If I tell you I’m going to be home at 6pm, but there’s a terrible accident on the M4, are you going to accuse me of lying or giving up when I’m home at 8?

If you intentionally drive your car into the wreckage, yes. 8)

It’s not as simple as “they didn’t know there would be a coalition”. The pledge on fees increasing was made “no matter who is in power, we will vote against it.”
No argument can make what he did the right thing.
That’s why he has had to apologise: he did wrong.
Luckily for Clegg, he’s doing this in a government where U-turns are commonplace, and his isn’t the biggest or worst.
IMO, this will work out ok for him.

Stretching it too far.

The pledges were made on a hypothetical basis. The reality was different. So he had to compromise to achieve what he could.

I’d have done the same I think. Otherwise I’d never ever have been in a position to change anything.

From their point of view, as the third party in a three/four party system, the biggest thing of all is PR. They need that, otherwise they are just wasting their time.

Nick was damned either way, whatever he did.

Rubbish. The LibDems would not have been damned if they had not helped the Tories form a government to push through Tory policies by all those people who are opposed to Tory policies.

Have you not heard ? ….. many people have voted LibDem precisely to keep the Tories out.

Most people who want Tory policies vote Tory …… not LibDem.

Except of course people like mcboo who now realise that they can vote LibDem safe in the knowledge that they are in fact voting for Tory policies. It takes away that terrible stigma of being a “Tory”.

BTW I think Clegg should now apologise for this :

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTLR8R9JXz4[/video]

Look. In government, they have (or had) the chance to influence government. Out of it, they had nothing.

So again, it was a toss-up AT THE TIME

As it turns out they’ve been a damp squib. But it was not known at the time how effectively they’d be neutralised by wily tories, was it?

BTW I think Clegg should now apologise for this

TBH, it’s not his turn any more.

Would be a lot more appropriate to see some Conservative and Labour apologies coming forth. They’ve both committed far worse crimes against this country.

When’s that gonna happen?

I voted Lib dem as I was dismayed with the alternative choices. I can’t see myself doing that again. MAYBE they have stopped/diluted some of the worst Tory policies but they have compromised too many of their own morals to be trusted by the public IMHO. If they believed what they stood for they should dissolve governemnt now on the basis that none of us seem to be getting what we voted for. Blue. Red or Orange. Although I suppose we’d be in a different but equally bad scenario after the next election. Vive la revolution anyone?

The pledges were made on a hypothetical basis. The reality was different. So he had to compromise to achieve what he could.

Its not a pledge then is it? Its a wish list. Up there with a free unicorn for every schoolgirl, and a beer fountain for every bloke. So communicate it as such, rather than being a sniveling spineless liar and stating it as a policy commitment

I’m also not buying the ‘we didn’t know we’d be in coalition’ crap either. Most political opinion polls were predicting a hung parliament. I was actually hoodwinked, along with many others, into voting for the little weasel. A mistake, again with many others, I won’t be repeating

They’ve both committed far worse crimes against this country.

And yet there is overwhelming evidence that the electorate particularly singles out the LibDems. The LibDems are on course to get their worse ever result next general election.

Nick was damned either way, whatever he did.

That’s the feeling I got when I heard the results of the general election.

Forming a coalition with the Tories was the only way to get a government to get a workable majority but it’d obviously earn them the emnity of many protest voters and the left. Plus the right would paint them as the reason if any of their frothing policies weren’t implemented, they’d end the parliament with no friends at all.

Any attempt to form a government with Labour plus every independent and minor party in sight would have been unworkable.

Refusing to co-operate with anyone would have resulted in a very unstable Tory government, political paralysis and the economy would probably have tanked even quicker than it has. The LibDems would have been vilified for not stepping up for the good of the country, for refusing to make the hard calls when the chips were down, etc.

I sort of suspect that Nick Clegg realised all of this fairly quickly, and not long after it started looking like a great night for the LibDems.

The coalition agreement seems to have been badly negoiated on the LibDems side, though. Several of the big things they thought they got out of it – the AV referendum and Lords reform being two that spring to mind – have backfired massively, yet the Tories have been able to get their favoured policies through seemingly without problem.

Raising the basic rate tax threshold seems to be about the biggest LibDem policy that’s actually happened and for some reason nobody’s been shouting about it. Instead things like the NHS reforms and tuition fees have ended up reflecting worse on the LibDems than the Tories, as nobody expects anything better from the Conservatives.

Some of the problem is I think that for years the LibDems could get away with sticking to their principles more than Labour and the Conservatives, after lots of turns in government could ever manage. They never had to take the hard decisions, compromises and u-turns so they came off as “nice”. Now they’ve been lumbered with making difficult choices (and suffering from the choices made by their coalition partners) there’s a lot of disillusionment going round as people discover that the LibDems are subject to the same political realities as the rest of them. It’ll hurt them for years.

ChrisL,
Agree with a lot of what you’re saying, They do seem to have “taken one for the team” in forming a poor coalition with the Cons for the sake of the country getting a government.
However, it wasn’t quite the only way to get a government to get a workable majority.
IMO, Labour and Tory could have done the decent thing and formed the coalition together. Their policies are actually closer together, and there would have been fewer manifesto clashes. Unfortunately, they seem to define themselves as much by a mock hatred of the other as by anything they actually stand for.

Binners, you seem awfully naive on this thread. Government is always a chaotic mess of failure and bodges, but elections demand clear simple strong promises. I’ve said this before, but they always make promises like this and it always transpires that they are too difficult or expensive or whatever. Sticking to your guns regardless of how events turn out is romantic but not the smart thing to do. And yes, all political manifestos should be more honestly worded in this respect. But every time someone tries, they get the piss ripped even more for being vague and indecisive. Just don’t join in the mud slinging, it’s futile; instead look for the motives and competencies behind it all.

Forming a coalition with the Tories was the only way to get a government to get a workable majority but it’d obviously earn them the emnity of many protest voters and the left.

There was no need for a full coalition. In fact most people were surprised when it was announced that the Tories and the LibDems would form a full coalition.

The Tories could have formed a minority government. The LibDems and Labour could have voted budgets through (or abstained) in return for concessions.

Yes, it is very likely that a Tory minority government would not have lasted the full 5 year time – so what ? The Tories do not have a mandate from the British people to push through their highly controversial policies, it is not the duty of the LibDems to provide a stable Tory government – that’s not what LibDem voters voted for, evidenced by the fact that half of them immediately deserted the LibDems when the formation of the coalition was announced.

And of course it would have meant that Nick Clegg and his cronies wouldn’t have received nice posh chauffeur-driven ministerial cars, or nice handsome ministerial salaries – I suspect some consideration was possibly also given to that.

The Liberal Party was perfectly happy to pull the plug on a minority Labour government and force an early election, why now the commitment by the LibDems to support a stable Tory minority government ?

.

I’ve said this before, but they always make promises like this and it always transpires that they are too difficult or expensive or whatever.

This constantly gets dragged out that the LibDems are no different to anyone else when it comes broken pledges. And yet the truth suggests otherwise. A pledge isn’t just any old promise, it is a solemn and binding promise. Let’s see how New Labour kept to their pledges :

FactCheck: Labour’s election pledge cards

So it would seem that New Labour pretty much delivered on their pledges (whether or not they were a good idea is another issue altogether) Some were rather vague and some had clear targets, and in some cases they actually exceeded their targets.

What New Labour don’t appear to have done is diametrically opposed their own targets, eg, they didn’t cut the number of nurses instead of increasing them. In the case of tuition fees the LibDems diametrically opposed their own pledge which they themselves made to the electorate (whether or not it was a good idea is another issue altogether)

instead look for the motives and competencies behind it all

I can see the motives:

– Ministerial salary
– Associated perks
– Guaranteed directorships

It’s the competencies that I am struggling with.

It looks to me like he’s just asked himself “What would Father Jack do?”
Anyone man enough to do that goes up in m y estimation.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSHaCzb3yYk&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

Ernie
It does appear from your link that Labour were fairly successful in avoiding going back on their pledges.

But what it also states about labour’s pledges is “that Some pledges are so vague that some of them can’t be factchecked or falsified”.
To some people, that just reinforces an image that Labour success was more spin than substance.
Others feel that the bigger let down was the failure to stick to basic unwritten pledges normal people have a right to assume, like “we won’t commit War Crimes”.

What New Labour don’t appear to have done is diametrically opposed their own targets

They had a majority though.

They had a majority though.

The LibDems pledge not to vote for any increase in tuition fees was not in anyway dependent on them being in a majority government. Although I am aware that they use that excuse in a desperate attempt to justify their deliberately broken pledge.

The LibDems made no reference to needing to be in government, let alone in a majority government, when they made their false promise which undoubtedly won them some electorate support, especially among students.

.

Some pledges are so vague that some of them can’t be factchecked or falsified

Well yes, that is of course the whole point. New Labour fully realised the importance of not breaking solemn pledges made in writing which was then given to the electorate to keep and later hold them accountable, specially as Labour had first introduced the written pledge at elections to counter electoral cynicism resulting from broken promises.

And for that reason they made some of their pledges, particularly in the later years of New Labour governments, deliberately vague, so that they would not be be accused of breaking them. But most of their pledges, specially the early ones, where extremely specific with very clear and unambiguous targets, those were kept and in fact sometimes exceeded.

Refusing to make pledges which they cannot be certain of keeping is a very weak stick to beat New Labour with. Many people would praise them for doing precisely that.

You know ernie, I am very glad you are not in politics.

EL,
Your point about the pledge being non-dependant on being, or not being in power is very valid. It was a pledge to oppose tuition fee rises no matter who won the election.
They efffed up. They accept that, and they apologise.

And it is true that the Labour pledges became deliberately more vague as their terms progressed. So they couldn’t be accused of breaking them, but IMO, that contributed to the electorate losing trust in them.
They were voted in because people knew what they stood for.
They were voted out because people no longer knew what they stood for.

And to me, it’s more telling that the present New Labour are also conspicuously quiet wrt what they actually stand for. More in common with the failed New Labour that was voted out than the one which rose to power. It’s as if they hope to get in through the back door, by being “not as bad as Them”. It’s massively negative politics but it may even work. But only once.

They were voted out because they were incompetent authoritarians. As for Clegg, his weasel words won’t make a wet flap of difference now, he and the LDs have been seen for what they are.

Gosh molgrips, what an incredibly weak retort. Is that really the best you could come up with to counter my comments ? Well I draw solace from the knowledge that you are unable to offer anymore than a playground style quip. The truth can sometimes be a little tricky to counter eh ?

Gosh ernie, only want to talk to molgrips now? 😉

I’m not countering your comments. You’ve made your point five times over, and I have mine. Basically (correct me if I am wrong) you think that you have to stick to whatever you said up front, regardless. I think that you have to adapt and make compromises based on the best interests of yourselves and how you understand the majority of those you represent.

Fundamentally different positions, innit? Pragmatism versus principles. I am a pragmatist. The nature of politics is that the adaptable pragmatist is derided as being a weak flip flop, and the hard liner is derided as being inflexible and pig headed. All politicians are damned whatever they do. Simples.

I think the Lib Dem’s mistake was making cast iron promises in the first place – as I said above. And you rightly pointed out that Labour became savvy enough not to do this, presumably from experience.

ohnohesback – Member
They were voted out because they were incompetent authoritarians. As for Clegg, his weasel words won’t make a wet flap of difference now, he and the LDs have been seen for what they are.

You come across as someone who’s next vote is cast already.

My abstention is cast already. I wouldn’t vote for any of the three main parties, all are too dangerous to be in charge.

They were voted in because people knew what they stood for.
They were voted out because people no longer knew what they stood for.

I have the complete opposite opinion. Notwithstanding the policy pledges, New Labour were deliberately vague concerning what they actually stood for. In fact I’m sure they really didn’t know themselves. New Labour was not an ideology, it was a project to achieve power. Tony Blair was, and is, an ideological airhead. New Labour MPs who obediently towed the party line line simply followed their leader. The only leading light in the New Labour project with some ideological commitment imo was Gordon Brown.

New Labour won the elections because they were supposedly not Tories, not because they were conviction politicians. They lost the last election because they had been in power for 13 years. Even Tory governments which in the 1950s proudly boasted “you’ve never had it so good” were kicked out of power by the electorate after 13 years.

New Labour was not an ideology, it was a project to achieve power.

Hang on – that’s the entire point of political parties, isn’t it? What else is there? The electorate gets what it wants. That’s the whole point of democracy.

Basically (correct me if I am wrong) you think that you have to stick to whatever you said up front, regardless. I think that you have to adapt and make compromises based on the best interests of yourselves and how you understand the majority of those you represent.

I’ll correct you as you’re wrong 🙂

I am countering the claim that the LibDems are no different to anyone else when in comes to broken pledges. I have already very clearly stated, quote :

“whether or not they were a good idea is another issue altogether”

Hang on – that’s the entire point of political parties, isn’t it? What else is there?

Well many people believe that there is more to politics than just achieving power. I can see that you don’t though.

Hmm.. yes I see what you mean. But don’t confuse my assessment of how things work with how I would LIKE them to work.

The reason we have elections is to decide who runs the country. End of. There are other forums for political theory and ideology, aren’t there? Think tanks, universities, party conferences…?

The reason we have elections is to decide who runs the country. End of.

[tin foil hat on] nope, we have elections so that we think we get to decide who runs the country…

at most, all we get to decide is which clique of public schoolboys get sent off to various posh dinners, and which side of the big shouting room they get to sit on.

Politicians run the country?

I prefer to think that they run then offices of government. As such they are civil servants, although many mistake this for being self servants. Fortunately, many areas of the country are run outside government.

Interesting comment in one broadsheet this morning. There are apparently more members of the RSPB than there are members of political parties combined!

The RSPB’s very high membership figure says more about the the RSPB’s successful marketing strategy, which includes “gift membership”, than it does about who runs the country.

So which broadsheet made this irrelevant comparison ?

E-L, you need ask? For once your preconceptions 😉 would be accurate although it’s not the only paper I read online first thing 😉 * But the sport is good and the cryptic easier than the Times!

But I was obviously quoting it slightly out of context. I t goes back to (the attacks you make on me!!!) the idea that while people are political in the wider sense of the word, they have become increasingly apolitical in terms of being members of official political parties or feeling confident that any particular party genuinely represents their interests.

Or feeling the need to define themselves according to pre-determined political categories?

* Fraser Nelson (bias upfront) in the Torygraph.

your preconceptions

There weren’t any. You claimed that it was broadsheet so I assumed that it was. It could have been any of the broadsheets as far as I was concerned. Despite doing a search I couldn’t find it.

I fear that it is your own personal preconceptions which assumes that I am always guided by preconceptions.

😉