Is it time for Nick Clegg to step aside to save the LibDems?

ProBrum · **Joined:** 29 Jun 2011, 17:54 **Posts:** 449

johnhemming wrote:

ProBrum wrote:

Show me where in the wording of the pledge it says that.

The arguments are straightforward.

a) The authors of the pledge (the NUS) proposed a scheme which involved greater contributions from graduates.
b) The pledge talks about pressing for a fairer alternative. What is not clear from the pledge is what happens when you get that "fairer alternative". I argue that in those circumstances it is reasonable to have higher contributions from graduates.
c) No one in their right minds would suggest that the pledge implied a freezing of university funding.

The problem with all short statements (eg scrap tuition fees) is that they are not necessarily precise. You can scrap tuition fees by requiring that universities provide tuition for nothing. However, that would not work. What would be needed is to pay fees from general taxation. That is not actually scrapping tuition fees, but people would accept that it satisfies the commitment to "scrap fees".

In other words it doesn't. Fees are not being paid from general taxation any more than the old system. The government is providing a loan that the student is liable for. The wiping of the loans is a separate issue not really relevant to the technicality of fees going up. The other point is that under the old system, fees were only a quarter of the income with the majority of funding being paid directly universities in the form of a grant. You scrapped the direct grant and allowed fees to be increased by the universities to make up for it.

Quote:

If the government had increase fees, but paid more than the increase from general taxation no-one would have gone on about having broken the pledge.

Why then is having a system whereby 29% of students pay less breaking the pledge?

Because 71% are paying more using these figures and I will mention yet again that these figures are not set in stone but rely on a lot of assumptions.

jc · **Joined:** 26 Jun 2011, 12:07 **Posts:** 540

LiKW wrote:

johnhemming wrote:

jc wrote:

Nope. It's primary legislation and future governments cannot be bound by it. There's no protection for the students.

Actually Article 1 protocol 1 of ECHR would come in here. Still we could cede from the Council of Europe I suppose.

Lets go for article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty instead John...

All nations attending the conference are only allocated one parking space. Is that entirely relevant sir. I mean here we are, in mortal danger and you're worried about the Chinese delegates bringing two cars.

(I'll stop now)

johnhemming · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 12:43 **Posts:** 1188

ProBrum wrote:

Because 71% are paying more using these figures and I will mention yet again that these figures are not set in stone but rely on a lot of assumptions.

However, the NUS proposals involved taking more money from graduates. Hence it is clear that the pledge is not intended to freeze the amount of money taken from graduates.

The pledge was basically one not to increase the amount of money taken from students/graduates until the system was a fairer one.

That is how I interpreted it on signing. That is how I interpret it now.

representingthemambo · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2012, 08:58

johnhemming wrote:

ProBrum wrote:

Because 71% are paying more using these figures and I will mention yet again that these figures are not set in stone but rely on a lot of assumptions.

However, the NUS proposals involved taking more money from graduates. Hence it is clear that the pledge is not intended to freeze the amount of money taken from graduates.

The pledge was basically one not to increase the amount of money taken from students/graduates until the system was a fairer one.

That is how I interpreted it on signing. That is how I interpret it now.

So just to be clear then, why is Nick Clegg apologising?

johnhemming · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 12:43 **Posts:** 1188

representingthemambo wrote:

So just to be clear then, why is Nick Clegg apologising?

Ask him. It might be about trying to raise funds for Sheffield Childrens Hospital, but probably isn't.

LiKW · **Joined:** 30 Sep 2010, 19:43 **Posts:** 2290

johnhemming wrote:

representingthemambo wrote:

So just to be clear then, why is Nick Clegg apologising?

Ask him. It might be about trying to raise funds for Sheffield Childrens Hospital, but probably isn't.

You're not standing again are you John?

johnhemming · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 12:43 **Posts:** 1188

I don't think there is a leadership election at the moment.

LiKW · **Joined:** 30 Sep 2010, 19:43 **Posts:** 2290

johnhemming wrote:

I don't think there is a leadership election at the moment.

Promise us you'll stand again when Clegg throws himself on his sword to rescue the Lib Dems electoral chances John. Your party needs you.

johnhemming · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 12:43 **Posts:** 1188

I am willling to serve.

Devilsadvocate · **Joined:** 26 Aug 2012, 22:28 **Posts:** 247

Do you think you can pull your party out of the toilet John before the final flush? :lol:

Denise · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2012, 19:58

LiKW wrote:

Promise us you'll stand again when Clegg throws himself on his sword

Knowing him, he'll miss.

Devilsadvocate · **Joined:** 26 Aug 2012, 22:28 **Posts:** 247

He may promise to throw himself on his sword but had a rethink about it because he decided it wasn't something he should have promised to do.

He could always say "Sorry" again :lol:

I wonder if the backing music when Nick does his grovelling speech at the party conference will be Elton John singing "Sorry seems to be the hardest word" :lol:

Denise · **Posted:** 21 Sep 2012, 22:59

Just heard on Newsnight that whether the "apology" should be made or not was put before a focus group.

Yes, it was that sincere.

johnhemming · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 12:43 **Posts:** 1188

My song was not put to a focus group. I stand by all the words.
http://www.muziboo.com/mp3/bring-the-sunshine-in-0/
I make no apology for it.

Dominator · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:54 **Posts:** 2874

johnhemming wrote:

My song was not put to a focus group. I stand by all the words.
http://www.muziboo.com/mp3/bring-the-sunshine-in-0/
I make no apology for it.

That deserves its own thread...

Devilsadvocate · **Joined:** 26 Aug 2012, 22:28 **Posts:** 247

johnhemming wrote:

My song was not put to a focus group. I stand by all the words.
http://www.muziboo.com/mp3/bring-the-sunshine-in-0/
I make no apology for it.

John forget the group "So Solid Crew", why don't you and a few of your LibDem buddies set up a Barber Shop Quartet called the "So Sorry Crew" :lol:

You could do a session at the conference

barnardhobbit · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 21:19 **Posts:** 4277

johnhemming wrote:

My song was not put to a focus group. I stand by all the words.
http://www.muziboo.com/mp3/bring-the-sunshine-in-0/
I make no apology for it.

Have you got a promotion video to go with that

wonderingwhy · **Joined:** 27 Jan 2011, 12:42 **Posts:** 1219

Any Questions from Stratford on Avon was/ is good today. Ming Campbell was impressive and has weight about him in a way that NC simply doesn't in my view.

johnhemming · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 12:43 **Posts:** 1188

barnardhobbit wrote:

johnhemming wrote:

My song was not put to a focus group. I stand by all the words.
http://www.muziboo.com/mp3/bring-the-sunshine-in-0/
I make no apology for it.

Have you got a promotion video to go with that

Probably the best is the Channel 4 TV programme about people leaving the country to get away from corrupt courts.

(see my weblog)

Denise · **Posted:** 22 Sep 2012, 19:02

"Liberal Democrats have kept our side of the bargain. You must too."

There really isn't much Clegg can say without sounding an utter hypocrite, is there?

ProBrum · **Joined:** 29 Jun 2011, 17:54 **Posts:** 449

johnhemming wrote:

ProBrum wrote:

Because 71% are paying more using these figures and I will mention yet again that these figures are not set in stone but rely on a lot of assumptions.

However, the NUS proposals involved taking more money from graduates. Hence it is clear that the pledge is not intended to freeze the amount of money taken from graduates.

The pledge was basically one not to increase the amount of money taken from students/graduates until the system was a fairer one.

That is how I interpreted it on signing. That is how I interpret it now.

Of course John. :roll:

Problem is that your signing of the pledge also has to be read in the context of the manifesto your party produced before the election and that you as a member of that party presumably stood on:

Quote:

University is getting more and more expensive. To get a degree, young people are saddled with
thousands of pounds of debt when it is already tough enough to get a job, get on the housing ladder and
make ends meet. The grant and bursary system is incredibly complex and money is unfairly distributed.

That is why Liberal Democrats are committed to scrapping tuition fees and have a financially responsible
plan to phase them out over six years. We are the only party which believes university education should
be free and admissions based on ability not bank balance. We will therefore also abolish fees for part-time
students studying for a first undergraduate level degree. This does not mean that universities will lose
funding, as the income they currently receive as a result of fees will continue to be paid by the government.

In our first year in Government, no student in their final year would have to pay fees, meaning future
graduates will have their fee debt slashed by over £3k. By the end of a Parliament, only first years would
have to pay fees – and these would be scrapped in the sixth year of a Liberal Democrat Government.
We are also opposed to raising the cap on tuition fees

I'm not sure how exactly you square this with your belief that you were not going to increase the amount of money taken from students/graduates until the system was a fairer one - but I'm sure you will try.

Devilsadvocate · **Joined:** 26 Aug 2012, 22:28 **Posts:** 247

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19690327

I wouldn't believe a word he or his DimLebs say anymore. It's a case of "Liar, Liar, Bums on Fire!"

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5262

so the LD's are talking about 'Tory cuts' and how they seem to not have been responsible ?

any point being in govt them ?

johnhemming · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 12:43 **Posts:** 1188

ProBrum wrote:

I'm not sure how exactly you square this with your belief that you were not going to increase the amount of money taken from students/graduates until the system was a fairer one - but I'm sure you will try.

The argument, therefore, rests on whether the current payment system is fairer than the previous one. I base my conclusion on the IFS report which I have referred to previously which looks at the amounts paid by income percentile of graduate.

The above image looks at the Browne proposals plus those from the government as well as the old system.

Devilsadvocate · **Joined:** 26 Aug 2012, 22:28 **Posts:** 247

John you and your colleagues pledged not to increase the fees and then introduce a fairer process.

The DimLebs as part of the Coalition did increase the fees, so you did not honour your pledge!

Accept the truth, say sorry like Nick and many of your colleagues and move on, which is so very easy to say 2 years after the fact.

Kevin · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 19:54 **Posts:** 748

An example of something not thought through....

From the Guardian - Nick Clegg: parents can use pension pots to help young people buy property

Given the rising costs of living if you are lucky enough to have a large pension pot you will need it to live on. The likelihood of being able to use any of it to set down a deposit on a house or flat for your family is remote, besides which many of course are having to sell their homes in order to pay for care costs.

The Lib Dems could have course set down a plan for more investment in social housing with the banks playing a role....

Meanwhile, an opinion poll for todays Observer newspaper has shown the Lib Dems in 4th place behind UKIP. Translated to Parliamentary seats this would mean wipe out and the Lib Dem parlimentary party would find a phone box sufficient for its meetings :lol:

Denise · **Posted:** 23 Sep 2012, 23:30

I have been catching up on some of the local Labour email round-robins, where a good deal of concern is being expressed over the meetings between Miliband and Clegg, since just about everybody regards Clegg as a) toxic, and b) a political dead man walking fairly likely to lose his seat anyway - so why touch him with a barge pole when that can only prompt media speculation about a Labour-Lib Dem coalition that is bound to hurt us?

Ian?

condorcet · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 13:29 **Posts:** 360

Denise wrote:

....a good deal of concern is being expressed over the meetings between Miliband and Clegg, since just about everybody regards Clegg as a) toxic, and b) a political dead man walking fairly likely to lose his seat anyway - so why touch him with a barge pole when that can only prompt media speculation about a Labour-Lib Dem coalition that is bound to hurt us?.....

There is a possibility of another hung parliament, even if it is an unlikely one. Miliband also wants to appeal to disillusioned exLibDem voters.
So it makes sense to talk to Clegg while he is still party leader.

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5262

condorcet wrote:

Denise wrote:

....a good deal of concern is being expressed over the meetings between Miliband and Clegg, since just about everybody regards Clegg as a) toxic, and b) a political dead man walking fairly likely to lose his seat anyway - so why touch him with a barge pole when that can only prompt media speculation about a Labour-Lib Dem coalition that is bound to hurt us?.....

There is a possibility of another hung parliament, even if it is an unlikely one. Miliband also wants to appeal to disillusioned exLibDem voters.
So it makes sense to talk to Clegg while he is still party leader.

I concur and also in the light of talking about tribalism there are areas we can work with the LD's on in the future. Not sure the likes of John would like it but you will see for example on the boundary review that the LD's promised to labour that it would not be allowed to pass.

Makes things easier.

For me if I had to bet in 2015 we will win a narrow majority but using the help of LD's I believe can make a firm govt.

barnardhobbit · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 21:19 **Posts:** 4277

It is reported today that Nick Clegg tells critics: 'If you don't like me, then vote Labour'

Re~Stirred Forum

Is it time for Nick Clegg to step aside to save the LibDems?

Who is online