Lib Dems

and yet, by breaking their promise, they reduced the amount graduates have to pay by £600/year.

the stinkers!
That is an interesting way of explaining how the debt it larger but paid back by smaller amounts over a longer time

you are wonga and I will see you in court for misleading financial advice 😕

Junkyard – lazarus

That is an interesting way of explaining how the debt it larger but paid back by smaller amounts over a longer time

you are wonga and I will see you in court for misleading financial advice

long, long ago, student debt had already reached the point where very few people ever paid back the full debt – they just made the monthly paye payments, waiting for the day, 25 years away, that the debt would be wiped.

nobody seemed to complain much about this system.

year later, thanks to the lib-dems and their broken promise, those monthly payments are now £50 smaller.

and the world went crazy angry.

and lets be clear on this, the savings will add up to approx £12000 over the life of the account for most people – certainly everyone on low/average/significantly more than average salaries.

i’ll knock up a quick spreadsheet and come back with the numbers.

actually, balls to that, the spreadsheets already massive, i need to do some work.

but here’s ‘example1’ (low earner)

starting salary = £15k, rising at 3%/year, over 30 years.

under the old system, they’d end up paying back approx £23700 (9% of salary over £15k).

under the new system, they end up paying back approx £0 (their salary never over-takes the threshold of £21k, which is index-linked iirc)

I did laugh at the remark that Clegg was trying to morph into Steve Jobs with the jeans and black shirt look !

Did anyone else see the 4 ladies who are standing for Lib Dem party chairman on BBC2 last night ? One decent candidate but the other three where shocking

I’ve skimmed through this thread and no one seems to have picked up on Vince Cable’s excuse/explanation for their U-Turn; that it was FE Colleges vs Tuition fees and he went for FE Colleges (i.e. those who are more likely to be at the bottom of the wage pool) over Tuition fees (i.e. those who are more likely to be at the top of the wage pool)
Here

Still not gonna vote for LD’s though – as I was only interested in Proportional representation.
With that failure it looks like tactical voting will be the only way ahead.

ahwiles are you including the interest rate, based on salary, of the loan as here

Still not gonna vote for LD’s though – as I was only interested in Proportional representation.

They got further towards it that anyone else, there was a vote on it at least!

Plus if you did get PR, you’d have the Lib Dems in coalitions for all eternity!

They haven’t a cat in hells chance of getting PR in., while the 2 main parties, cynical and ideologically bankrupt as they both are, have decided to abandon any pretence to a broad electoral appeal, and aim to limp over the line, scraping in with 35% of the vote. Its depressing 😥

Actually…. reading back through this thread, the lib dems increasingly look like the least worst option

i’ll knock up a quick spreadsheet and come back with the numbers.

…..
actually, balls to that, the spreadsheets already massive, i need to do some work.

but here’s ‘example1’ (low earner)
…..

under the new system, they end up paying back approx £0 (their salary never over-takes the threshold of £21k, which is index-linked iirc)
I can see why it is taking so much time 😉

IMHO your argument has some merit but it is a little deceptive as it is pretty hard to argue they increased tuition fees to make it cheaper to go to University. FWIW I admire your balls for trying

@ DarcL
Not read that an intersting

IMHO fe are othing but glorified money machines trainign young people do things where we have no skills shortage and they have little change of getting employment

CSI studies being a popular one not tot mention the “trades”.
Locally when I had the figures it was 10 k funding per year for a construction NVQ level 2 @ 2 years. 95% never ever worked in the industry
For motor vehicle the two local providers trained 185% of the workforce in the area each year – ie there were not enough jobs for them afterwards even if every mechanic retired- they produced this number every single year ! year on year of people with no hope of employment. they then started to tell them they should all do level 3 as this would help them get work when all it did was help the tutors get work and the college more money.

Personally I would cut what they do much of it is not progressing the student to anything . What is worse is that it builds up false hope that what they are doing will be useful and the then spend ywars afterwards trying to work in the industry to find themselevs in their mid twenties with no work experience and not able to do any other training [ for free]
A lose lose situation that we all bankrolled the training and the benefits afterwards.
training is only the answer if there are jobs to be trained for and to go to afterwards. If we paid colleges on results they would cut their vocational courses massively

Personally I would cut what they do much of it is not progressing the student to anything . What is worse is that it builds up false hope that what they are doing will be useful and the then spend ywars afterwards trying to work in the industry to find themselevs in their mid twenties with no work experience and not able to do any other training [ for free]

Very true – similar to the Media Studies Uni degree; keeps the NEET figures down whilst not actually helping anyone.

ernie_lynch, Labour promised far more than what was on those pledge cards. They promised not to introduce tution feeds for a start (but went ahead and did it). They later promised not to increase them (but went ahead and did it).

footflaps – Member

Or you could just be pragmatic and vote for whichever party best fits your aims (as none will ever match them 100%) and accept that not everything goes to plan.

Although you are welcome to take this betrayal with you to the grave as that is your prerogative

Today we are witnessing a lack of trust and confidence in British politics and politicians at a level unprecedented since the introduction of universal suffrage.

The consequences for democracy are serious as politicians become evermore detached from the people. The people whose interests they are there to serve and the people who are so directly affected by the decisions they take.

British politics desperately needs to reestablish trust, confidence, and integrity.

If you are relaxed and simply shrug your shoulders when politicians deliberately break their elections pledges then you are part of the problem.

A politician doing the complete opposite of what they have pledged to do should mean political suicide. If it doesn’t then you can hardly expect the situation to change – why should it ?

.

Labour promised far more than what was on those pledge cards.

Yeah but we are talking about election pledges. Broken elections promises is a well established phenomena. Broken election pledges is new territory. New territory entered into by the LibDems, and it can but only further discredit British politics.

The LibDems should pay a very heavy price for bringing British politics into even further disrepute. And of course they will in 6 months time, the electorate will see to that.

.

He’ll do a Mandleson, and swan off back to Europe as the Commissioner for something-or-other.

Yup, EU Commissioner – lots of power and no one votes for you, so it doesn’t matter if the people whose lives your decisions affect don’t like you, the ideal career move for a failed politician.

The House of Lords would be far too boring for Nick Clegg, plus of course it doesn’t have any real power.

Point of information with regards to this :

They promised not to introduce tution feeds for a start (but went ahead and did it).

I’ve just checked the 1997 Labour Party Manifesto and that’s not true, ie, it said that students should pay towards their tuition costs :

Higher education

The improvement and expansion needed cannot be funded out of general taxation.

The costs of student maintenance should be repaid by graduates on an income-related basis…

http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-manifesto.shtml

Labour were elected on a manifesto commitment to introduce student fees/loans.

That’s about the replacement of maintenance grants, not the introduction of tution fees. Paying to support yourself during education is not the same as paying for the education.

1997 Labour and Tories both promised to implement the recommendations of a commission (can’t remember whose) and that commission recommended tuition fees.

“improvement and expansion needed cannot be funded out of general taxation” left the door wide open for the introduction tuition fees. I’m not sure how other than general taxation or charging students higher education can reasonably be funded.

Nowhere in the 1997 election manifesto does Labour claim that they will not introduce tuition fees, as erroneously claimed. In fact it’s hard to read the manifesto and not come to the conclusion that they will.

Of course the LibDem position on the issue was crystal clear. And they welcomed photo opportunities and maximum media coverage of their tuition fee position, they presumably thought it would win them votes.

It’s a bit like all the fanfare, photo opportunities, and media coverage they attached to their “Tory VAT bombshell” campaign :

Then six months after warning the British electorate not to vote Tory because they would increase VAT the LibDems supported and helped the Tories increase VAT.

The LibDems under the leadership of Nick Clegg clearly don’t have a shred of integrity.

konabunny – Member

1997 Labour and Tories both promised to implement the recommendations of a commission (can’t remember whose) and that commission recommended tuition fees.

From the 1997 Labour election manifesto which I linked :

The improvement and expansion needed cannot be funded out of general taxation. Our proposals for funding have been made to the Dearing Committee, in line with successful policies abroad.

http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-manifesto.shtml

Tony Blair said that Labour wouldn’t introduce tuition fees in 1997.

And if we jump to 2001… “We will not introduce top-up fees.”

Labour, with a thumping majority, went back on its word on this. Twice.

The LibDems came third at the last election, with no mandate for a policy opposed by the 2 parties that got more votes. Very little of their manifesto has been acted on, and democratically you could argue that they have no right to try and force their policies on the country without consensus with one or other of the better supported parties.

I’m not defending those LibDem MPs that voted against their expressed intention and pledges… but anyone that thinks that makes them any “worse” than hundreds of Labour MPs that have also screwed over future students… well… blinkered is the word I’d use.

VAT? Not what the LibDems proposed.
CGT? Not what the Tories proposed.
Inheritance Tax? Not what the Tories proposed.
Etc… a big messy compromise.

I’m not defending those LibDem MPs that voted against their expressed intention and pledges… but anyone that thinks that makes them any “worse” than hundreds of Labour MPs ….

Of course you’re defending the LibDems. And of course under the leadership of Nick Clegg the LibDems have acted “worse” than Labour.

Again I’ll post the link with all the election pledges made by Labour 1997-2005 :

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+labours+election+pledge+cards/507807.html

Now find me one election pledge made by Labour where they have deliberately done the complete opposite to what the pledged to do, like the LibDems have.

This regularly trotted out claim that all politicians are the same is complete nonsense, some are clearly worse than others.

And the LibDems will pay the price next general election for their appalling behaviour during the last 4 years, as they have in every election since May 2010.

You might not think that the LibDem are any “worse” than Labour, but the electorate definitely does.

Clegg the next PM!
Clegg the next PM!
Clegg the next PM!

That will learn you … 😆

As I said… blinkered. Tony Blair said that Labour wouldn’t introduce tuition fees in 1997. Then they did. In 2001 the Labour manifesto ruled out top up fees, which they then introduced. Both times they had a majority government and didn’t have to compromise. They just chose to lie about their true intentions.

For those without memories, let’s go back to 2001:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1160403.stm
And have a look at the manifesto:
http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/2001/2001-labour-manifesto.shtml
“We will not introduce ‘top-up’ fees and have legislated to prevent them.”

Lib dems worse than labour ???? F off Tony Blair Jack Straw and David Miliband massively implicated in rendition for torture . Jack Straw publicly called for evidence obtained by torture to be admissible in English courts . you get all het up over the distinction between a pledge and a promise over a few quid in exchange for an education.

Lib dems worse than labour ???? F off Tony Blair Jack Straw and David Miliband massively implicated in rendition for torture .

I think you’ve got the complete wrong end of the stick. This is about integrity concerning keeping to their election pledges. Nothing to do with torture or policies or anything else. I thought that was clear, apologies if it wasn’t.

Although having said that I’m not anymore impressed with the LibDems time in government than I was with Labour’s, although presumably you are. Still that’s a matter of opinion, the point I’m making isn’t :

FactCheck

This :

verses this :

EDIT : Perhaps I should point out that I don’t necessarily agree with the pledges made by either Labour or the LibDems, I’m simply pointing out that Labour have a better record on election pledges than the LibDems.

Stop showing that pledge card that doesn’t show what Labour promised on fees, and address the fact that Labour did the exact opposite of what they said they would, with tuition fees, TWICE, with a majority to make all the calls themselves. LibDems will pay the price for not blocking a rise in fees, but Labour have just as bad a record in this area, if not worse.

Stop showing that pledge card…

But the election pledges is what I’m talking about, we know about politician breaking promises, I said on the previous page :

Broken elections promises is a well established phenomena. Broken election pledges is new territory. New territory entered into by the LibDems, and it can but only further discredit British politics.

I haven’t even mentioned all the other stuff that was LibDem policy/in their manifesto, and which they’ve now preformed U-turns on. As an example :

“Nuclear power is a tried, tested and failed technology, which is clearly a costly blind alley.”

Chris Huhne LibDem Energy Spokesman – May 2007

“We are on course to make sure that the first new nuclear power station opens on time in 2018”

Chris Huhne – LibDem Energy Minister August 2010

You might well dismiss broken pledges as unimportant, but if you do you are going to have to come up with some sort of explanation as to why the LibDems are currently polling less than half the support they had 4 years ago.

The LibDems clearly have issues around trust, confidence, and integrity, and not least among their own former supporters, if you don’t accept my explanation what’s yours ?

The LibDems clearly have issues around trust, confidence, and integrity, and not least among their own former supporters, if you don’t accept my explanation what’s yours ?

All true. It’s your blindness to the fact the same is true for Labour that confuses me. Blinkered.

I think the expectation was that the LDs would somehow be better than the other politicians. They’re been shown to be pretty much the same but the backlash is worse as people expected so much more.

That. I made the “grab / rush for power” remark as someone that has been liberal minded and voted same for many years. I expected better.

I understand that it’s difficult to show what you achieved when such matters were “we moderated what would have happened” but even so, they’re pushed to point to liberal issues that have prevailed. I also understand the focus was on the economy and the deficit, and Alexander has been adept at that, but the flip-side is that they appear as just Con stooges set up to take the flak..

I think the expectation was that the LDs would somehow be better than the other politicians. They’re been shown to be pretty much the same but the backlash is worse as people expected so much more.

Not delivering what you promise when you have to compromise with the Tories, isn’t the same as not delivering what you promise when you have a thumping majority in parliament. Which is why it still surprises me that LibDem compromises seen as far worse than Labour deceit by some. Anyway, LibDems will only have a handful of seats after the last election, losing seats to both Tories and Labour, and then that’ll teach them… but I don’t see how as a country we’ll benefit much, or at all, from that.

but the flip-side is that they appear as just Con stooges set up to take the flak..

Possibly a lack of cut throat political instinct coming from decades of never being near real power, combined with too much good intention. Politics is a dirty business and you need to give as good as you get.

losing seats to both Tories and Labour, and then that’ll teach them

Not quite sure what it will teach them though…

All true. It’s your blindness to the fact the same is true for Labour that confuses me. Blinkered.

Despite your attempts to personalise the issue it’s not me that the LibDems have a problem with, it’s with millions of their former supporters.

Yesterday in Heywood and Middleton the LibDem vote went from 22.7% four years ago to 5.1%. And in Clacton from 12.9% four years ago to 1.3% yesterday.

I’ve offered my explanation for this catastrophic collapse in LibDem support but you reject it, so I repeat, the LibDems clearly have issues around trust, confidence, and integrity, and not least among their own former supporters, if you don’t accept my explanation what’s yours ?

…the LibDems clearly have issues around trust, confidence, and integrity, and not least among their own former supporters…

Yes, they do. And the sense of betrayal will mean they lose lots of seats, I’ve said that. But Labour have the same issues around trust… you just choose to ignore that due to your fantastic tribal blinkers. And the example of top up fees is the perfect example of promising one thing, then winning a majority, and then doing the exact opposite.

And the sense of betrayal will mean they lose lots of seats, I’ve said that

And why will they, if according to you they are no different to Labour ? The Labour vote hasn’t been collapsing in the way the LibDem vote has. Why is that ?

It would appear that millions agree with me – the LibDems are particularly untrustworthy.

you just choose to ignore that due to your fantastic tribal blinkers.

I don’t know what that’s suppose to mean, I’m not a Labour supporter or voter, if that’s what you’re getting at. And as it happens I think the Tories are probably more trustworthy than the LibDems, at least they are Tories everyday, including before and after an election.

It’s you who appears to be blinkered, unable as you are to accept that the LibDems have issues with the electorate concerning trust, confidence, and integrity, which other parties don’t have in equal measures.

and another manifesto pledge dumped

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29611875

Conservative and Liberal Democrat ministers abstained, which is convention on motions proposed by backbench MPs. This is despite recognition of Palestinian statehood being a policy held by the Lib Dems.