NUS national protest against the cuts 10.11.10 [London]

[Vintage Paw]

A question for you, Moon. Do you think the Tories would be attempting to slash university funding by 40% (something that was not mentioned at all in their manifesto) if they had been a minority govt and not in 'coalition'?

This is a very good point. Having the LibDems on board gives them far more authority to push through draconian policy because it comes with the backing of a second party, and a 'liberal' one to boot. If they had been a minority gvt every piece of policy such as this would have been shot down at the first possibly opportunity.

 

[fractionMan]

I opposed tution fees when they were introduced with direct action, and it didn't change anything. Now I choose to work within the democratic system to try and acheive change. So I oppose it by encouraging Lib Dem MPs to vote against the measure. I do also think that the party has made the Browne review proposals fairer. For instance the 25% of students on the lowest incomes will pay less under this proposed system.

Yeah, and I oppose the arms trade by buying shares in arms companies and sending them polite messages asking them to stop production.

Wait, what?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is a very good point. Having the LibDems on board gives them far more authority to push through draconian policy because it comes with the backing of a second party, and a 'liberal' one to boot. If they had been a minority gvt every piece of policy such as this would have been shot down at the first possibly opportunity.

They wouldn't even have tried. They would have known full well that every single non-tory MP (excepting perhaps the odd Ulster Unionist) would have voted against it. The libdems are facilitating the most extreme right-wing govt we've had post-War.

 

[Vintage Paw]

They wouldn't even have tried. They would have known full well that every single non-tory MP (excepting perhaps the odd Ulster Unionist) would have voted against it. The libdems are facilitating the most extreme right-wing govt we've had post-War.

You know, I honestly hadn't thought of it in that way before but you're absolutely correct. There are still plenty of LibDem voters I know who feel slightly ashamed about the result, but try to save face (and perhaps persuade themselves) by saying well, at least the LibDems are managing to soften some of the evil Tory plans. In fact, it's the exact opposite. These evil Tory plans wouldn't be possible WITHOUT the LibDems.

 

[moon23]

A question for you, Moon. Do you think the Tories would be attempting to slash university funding by 40% (something that was not mentioned at all in their manifesto) if they had been a minority govt and not in 'coalition'?

No a Tory minority government would have announced a lot of populist tax cut proposals and continued the phony-war over cuts that preceded the general election. After about six months they would have called a general election knowing full well both Labout and the Lib Dems had empty war cheasts. We would now have a Tory majority government.

 

[dylans]

I think many Lib Dems oppose a rise in tuition fees but are faced with an impossible parliamentary situation where the majority of the house wants to introduce them. The question is then do you make a principled stance and oppose the Conservatives or do you try and get involved in the decision making process to try and make the proposals fairer. I think raising the repayment threshold, and the additional help to poorer students makes the system fairer.

In terms of pure self-interest for the party it would have been easier to stand on the side-lines remaining ideological principled but having zero impact on the decision making process. I know this is the type of political strategy preferred by many on the left but it consistently fails to make any difference to people’s lives.

You and your party should be fucking ashamed of yourselves.

These cuts wouldn't be possible without the Lib dems holding Cameron's coat tails.

So the Lib dems ( a party with no mandate at all but who serve solely at the invitation of Cameron) lie to the electorate, then shamelessly break every manifesto promise they have made, then, as if that is not bad enough, they then forge a coalition deal in order to make possible the most savage attacks on the welfare state since it's creation. This is the legacy of the lib dems. The party that is attempting to take the UK back to the workhouse, the undeserving poor and a country where the proles "know their place" The only good thing about any of this is that the lib dems are now seen what they really are. We won't forget it.

 

[butchersapron]

No a Tory minority government would have announced a lot of populist tax cut proposals and continued the phony-war over cuts that preceded the general election. After about six months they would have called a general election knowing full well both Labout and the Lib Dems had empty war cheasts. We would now have a Tory majority government.

...bollocks the unions would fund labour to the hilt and have you been following the polls at all? A tory majority would be impossible. Even you lot might have prospered.

 

[moon23]

You know, I honestly hadn't thought of it in that way before but you're absolutely correct. There are still plenty of LibDem voters I know who feel slightly ashamed about the result, but try to save face (and perhaps persuade themselves) by saying well, at least the LibDems are managing to soften some of the evil Tory plans. In fact, it's the exact opposite. These evil Tory plans wouldn't be possible WITHOUT the LibDems.

That's a very short-term way of looking at things. A minority Tory government would be looking to return to the polls ASAP to secure a majority and would be enacting unaffordable populist polices that they thought would have appealed to people in the key marginal’s they needed.

The narrative would be about how Lib Dem’s refusing to help the government in a time of need resulted in them unable to implement all these ‘wonderful polices’ and forcing the British public back to the polls.

Meanwhile the uncertainly would have resulted in higher interest repayments on our debts and less money for schools and hospitals.
.

 

[moon23]

...bollocks the unions would fund labour to the hilt and have you been following the polls at all? A tory majority would be impossible. Even you lot might have prospered.

Yes I’ve been following the polls, but we are talking about a counter-factual reality. In this counter-factual reality the actual polls are irrelevant as the decisions that have been made that effect them would have been totally different. I'll repeat a Tory minority government would have created a lot of populist polices for a short-period to create a poll surge in support then gone for a snap autumn election.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The narrative would be about how Lib Dem’s refusing to help the government in a time of need resulted in them unable to implement all these ‘wonderful polices’ and forcing the British public back to the polls.

And nobody would have questioned the narrative?

Also, a Tory govt calling a new election would have been a very different beast from the 'clean slate' tories we have now. Nothing they are doing now was in their manifesto. A sitting govt cannot throw aside its manifesto pledges so easily. Even if the tories had won a majority a few months later, which is very far from certain, it would not have been the tory govt we have now.

 

[moon23]

You and your party should be fucking ashamed of yourselves.

These cuts wouldn't be possible without the Lib dems holding Cameron's coat tails.

So the Lib dems ( a party with no mandate at all but who serve solely at the invitation of Cameron) lie to the electorate, then shamelessly break every manifesto promise they have made, then, as if that is not bad enough, they then forge a coalition deal in order to make possible the most savage attacks on the welfare state since it's creation. This is the legacy of the lib dems. The party that is attempting to take the UK back to the workhouse, the undeserving poor and a country where the proles "know their place" The only good thing about any of this is that the lib dems are now seen what they really are. We won't forget it.

I'm proud of being a Lib Dem and helping to return a Lib Dem MP (that will vote against the tuition fee rise). The Lib Dems did not create the economic legacy the coalition has inherited. What they are doing is ensuring things are implemented in a fairer way then a Tory majority would.
Talk of workhouses is hyperbole, there are no workhouses and there is still a welfare system, an education system and a healthcare system to support people.

 

[moon23]

And nobody would have questioned the narrative?

Also, a Tory govt calling a new election would have been a very different beast from the 'clean slate' tories we have now. Nothing they are doing now was in their manifesto. A sitting govt cannot throw aside its manifesto pledges so easily. Even if the tories had won a majority a few months later, which is very far from certain, it would not have been the tory govt we have now.

Also one has to wonder how many of the cuts now being introduced would have been done by a Labour government anyway. The overall cuts are actually less then Labour anticipated would be needed when in government. It was Labour who introduced tuition fees, and also Labour who commissioned the Browne review.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes I’ve been following the polls, but we are talking about a counter-factual reality. In this counter-factual reality the actual polls are irrelevant as the decisions that have been made that effect them would have been totally different. I'll repeat a Tory minority government would have created a lot of populist polices for a short-period to create a poll surge in support then gone for a snap autumn election.

...and then been beaten. What policies btw? If they're so rotten why joina coalition with them and enable all their plans to come true!

Such contempt for the electorate too.

 

[moon23]

I'd like some people who are introducing the increased fees why those who had a free higher education are not being expected to contribute. Wouldn't it be possible to apply a graduate tax to all graduates past and present?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not defending Labour. My guess is that they would have pushed for an increase in fees to £5k or so, which is what was widely predicted.

But the libdems apparently supported the abolition of tuition fees. They campaigned specifically on a pledge never to vote for an increase in fees.

Where is the democratic legitimacy in this govt, Moon23? Where is its mandate?

 

[butchersapron]

I'm proud of being a Lib Dem and helping to return a Lib Dem MP (that will vote against the tuition fee rise). The Lib Dems did not create the economic legacy the coalition has inherited. What they are doing is ensuring things are implemented in a fairer way then a Tory majority would.
Talk of workhouses is hyperbole, there are no workhouses and there is still a welfare system, an education system and a healthcare system to support people.

Who?

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm proud of being a Lib Dem and helping to return a Lib Dem MP (that will vote against the tuition fee rise). The Lib Dems did not create the economic legacy the coalition has inherited. What they are doing is ensuring things are implemented in a fairer way then a Tory majority would.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'd like some people who are introducing the increased fees why those who had a free higher education are not being expected to contribute. Wouldn't it be possible to apply a graduate tax to all graduates past and present?

No, you can't introduce such things retrospectively.

This is a very simple principle, one that also applies to such things as school education and health care. It is the responsibility of the older generation to provide education for the younger generation. When that younger generation becomes the older generation, they then fund the next generation. Free at the point of access, a right for all who would benefit from it, and paid for by a progressive tax system. If you go on to earn a lot of money, you contribute a fair amount to the education of the next generation through the income tax you pay.

It's not difficult, you know. It's called a 'principled position'. And it is the kind of society that I want to live in.

Do you not understand how regressive the proposed system is? Under the proposed system, those that go to uni then go on to earn vast sums of money only pay for their own education. Under a system where it is free at the point of access, such people pay for the education of many others in the next generation.

 

[Streathamite]

A question for you, Moon. Do you think the Tories would be attempting to slash university funding by 40% (something that was not mentioned at all in their manifesto) if they had been a minority govt and not in 'coalition'?

I'd like an answer to this excellent question please, moon23?

 

[Streathamite]

Talk of workhouses is hyperbole, there are no workhouses and there is still a welfare system, an education system and a healthcare system to support people.

bollocks - all these are being ripped to pieces even as we speak, and higher education is again becoming a no-go zone for the working class

 

[Blagsta]

No a Tory minority government would have announced a lot of populist tax cut proposals and continued the phony-war over cuts that preceded the general election. After about six months they would have called a general election knowing full well both Labout and the Lib Dems had empty war cheasts. We would now have a Tory majority government.

what a load of crystal balls

 

[Streathamite]

I'll repeat a Tory minority government would have created a lot of populist polices for a short-period to create a poll surge in support then gone for a snap autumn election.

no they wouldn't, cos the policies we are seeing now was their plan all along. Thery're anti-populist, and even if they did start doing vote-winning giveaways ther was never a guarantee they'd have got them through the house in line with their timeframe

 

[TopCat]

The shocking justifications for the libdems lies are really that, shocking. I think they will be forever fucked electorally after this.

 

[Citizen66]

A decent report that.

The subby could have glanced over it a little harder.

 

[audiotech]

David Cameron and the Bullingdon night of the broken window.

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/201...nd-the-bullingdon-night-of-the-broken-window/

 

[detective-boy]

Boo fucking hoo.

I'm not seeking any sympathy. I was simply explaining the situation to madzone before they waded in with the predictable next comment and made themselves look a dick.

I've never seen a pension run on that basis. Even if it was on that basis, working 20 years for 50% of a full pension is gold plated. Nobody else gets that much for so little. I'd have to work 40 years for the same and my pension is considered a good one.

Oh right. Clearly my situation isn't as it, er, actually is. Obviously what it says in my pension documentation is wrong if you say you have never heard of such a thing. What fucking arrogant bollocks to post. It is exactly as I fucking described you dick.

Did you notice that the contributions are 11%. I doubt yours are anything like that. And of course the pension is acknowledged to be better than average to compensate in part for the restrictions on your private life that are associated with being a police officer. (ETA: I am not making this up. Even Andrew Gilligan comments: "The police, who do demanding jobs and pay quite high pension contributions, have traditionally been seen as a special case." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...tor-pensions-crisis-facing-the-coalition.html)

And anyway, I didn't say it shouldn't be considered a "gold-plated" pension - in the big scheme of things it clearly is. I was again simply anticipating what madzone was likely to post next. So how about doing us all a favour and actually reading what I post and applying a bit of thought before posting next time?

 

[detective-boy]

Democracy, my arse.

And your brilliant, inspired alternative is ...

 

[frogwoman]

My bug bear is the annual spend on IT being about £21Bn per annum, and that's with around 70% of large government IT projects failing. If we actual held those companies that delivered failed IT to account then we probably wouldn't need a rise in tuition fees. Instead we are beholden to these huge companies IBM, Fujitsu, CSC etc. and would risk being sued to the tune of Billions if we pulled out of their contracts. It's a national disgrace.

For the record I oppose a rise in tuition fees.

No you don't. If you oppose it so much let's see you do something about it then.

 

[detective-boy]

I was asking a simple question, paranoid fucknut.

So why ask me and no-one else, eh?

 

[Crispy]

And your brilliant, inspired alternative is ...

Actual democracy - with massive decentralisation of power.