|
|
Post by oldwarhorse on Feb 12, 2013 18:33:36 GMT
This is Liverpool though, who else might she join?
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 12, 2013 19:34:31 GMT
So it seems to me pretty unrealistic that anyone who'd left the LDs over tuition fees would join Labour. I've got a stack of membership applications that say you're wrong. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on Feb 12, 2013 20:02:38 GMT
He did not resign this week as LabourList are behind with their news and the story is a month old . This was reported here on the Cardiff thread at the end of January. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,704
|
Post by mboy on Feb 12, 2013 20:27:41 GMT
So it seems to me pretty unrealistic that anyone who'd left the LDs over tuition fees would join Labour. I've got a stack of membership applications that say you're wrong. Yes, humans have very short memories. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785 
|
Post by john07 on Feb 12, 2013 20:46:09 GMT
It's in Wikipedia so it must be true! Well if Labour 'invented' tuition fees in 1998, I must have imagined paying an upfront fee of £200 or so when I enrolled on an MA(Econ) at Manchester in 1976. I must also have imagined being threatened with an invoice for tuition fees in 1971 when I started my BA(Econ) because Cheshire County Council were playing silly beggars with my (mandatory) grant and fees payment. I must also have been getting it wrong when I acted as Admissions Tutor at Aston and Heriot-Watt and wrote to students advisingthem what the fees charged were likely to be. Obviously I must have dreamed the whole thing up as there were no University Fees before 1998! I obviously never realized that Universities did not charge fees despite working in the University sector since 1977! |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Feb 12, 2013 22:02:10 GMT
Obviously I must have dreamed the whole thing up as there were no University Fees before 1998! I obviously never realized that Universities did not charge fees despite working in the University sector since 1977! You're obviously failing to read what I wrote. Not sure about anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Feb 12, 2013 22:04:46 GMT
I've got a stack of membership applications that say you're wrong. Well, good luck to them (and you)! |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by john07 on Feb 13, 2013 17:03:06 GMT
Obviously I must have dreamed the whole thing up as there were no University Fees before 1998! I obviously never realized that Universities did not charge fees despite working in the University sector since 1977! You're obviously failing to read what I wrote. Not sure about anything else. You said that Labour came up with University fees in 1998. This is self-evidently nonsense. I pointed out they had been around since the Universities started. I conceded the point that Labour devised the top up fees and changed the way in which fees were paid. |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Feb 13, 2013 17:58:26 GMT
You said that Labour came up with University fees in 1998. This is self-evidently nonsense. I pointed out they had been around since the Universities started. But you seemed to have missed the bit where I pointed out that most people referring to "tuition fees" mean the up-front £1000 p.a. (means-tested) fee introduced for students in 1998. Which is what I meant. And also what I said I meant. Your claims about what I'm saying are, frankly, just a bit odd given the above (and your dogmatism over the point is odd too). Labour clearly introduced the up-front £1000 p.a. (means-tested) fee introduced for students in 1998 - these were known at the time as "tuition fees". They then changed this by introducing a variable cap at a much higher rate, and a slightly improved repayment mechanism - these were known as "top up fees". Therefore Labour introduced both "tuition fees" and "top-up fees". This week's been hard enough already, but give me strength. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2013 19:37:27 GMT
the debate is not over who introduced them or not but actually about pledges at an election. I know most LD people think the pledge cards were wrong to sign but your MP's every single one of them signed them.
Then you broke them ...
I PLEDGE TO VOTE AGAINST ANY INCREASE IN FEES
signed
Nick Clegg
Just best to live with that fact instead of trying to pretend it as labour's fault, did we force anyone to sign them, I think now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2013 15:13:42 GMT
Im with the Lib Dems on this.
You have to abandon some of your own policies when in coalition. The LDs dont want or like this policy
Do you think the tories would have voted for an AV referendum unless we were in a coalition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2013 15:17:40 GMT
As always however, Labour were extremely opportunistic in voting no. I have no doubts whatsoever that something very similar would have come in under a Labour government.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 25, 2013 15:18:06 GMT
They wanted or liked it so little that the coalition arrangement allowed them to abstain on the vote. They were not forced to abandon their opposition.
But they didn't (for the most part) abstain, so I think it's perfectly legitimate to accuse Nick Clegg of breaking his pledge to students in order to curry favour with David Cameron.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Feb 25, 2013 16:27:07 GMT
They wanted or liked it so little that the coalition arrangement allowed them to abstain on the vote. They were not forced to abandon their opposition. But they didn't (for the most part) abstain, so I think it's perfectly legitimate to accuse Nick Clegg of breaking his pledge to students in order to curry favour with David Cameron. You're telling me that Labour wouldn't be making the same hay if LD MPs had abstained en masse? Actually, more voted against than abstained - and I think it was 21 against, 8 abstentions and 27 in favour - so more were "against" than in favour. My view is that they realised early on that abstaining would cut no ice, and believed (perhaps foolishly) that if they negotiated the best deal possible in repayment terms it possibly could be okay (at least in real terms). Of course, the price of such, was voting in favour. Not a decision I'd have liked to make. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 25, 2013 16:55:00 GMT
They wanted or liked it so little that the coalition arrangement allowed them to abstain on the vote. They were not forced to abandon their opposition. But they didn't (for the most part) abstain, so I think it's perfectly legitimate to accuse Nick Clegg of breaking his pledge to students in order to curry favour with David Cameron. You're telling me that Labour wouldn't be making the same hay if LD MPs had abstained en masse? Actually, more voted against than abstained - and I think it was 21 against, 8 abstentions and 27 in favour - so more were "against" than in favour. My view is that they realised early on that abstaining would cut no ice, and believed (perhaps foolishly) that if they negotiated the best deal possible in repayment terms it possibly could be okay (at least in real terms). Of course, the price of such, was voting in favour. Not a decision I'd have liked to make. I'm certain we'd be trying. I think we'd finding it much harder going, because most people will accept that you do need to make concessions to form a coalition, but not that you should then throw away that concession is a show of (unrequited) good faith. Abstaining would certainly have consequences in some seats, but those are the seats where the MP votes against (and I tend to suspect that the Whips didn't push them too hard). A mixture of abstensions and rebellions would have let the party put forward a message that they are standing on principle, uncomfortable as it might be for them. As it was, they left a lot of people betrayed. I'm perfectly willing to accept that this was down to mistakes in negotiation and strategic calculation rather than malice. But I'm not not sure incompetence is a very good grounds upon which to base a defence. A lot of Lib Dems are going to take a hammering over this. Given that those were the same Lib Dems who opportunistically went after Labour MPs who voted in favour of top-up fees in order to get better repayment and bursary terms, I'm disinclined to by sympathetic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2013 17:11:51 GMT
What makes it worse is everyone knew that there would be a hung parliament when they signed those cards ...
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by john07 on Feb 25, 2013 17:22:48 GMT
The lesson for the Lib Dems is:
Not to sign stupid pledges while grubbing for votes on issues where you are not prepared to stick to.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Feb 26, 2013 8:34:12 GMT
I'm certain we'd be trying. I think we'd finding it much harder going, because most people will accept that you do need to make concessions to form a coalition, but not that you should then throw away that concession is a show of (unrequited) good faith. Abstaining would certainly have consequences in some seats, but those are the seats where the MP votes against (and I tend to suspect that the Whips didn't push them too hard). A mixture of abstensions and rebellions would have let the party put forward a message that they are standing on principle, uncomfortable as it might be for them. So you think that our MPs should have let a possibly unlimited increase in fees, with no improvement on the repayment terms, through parliament by tactically abstaining/voting against to make a political point but change nothing? That's the essence of putting politics above principle. Given that those were the same Lib Dems who opportunistically went after Labour MPs who voted in favour of top-up fees in order to get better repayment and bursary terms, I'm disinclined to by sympathetic. Maybe if those Labour MPs who voted in favour of top-up fees had done a better job over repayment and bursary terms I'd be inclined to be sympathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Feb 26, 2013 8:38:07 GMT
The lesson for the Lib Dems is: Not to sign stupid pledges while grubbing for votes on issues where you are not prepared to stick to. I certainly think that signing a pledge that you don't then keep, even in coalition, is a mistake. And even if the new system is arguably more progressive than the previous [prepares to duck]. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 26, 2013 12:04:57 GMT
I'm certain we'd be trying. I think we'd finding it much harder going, because most people will accept that you do need to make concessions to form a coalition, but not that you should then throw away that concession is a show of (unrequited) good faith. Abstaining would certainly have consequences in some seats, but those are the seats where the MP votes against (and I tend to suspect that the Whips didn't push them too hard). A mixture of abstensions and rebellions would have let the party put forward a message that they are standing on principle, uncomfortable as it might be for them. So you think that our MPs should have let a possibly unlimited increase in fees, with no improvement on the repayment terms, through parliament by tactically abstaining/voting against to make a political point but change nothing? That's the essence of putting politics above principle. No. I think they should have negotiated the best deal they could, then abstained anyway. The fact that abstension was allowed made it very clear this was a red-line issue. The Lib Dems could easily have argued it was so essential to their identity that they couldn't let a bill through without significant improvements. Given that those were the same Lib Dems who opportunistically went after Labour MPs who voted in favour of top-up fees in order to get better repayment and bursary terms, I'm disinclined to by sympathetic. Maybe if those Labour MPs who voted in favour of top-up fees had done a better job over repayment and bursary terms I'd be inclined to be sympathetic. Funnily enough, I feel much the same way about the deal your lot got. |
|
