The proposed alternative from Labour is a graduate tax - which would mean that graduates would (unless I'm misunderstanding) end up paying much the same amount of money, in much the same manner.
But I don't expect them to _get_ their election commitments when they're supplying 1/4 of a coalition. So I expect compromises in their direction (raising of the level of payback to 21k, etc.), but I didn't expect them to get fees removed.
I don't think I'm communicating correctly why I consider the LibDems to be liars. It's not because I didn't get the end outcome that I wanted, it's that they did not fight for the commitment they made. That's what makes them liars.
I agree. They should never have made a commitment to vote against fees, and having made that commitment they should have got it into the coalition agreement.
I do think they should have committed to vote against fees, and as they have done, as you say, they should have gotten it in to the coalition agreement.
They should have had another solution for dealing with the cost of education, like reducing the number of people who go to university.
Do you expect that they should fight for every one of their manifesto commitments? That they should only enter coalition if they were planning to fight for every sentence of their manifesto?
Assuming the answer is no: How do you think they should determine which policies they should be prepared to concede on for the sake of getting which other policies into the coalition agreement?
Yes definitely they should have fought for their manifesto commitments. In any case where they haven't even started to fight for them (like this) it makes them liars.
Why must they enter in to a coalition? If they promise to do X and being a coalition means !X then they can just as well not join the coalition and vote in parliament according to what they promised they'd do when people voted for them.
I'm not against coalitions in general. I'm against signing a pledge saying that you will oppose tuition fee rises, on the back fo that getting a lot of votes that get you some power, then when in power arguing in favour of and pushing for the biggest rise in tuition fees in the history of our country. These two things are not AT ALL the same.
I was talking about the manifesto commitments, not the pledge (I agree Clegg going back on the pledge is scummy of him, particularly the way he's done it).
But you said: "If they promise to do X and being a coalition means !X then they can just as well not join the coalition". Now given any two parties will have different manifestos, forming a coalition will have to mean abandoning some manifesto commitments in favour of others. (Figuring out which are the "less important" and the "more important" bits is one of the most interesting/terrifying parts of coalition negotiations.) But it's clear that forming a coalition will have to mean !X for some X or other in the manifesto (for all concerned parties). So your quote seems to imply you think parties should never form coalitions.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-11-13 11:20 am
no subject
no subject
no subject
But I don't expect them to _get_ their election commitments when they're supplying 1/4 of a coalition. So I expect compromises in their direction (raising of the level of payback to 21k, etc.), but I didn't expect them to get fees removed.
no subject
no subject
no subject
They should have had another solution for dealing with the cost of education, like reducing the number of people who go to university.
no subject
Assuming the answer is no: How do you think they should determine which policies they should be prepared to concede on for the sake of getting which other policies into the coalition agreement?
no subject
no subject
no subject
Why must they enter in to a coalition? If they promise to do X and being a coalition means !X then they can just as well not join the coalition and vote in parliament according to what they promised they'd do when people voted for them.
no subject
no subject
no subject
But you said: "If they promise to do X and being a coalition means !X then they can just as well not join the coalition". Now given any two parties will have different manifestos, forming a coalition will have to mean abandoning some manifesto commitments in favour of others. (Figuring out which are the "less important" and the "more important" bits is one of the most interesting/terrifying parts of coalition negotiations.) But it's clear that forming a coalition will have to mean !X for some X or other in the manifesto (for all concerned parties). So your quote seems to imply you think parties should never form coalitions.