|
|
Post by anthony on Feb 26, 2013 13:28:07 GMT
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. I'm not entirely convinced this is the way negotiations work, and I think they felt* they secured significant improvement. *Whether they did or not is another thing, but compared to what a pure Tory or Labour government would have done . . . remind me, is Labour policy still to reduce the amount that high-earning graduates have to pay back by reducing the cap to £6000 p.a? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 26, 2013 13:41:17 GMT
*Whether they did or not is another thing, but compared to what a pure Tory or Labour government would have done . . . remind me, is Labour policy still to reduce the amount that high-earning graduates have to pay back by reducing the cap to £6000 p.a? Remind me, are we completely ignoring the malign effect of fear of debt on social mobility? |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Feb 26, 2013 15:21:05 GMT
Remind me, are we completely ignoring the malign effect of fear of debt on social mobility? No, not at all; one party seems to be acting to encourage such fears. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 26, 2013 20:37:35 GMT
Remind me, are we completely ignoring the malign effect of fear of debt on social mobility? No, not at all; one party seems to be acting to encourage such fears. Bollocks. Total bollocks. The Labour Party has neither the ability nor the hegemonic media position to create such fears out of thin air - and if we had, we'd have done a better job at eliminating that fear when we implemented top-up fees. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,843 
|
Post by Crimson King on Feb 26, 2013 21:10:11 GMT
No, not at all; one party seems to be acting to encourage such fears. Bollocks. Total bollocks. The Labour Party has neither the ability nor the hegemonic media position to create such fears out of thin air - and if we had, we'd have done a better job at eliminating that fear when we implemented top-up fees. point<----------------------------------------->EAL I have highlighted the relevant words to help ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 26, 2013 21:40:15 GMT
What makes it worse is everyone knew that there would be a hung parliament when they signed those cards ... No they didn't! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2013 21:54:23 GMT
yes they did, all the polls pointed towards it and certainly before manifesto launches. At that point you could have said sorry then ...
|
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Feb 26, 2013 22:00:00 GMT
yes they did, all the polls pointed towards it and certainly before manifesto launches. At that point you could have said sorry then ... "Said sorry"? Said sorry for what? For not, once they found themselves in office and in power, sacrificing the public finances on the altar of irredeemable promises and special-interest claimancy? The answer should be, "When the Labour Party does the same". But I forgot, slates from before May 2010 are wiped clean, aren't they |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Feb 26, 2013 22:26:41 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2013 15:57:22 GMT
Remind me, are we completely ignoring the malign effect of fear of debt on social mobility? No, not at all; one party seems to be acting to encourage such fears. Indeed |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2013 21:01:12 GMT
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,011
|
Post by Khunanup on Mar 1, 2013 11:37:05 GMT
I was a student back in the days of Thatcher. Fees paid, student grant, sign on in the summer, travelling expenses, book allowance. Great days. The Lib Dems were hoping for a hung parliament and campaigned for one. They called it a "balanced parliament". They could have made student fees their red line issue, but they played their joker to demand a plebiscite on a squalid little compromise. You can have more than one red line you know. It was a massive mistake not to make tuition fees one of them (and I would have ahd education as a demanded cabinet position as well). |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 1, 2013 13:13:47 GMT
I was a student back in the days of Thatcher. Fees paid, student grant, sign on in the summer, travelling expenses, book allowance. Great days. The Lib Dems were hoping for a hung parliament and campaigned for one. They called it a "balanced parliament". They could have made student fees their red line issue, but they played their joker to demand a plebiscite on a squalid little compromise. You can have more than one red line you know. It was a massive mistake not to make tuition fees one of them (and I would have ahd education as a demanded cabinet position as well). Universities are under BIS these days, not Education. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,011
|
Post by Khunanup on Mar 3, 2013 18:21:24 GMT
You can have more than one red line you know. It was a massive mistake not to make tuition fees one of them (and I would have ahd education as a demanded cabinet position as well). Universities are under BIS these days, not Education. I wouldn't have wanted education from a university angle. If we'd got the red line on fees then hat would have taken care of itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Rose Tinted Lane on May 9, 2013 9:12:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on May 9, 2013 10:06:13 GMT
Actually that is no surprise, as she voted against the lib dem budget proposals only recently. This was on the cards for a while.
|
|
tricky
Lib Dem
Building a stronger economy and a fairer society so everyone can get on in life
Posts: 1,420
|
Post by tricky on May 9, 2013 13:49:13 GMT
That might be the last member of the FoW* Party jumping ship.
*Friends of Warren
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,429
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on May 9, 2013 15:50:36 GMT
Well, all the others lost their seats to Labour last time. problem for the Liverpool LD's is that they are left with only the bad-tempered right-wing rump who would be true blue in any other city. Expect them to be reduced to three councillors in Church ward before too long
|
|
tricky
Lib Dem
Building a stronger economy and a fairer society so everyone can get on in life
Posts: 1,420
|
Post by tricky on May 9, 2013 17:57:57 GMT
Well, all the others lost their seats to Labour last time. problem for the Liverpool LD's is that they are left with only the bad-tempered right-wing rump who would be true blue in any other city. You clearly know nothing of the political leanings of our remaining Liverpool Councillors. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on May 10, 2013 10:22:09 GMT
Well, all the others lost their seats to Labour last time. problem for the Liverpool LD's is that they are left with only the bad-tempered right-wing rump who would be true blue in any other city. Expect them to be reduced to three councillors in Church ward before too long I wonder if they could end up with just two? Tom Morrison in Church is nothing like as well known as the Kemps and he is up in 2014. I think Labour are still campaigning in that ward. It would be three if the lib dems lose all their seats in 2014 as Barbara Mace got elected in 2011 in Woolton, but I see what you mean. The lib dems may hold onto Woolton next time if Malcolm Kelly stands again. They did better in 2012 in areas where the councillor stood for re-election. And Cressington may still be an outside chance for them if Paul Keaveney stands again (if that is possible). The rest of the seats outside these three are almost certainly lost. |
|
