simply “left of centre”. Many countries have oscillated regularly between left and right without total ruin.

I’d say that oscillating regularly between centre right and centre left is probably why many countries, such as the UK, have done so well over the decades. Checks and balances etc.

I’ve always been red, but have recently (last year or so) decided that we need to f- the sort of rabid capitalism as practiced in America right off. As wet Ed and his mob are as blue as the other mob I’m now Green.

Yes, my political views have changed since I turned 25.
I’ve become a lot more left leaning.

So what would you have done were you in power back in 1807? Just let slavery continue which is the implication of your statement above? What a bizarre argument to make……bringing something evil to an end is “hardly a good thing”.

What i would do is side step the question speak about something else and make you debate that ?Possibly say something stupid about the implication of your statement that is both a little insulting and **** ludicrous?
Do i win a prize?
So why do right wingers always say we ended slavery when you mention our slavery legacy? I am still none the wiser despite all your replies.

Perhaps because we didn’t invent slavery, in fact it was an age old industry with thousands of years of involvement by a huge variety of races and countries, that we (largely) ended, by a mixture of diplomacy and force, in an incredibly short time.

We (well, you lot… 😉 ) probably invented the industrialisation of slavery. But don’t let that stop anyone diverting the responsibility anywhere else…

Perhaps because we didn’t invent slavery

And there you go……..a complete misrepresentation of the point that Junkyard made, a tactic much favoured by right-wingers.

To this question :

You mention about Britain being one of the G7. Indeed, but how did we end up being one of the G7.

Junkyard answered :

Slavery and pillaging the world for resources via war

There’s no mention of Britain “inventing” slavery. Just the suggestion that Britain grew powerful as the result of “slavery and pillaging the world for resources via war”. A fair point which carries some truth.

So why do right wingers always say we ended slavery when you mention our slavery legacy

For the simple reason that left wingers continually bring the subject up as if it is something Britain should be uniquely ashamed off. The fact is that slavery was practiced by pretty much every country at some point, has been for thousands of years and sadly still is in some parts of the world. Britain played probably the greatest part in trying to stamp out the trade, but you seem unwilling to admit that.

a complete misrepresentation of the point that Junkyard made, a tactic much favoured by right-wingers

You honestly believe that that is a trait solely of right wing parties? It’s something people and parties of all political hues do. I do it, so do you, so do most folk in these sorts of debates at some point or another.

What i would do is side step the question

Well to be fair you did first mention slavery. To my mind it had virtually nothing to do with Britain becoming a wealthy country.

And as regarding sidestepping questions, the basic question I asked was a simple one about “Could someone who believes we would be better off under a socialist government please give me an example of where socialism (as opposed to a centre left party) has worked?”.

Just the suggestion that Britain grew powerful as the result of “slavery and pillaging the world for resources via war”. A fair point which carries some truth

I disagree re slavery but will agree that a lot of British wealth came about as a result of war. The harsh facts are however that in those days war was seen as a legitimate means of wealth creation. If Britain hadn’t fought those wars another country would. To our modern eyes that may seem distasteful but try and view it from the perspective of a couple of hundred or so years ago.

I dont like your morals any more than I like your argument.

Bit of a harsh thing to say surely? What exactly is it about my moral values that you dislike? I’m not actually sure I’ve expressed any moral viewpoints on this thread. Political ones certainly, but not moral, at least as far as I can tell.

Looks like a tax, swims like a tax, quacks like a tax. Even the banks don’t treat it as a debt. It’s only those earning well above average wage who pay more. I’m not sure if I’m completely missing the point of why you’re describing it as spin?

Also in terms of doing the calculations it makes more sense to use average GRADUATE salaries as the calculation

That kind of depends what you’re trying to prove. Is it reasonable that a non-graduate earning a national average salary is effectively subsidising those earning thousands of pounds more? Sure most graduates pay more under the new system – but given the average graduate is in the higher strata of income, is that really a big problem? Why exactly are you so upset by a more progressive system which results in a slight improvement in the redistribution of income?

The whole point of the change was to raise more money. It will not have failed in that respect despite your “massaging of the figures”

I agree – I wasn’t trying to prove otherwise. Simply that those for whom the burden of paying back the fees is greatest – the ones for whom the imposition of fees and any increase in fees seems unfair – have had that burden lifted a bit. As you yourself said, it is more fair.

I can only think that it’s the principle you have a problem with rather than the reality.

I acknowledge you have a point. Which is only slightly undermined by you then admitting that your expectations of behaviour are lower for the Tories. I’d suggest that the Tories are also better at lying, and being more used to being in power, better at avoiding making stupid promises they won’t be able to keep. Because fundamentally it was making the pledge where they went wrong, and what Clegg has promised ( 😯 ) not to do again.

I have to admit I don’t remember that video – that was also rather tempting fate wasn’t it. Come to think of it, the big issue is actually the lack of foresight – did nobody think through the possibility of them being in a coalition and having to compromise?

Which is only slightly undermined by you then admitting that your expectations of behaviour are lower for the Tories.

I did no such thing. The rest of the post was as follows :

When did the Tories invite the national press and media to witness them sign a “pledge”, with all the publicity that entails, and then do the complete opposite?

And give me one example of a Labour election pledge where a Labour government has then deliberately done the complete opposite.

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.

Nowhere do I “admit” that my expectations of behaviour are lower for the Tories.

I merely point out that neither the Tories and Labour have stooped so low and that the LibDems are in a league of their own with regards to publicity seeking pre-election signed “pledges”.

I meant in subsequent posts, but meh, I’m not getting into a fight over this, I agree the pledge was a stupid thing to do.

I merely point out that neither the Tories and Labour have stooped so low and that the LibDems are in a league of their own with regards to publicity seeking pre-election signed “pledges”.

Eh?

Was this not a series of publicity seeking pre election signed pledges then?

And, to be fair, several Tory “pledges” here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25609485
https://web.archive.org/web/20100328230716/http:/www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/03/Conservatives_announce_pensioner_pledge.asp

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/11/david-cameron-european-union-referendum-pledge

I meant in subsequent posts, but meh, I’m not getting into a fight over this, I agree the pledge was a stupid thing to do.

In “subsequent posts” I point that I expect Tories to behave like Tories (whatever promises they might make).

The reason being that it is perfectly logical for them to do so, why would they behave any differently ?

There was a time when I didn’t expect Labour, or LibDems for that matter, to behave like Tories. Not anymore.

Nowhere do I “admit” that my expectations of behaviour are lower for the Tories. Unless you think accusing a Tory of being a Tory is some sort of insult.

As I said, I used to expect Labour and the LibDems to behave differently to the Tories. Not anymore.

HTH