Given the Lib Dems voed to go into the coalition, which included that Lib Dems would abstain (not vote against) the fees, I think it’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out. What happens when conference doesn’t no confidence Clegg? Is that then an endorsement to the public that Lib Dems think Clegg was right to do what he did?

I think the best thing Lib Dems can do now is see what other amendments they can make, what other policy they can try and get in, and hope they can win the argument over whether it was justifiable or not later down the line. That is if they’re not prepared to recognise the ill feeling and vote the whole bill down later.

Excellent work. Was struck last night by the resignation of a couple of well known lib dems from the party – who I knew personally and online.

voted*

@1 This is just a first salvo. I don’t expect it to pass at all – it’s to send a message more than anything else. The real way to get rid of Clegg is far easier to achieve but will take longer to do, and that’s what I’ll be working on between now and 2015.

I don’t know why, he has put your party at the very centre of politics.
Although you have got to hand it to the Tories poor old Cleggy is taking all the stick for all the coalition headaches but none of the praise for their successs.
Do you think in the next election it might be a Tory landslide with the Lib Dems been a very small party.
Mystic megs predictions.
Next election
1. A Cameron win, he has the press and the broadcasters
2. Lib dems lose in spectacular fashion, as left leaning lib dems vote Labour.
3. Clegg and Field get safe Tory seats for services above given
4. Nick Cohen finally comes out in his true colours and tells his followers to vote Tory

Why?

So you can keep hold of that wonderful feeling of smug self-satisfaction and unworldliness which being the never-likely-to-get-anywhere third party allowed you to maintain?

Give Clegg some credit, he’s radicalised the youth for the first time in a generation…

@6 In case you haven’t noticed, the motion supports the coalition – indeed, on every issue apart from tuition fees I’m content with the coalition. Nick Clegg is our Tony Blair and I, for one, can hardly seeing how being principled could cost us any more at the polls than Clegg has already.

George
Who do you replace him with ?
Look, accept that you are the Tory party bitches and have some fun.
Get rid of trident
Get rid of the anti terrorism laws.

So you can keep hold of that wonderful feeling of smug self-satisfaction
I would think Chris you have enough for all of us

@9 Personally I would like to see Tim Farron as our next leader – but I’d support whoever won the leadership election.

“I accept that the proposals are marginally better than the current system and that compromise is necessary in a coalition.”

Er, you can dance around it as much as you like, but the inescapable fact is that under the new system students would (I won’t accept this as a done deal yet) pay more. That is in no way “better”.

@12 Actually the inescapable conclusion is that, under the new system, students will pay less – and that’s according to the IFS. They also deemed it to be marginally more progressive than the current system. I still think the fee increases are wrong but there’s no need for you to try and fudge the facts either.

Gah. Terrible idea that will do nothing for your cause, but give easy ammo to Lib Dem haters in the Labour Party and the right-wing media.

Either defect and join the Greens or stay and help the Lib Dem come together again – what you are doing is extremely counter-productive, even as someone who probably agrees with a lot of your views.

“b) That in this vote 27 of the party’s 57 MPs broke their pre-election pledge not to vote in favour of an increase in tuition fees.”

But MPs didn’t (just) pledge not to vote in favour of an increase in tuition fees. They pledged to *vote against* any increase in tuition fees. So it doesn’t seem fair to let those MPs who abstained off the hook. They broke their pledge too, bringing the total number of MPs breaking their pledge to 35.

@14 We’re already down to 9% in some polls, I don’t see how this could damage us any further.

@15 I agree with you but I want to keep this motion as uncontentious as possible. I don’t want the debate at conference to be distracted by arguments over what the correct number is. Still, it is definitely something that I will consider changing before I submit the motion.

@8 “Nick Clegg is our Tony Blair”

So George, who is your ‘Gordon Brown’ to replace our ‘Tony Blair’ then? That change in leadership went so well for Labour so I’m sure it will work for the Lib Dems too…

“I accept that the proposals are marginally better than the current system and that compromise is necessary in a coalition.”

What’s the problem then? I can understand your frustration over the pledge signing but Lib Dem candidates could never really have envisaged a situation in which they were in government (and have seen how terrible the public finances really are). We should be proud to be in government (in a Westminster context) for the first time in a century.

Btw, in the history of world politics, can you name one junior coalition partner which managed to see every aspect of its manifesto implemented?

I’ll be voting against this proposal. Tuition fees has been a disaster and Clegg needs to take personal as well as corporate responsibility for it. Now is not the time to send him packing. He does, however, need to be sent a message that betraying his party to support an essentially Tory policy does not go down well with his members, not to mention the voters. Even if Vince Cable did manage to tame the policy a bit round the edges. He should be give the chance to put things right with the public. and be held to account nearer the end rather than the beginning of the coalition.

TBH I think this approach is fair enough. He’s trying to change internal policy before throwing toys out of the pan.

Also I really want people to think carefully about the wisdom of the idea of destroying the lib dems before meaningful constitutional reform. Write a list of the top 5 things you’d like to see in the UK – in terms of policy and legislation – and then consider whether you are going to be more likely to achieve that with a multi-party system, or a 2 party system.

@18 As I’ve said, I don’t expect this to pass – the motion is more to send a wake up call to Clegg and our supporters than anything else.

“@6 In case you haven’t noticed, the motion supports the coalition – indeed, on every issue apart from tuition fees I’m content with the coalition”

I’m not sure I understand your sense of proportion, in that case. Of course, for some people, fees is the single, only issue that matters to them, so I can understand why they’d react like this. But this doesn’t seem to be the case with you. So the whole motion makes total sense, right up until the end.

Did you consult with anyone about this, in the sense of asking informal advice? Could no-one suggest something more (a) obviously proportionate and (b) likely to succeed?

“it’s to send a message more than anything else. The real way to get rid of Clegg is far easier to achieve but will take longer to do, and that’s what I’ll be working on between now and 2015.”

Has it occurred to you that not everybody necessarily agrees with you? To an extent, you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do, clearly, but this is waaay beyond criticism, constructive or otherwise. This is basically inviting the media to tear us apart, whether we want to be torn apart or not. I don’t think all social liberals will necessarily thank you for that.

@17 I just don’t feel comfortable with a leader who is willing to break a personal promise so readily. Furthermore, what he is doing rides roughshod over lib dem policy. If he’d abstained then I might have been able to accept it but for him to so utterly abandon what he said before the election makes me feel sick.

@19

“He’s trying to change internal policy before throwing toys out of the pan.”

Internal policy is still to abolish fees. In fact, Clegg confirmed it again only today. There isn’t much more to be said there. Throwing toys (or rather leaders) out of the pram is exactly what George is doing.

I don’t know how to square this circle any more than anyone else does. But I hope somebody has some more subtle and workable ideas than this.

The only thing Liberal about Clegg is his yellow tie, though he has been known to wear blue on occasion. He is a tory at heart like many others around him, they think Liberal means Economic Liberal not Social Liberal or Liberal Socialist. In this ConDemnation Clegg is Quisling, selling our ideology and betraying the electorate for some personal glory, Cameron is, well you know who.

“I would think Chris you have enough for all of us”

You do yourself down!

“He is a tory at heart like many others around him, they think Liberal means Economic Liberal not Social Liberal or Liberal Socialist.”

And only *your* definition is valid, is it?

Though surely he is a social liberal.

What exactly is a “liberal socialist”?

40 years a Liberal/Liberal Democrat voter, donater, leafleter. The Parliamentary Party’s unforgiveable betrayal is the spineless acquiescence in the empowering of neo-Thatcherite regressive Toryism just when we need it the very least. Social democracy down the toilet. Everything commodotised, everything priced, nothing valued. The pious ’64% of the manifesto’ is pretty much irrelevant to the main story that’s unfolding thanks to the L-D Mps (just one honourable exception, we’re told).

“Throwing toys (or rather leaders) out of the pram is exactly what George is doing.”

To some extent I agree with you. I think the problem is that you’ve always been a party that is a means to an end. That is a party for political geeks not careerists (no sane person joins the lib dems in order to obtain power).

When you formed your appeal was essentially as a party of the centre ground, who disliked Tories because of their homophobia, shocking attitude to minorities and civil liberties, and constant dismissal of social science as a communist plot. But also as people who disliked the labour party of the time for being too left wing, economically illiterate, and against entrepreneurship. You were basically the party advocating evidence based policy within a european capitalist system. When new labour was formed, your response to that was first to embrace it as a step to anti-tory coalition who would change the constitution so that a european multi-party system could emerge, but when this fizzled out you started attracting people pissed off at blair’s wars and authoritarianism, but who were far from tories. At the same time the conservatives were changing into a party who you could do a deal with, I don’t blame clegg – frankly it was the right option for your party.

So essentially you need to remember that the core purpose of the lib dems has been to have constitutional change, and it is this that you have to remain focused on. Once major constitutional change is achieved your party will have achieved its goals and probably split between social liberals who want a scandanavian type system and orange bookers who are more free market and pro-civil liberties.

Tuition fees are thus not worth splitting over, and probably not worth ditching the leader over either. The real test is to what extent does Clegg advance the goal of constitutional change, and if it looks like he fails to do that then get rid of him.

‘b) That in this vote 27 of the party’s 57 MPs broke their pre-election pledge not to vote in favour of an increase in tuition fees.’

38. 39 if you count Huhne.

You didn’t count the teller, who isn’t recorded in Hansard, or the abstainers who broke their pledge ‘to vote against’.

After watching the debate yesterday I am bemused as to why no MP took up Caroline Lucas’s idea of a tax on corporations who benefit most from graduates? By her reckoning it could bring in £3billion p/a and we wouldn’t need fees at all. Why did no Lib Dem’s even bother to discuss this?

27

“Tuition fees are thus not worth splitting over, and probably not worth ditching the leader over either. The real test is to what extent does Clegg advance the goal of constitutional change, and if it looks like he fails to do that then get rid of him.”

I disagree with you there: the issue is eminently worth making a huge row about, and ditching Clegg as leader (which I agree is unlikely) is probably the only thing that might save the LD’s from electoral disaster. Indeed, I would say there is a greater danger of electoral reform going down with an LD ship helmed by Clegg than there is of it succeeding because he’s still there!

The issue for many LD members, and the large number of left leaning voters who have suppported them, is that they feel betrayed. They don’t buy the “we had no alternative” argument, anymore than they believe the “finances were worse than we feared” line.

Even if the LD party doesn’t self destruct prior to the next GE, many of the numpties who broke their word will find themselves out of a job at the next GE…and it will be richly deserved.

There’s a clear difference between the Lib Dem manifesto to ablosh tuition fees, and a personal pledge as an MP to vote a certain way.

As far as the maifesto goes it is fair to compromise that as part of the coalition agreement, as the Lib Dems don’t have the majority they need to implement their manifesto.

But to go back on a personal pledge as an MP to vote a certain way is just unacceptable, and any MP who did is morally no better than Phil Woolas (although I realised not legally). They deceived their constituency voters. The Lib Dems are finished, politically, as far as I can see.

A vote of no confidence in Clegg? Can you do this? We are solemnly obliged to endure this parliament for five fixed years – what will happen if old Nick is kicked out of his LD leadership role and – perish the thought – the coalition collapses? How do we muddle through the remainder of the fixed period? Don’t say minority government – just because this prospect would leave us without a Clegg to stand on. If you could but wait until the next General Election – I am sure that the electorate will deliver your No Confidence vote loud and clear – don’t go making yourself unpopular in your own party at a difficult time. After all – there’s all the new year fun of 20% VAT to come yet. Promises – promises! Memories – memories!

Comment 31 explains precisely why I feel the need to make an issue over fees. It’s the betrayal of trust which I cannot stand.

Now, this is what I would like to see happen: my motion receives some support at conference but fails to pass, acting as a warning to the leadership and hopefully restoring some public trust in the lib dems before the May council elections. Then, in 2015, letters of requisition from 75 or more local parties are sent to the president, thereby removing Clegg as leader. This enables us to have kept to the coalition agreement and to have delivered stable government quite still ridding ourselves of our yellow tory element. By purging Clegg we should then be able to regain enough trust to avoid destruction in the general election and put ourselves in a position to bounce back by 2020.

@32, see my comment @33.

Thank you George – how are things in cloud cuckoo land?

@ 29 Mr S Pill

“After watching the debate yesterday I am bemused as to why no MP took up Caroline Lucas’s idea of a tax on corporations who benefit most from graduates? By her reckoning it could bring in £3billion p/a and we wouldn’t need fees at all. Why did no Lib Dem’s even bother to discuss this?”

I haven’t heard the details, but I would guess either that it would be against EU rules, or that it would lead to businesses refusing to hire graduates.

Well George, let me just say that as a fellow Lib Dem member you most certainly won’t get getting my support. This kind of nonsense is exactly what the party doesn’t need right now. Well done!

Oh and George: “Yellow Tory”? You sound like a dyed-in-the-wool Labour tribalist spouting nonsense like that. Grow up. Like all parties the LibDems are a broad church, and just because some of us aren’t hard-core lefties like you doesn’t make us Tories… You Yellow-Labourer.

33 George

You are unlikely to have the time to bring about the scenario you put forward. Sadly for you, there are too many people like bgb in your party. In truth, even if you were successful, it’s still just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The LD’s are doomed, and have been since they failed so abjectly to get meaningful power or influence within the coalition, and because Clegg and the orange book cabal are prepared to do absolutely anything, including ditching basic principles, and going back on the pledges they made.

For those of us outside your party, who have even supported you in the past, it’s fascinatingly horrible, like watching a train wreck you could see coming but are helpless to prevent. Clegg’s journey from hero to zero has certainly been meteoric; I actually feel sorry for many people in your party, because they have seen decades of effort destroyed within 6 months.

Go back to your constituencies, and prepare for extinction….. it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of principle voids.

@Galen10 – “there are too many people like bgb in your party”

Since you so much about me Galen10, do tell what kind of people are people like me?

Why is this being posted on a Labour site ?

Priceless, the tory trolls spend all day attacking the potesters, and say that is not the way to get change.

So they then complain when people try to do it by democratic vote.

Shorter tory trolls “Nothing must stop the tory brownshirts from pushing through their agenda.”

@ 41
“Why is this being posted on a Labour site ?

Err cos it says at the top “Liberal Conspiracy is the UK’s most popular left-of-centre politics blog. Our aim is to re-vitalise the liberal-left through discussion and action “?

For those who permsist in promolgating that the Government is Tory hard right at all costs” I suggest a trip over to the Daily Telegraph bloggs to conside the comments there to see what the posters there are saying about the coallition.

You need a fairly strong stomach.

As a average man I would like to comment on this thread.

At the last election i voted lib because I agreed with most of the polices In the manifesto.me and my wife read the lib website very carefully and made choices
his is great finally a political party for the people and fair/

In fact with the promise of accountability and promises not just by a party leader but by a party.

That things would be different and that you could believe them because they where different.
A new politics a politics where a mans word was a truth.

Now i look at thing like this …

where is the libs accountability DO They just believe the word of one man >?

New politics relies on a few things and the biggest one is that you are different that you will not lie to the general population like the rest did.

WE are different clegg said and if i lie to you you have the option to get rid of me.

Now my self and my wife thought the libs where radical in their approach to politics that they where different.

And it seams thier not there all talk.

I have read this web site for a while now and have been very interested in your thoughts and comments as a whole they have been refreshing .

And if the general population read it they would see the libs or their supporters do have a ounce of social concern or for the most part Guts Unlike their leaders who are acting like total hypocrites.

But do you think that any one is going to believe a thing they say >?
sorry NO

I certainly will not be voting for the Libs till clegg and a few more of them leave .
To get rid of them would be the best thing for the libs to do it would be even better if the membership got rid of them.

What they have done in the last year is make sure the libs will sit on the back for generations.

People don’t like people who lie.
And they really don’t like hypocrites.
But even more so to treat people like they are thick by patronising them is the worst . these are people that voted for the liberals

sorry but they are the facts

The liberals Front bench is the biggest liability the liberal political party has

“Now, this is what I would like to see happen: my motion receives some support at conference but fails to pass,”

Ok…

“acting as a warning to the leadership”

Yes, I think “the leadership” probably twigged something was up when he started getting shit landing on his doormat. It’s possible to accuse him of many things, but stupid he ain’t.

” and hopefully restoring some public trust in the lib dems before the May council elections.”

Oh god, yes, that’ll work out beautifully. Yes, I’m sure the press coverage will be all about how the real party remains true to its beliefs and Clegg will be kindly shifted to one side as a sort of temporary aberration. And I’m sure voters will make the distinction between a conference motion and the most prominent public face of the party. There’ll be sackloads of votes coming in because you posted this motion, no question.

“Then, in 2015, letters of requisition from 75 or more local parties are sent to the president, thereby removing Clegg as leader. This enables us to have kept to the coalition agreement and to have delivered stable government quite still ridding ourselves of our yellow tory element. By purging Clegg we should then be able to regain enough trust to avoid destruction in the general election and put ourselves in a position to bounce back by 2020.”

Oh yes. You will definitely be able to control all matters throughout as above. Well planned.

Let me be clear: I’m not saying “don’t do this”. If you feel that strongly that this is the make-or-break issue, and a liberal party isn’t worth having but for that – hell, do it. And see who agrees with you. The party is only an entity and the sum of its members, after all. Just don’t be under the slightest illusion that things will work out even a little bit as you say. You don’t get to choose what impact your actions have on other people.

You can whine on about purges and purification all you like but the Lib Dems are contaminated with the Tory stench now – there will have to be a long hard wind of change to get that out of the nostrils of the electorate – a five year fixed term won’t do it either. ‘A house divided against itself . . . ‘ etc. From May to December is but a short time in which to become a busted flash-in-the-pan — but you did it your way.

“Make the rich pay” read one of the slogans sprayed by a protestor on the stonework of a fine building. (BTW, I do not know what the building had done wrong to endure such abuse; there were other places for the protestor to place that message.)

The difficulty for the protestors is that the fee payment scheme precisely means “Make the rich pay”. Graduates start paying back fees on a graduated scale once they earn c. median income and stop paying them when the account is cleared. If the account is not cleared after a period, the debt is wiped. Only the rich will ever pay back their tuition fees entirely.

The recipe that has been offered by the coalition turns out to be a lot fairer than previously discussed alternatives. No graduate will pay back more in fees plus interest than the cost of their education (graduate tax means that payees contribute for eternity) and shortfall is written off after a period. Non UK tax payers will be required to pay for English/Welsh/NI higher education, another failing of graduate tax.

So this recipe is very fair. Fairer than the graduate tax which sounds nice but has shortcomings.

For a History of Art student, £27,000 of debt sounds ominous given the job opportunities available to anyone who perceives History of Art as a vocation. But the HofA graduate will only have to pay it back in serious figures if s/he has a well paid job. The future debt of £27,000 is effectively less onerous than under the current £9,000+ debt payment scheme.

Thus the argument should only be about voter betrayal (misjudged pledges). As a LibDem supporter, my pain is that the party adopted a policy that higher education should be free at point of use (HE isn’t entirely free and never has been; eg fees for OU courses), and which is not economically incoherent.

LibDems should have faced this one square on. The pledge was misjudged and the former policy would have been less fair than this one. Let us tell you about our former policy and why this one makes more sense…

For comparison, try this survey from a year ago on what graduates earn by degree subject:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/table-what-do-graduates-earn-1675502.html

So you’re entirely happy with the benefit cuts introduced by the coalition then? How very ‘socially liberal’.

48….

you missed the point i think.

If a guy promises the job centre he will go looking for work and dont he gets his benefit took off him.

If i was a shop and promised 2 for 1 and gave you one i would be taken to court.

if i gave my word to sum-one and i broke it would they trust me >? nope

So why would you think its okay to sign something base your values as a party on it then say NO i really meant to say something else.
the point is that he used the fee issue to get votes and his reputation

needles to say any other policy he and his crony’s have broken.

and i am sorry but its fact i don’t like lies or hypocrites .

and you think im the only one at least sum of us have morals !

and our word means sumthing

@ Alix

But your suggestion of doing nothing isn’t going to help the party with the public, not the press!

Have you even looked at what the Public NOT the press are saying? And I’m not talking in blogs that are too the Left but shows, twitter etc

Also, over at Lib Dem Voice Richard H resigned-can you not see how upset people are? Me included who’s a paying member plus done quite a bit of work in my local party plus the WLD for the future etc.

This is about getting all the Lib Dm haters who voted for the Lib back on side. Continuing this arrogant educated elitist and patronising attitude that is soooooo prevalent in the party ‘that was the best thing to do’ is so far removed from speaking to peope, y’know not the ones who agree with you.

Maybe I have too many normal friends who are not in the party system nor political geeks who are really baffled and angry about this.

Seriously, go out on the streets. In fact, I’m helping a great guy to be elected as local cllr who has been a lib dem for decades though always skipped for a place on the glossy table and I will write everything down of what people say.

I’m in a Tory town and not a Labour one, so you Libs can’t accuse the upset voters of being part of the crazy socialist left.

Maybe it’s my business side coming through but I’ve never seen such car crash behaviour in life. The PR has been appalling and I don’t know how many times I can tell the press office to do better Market research on what people are thinking and then coming up with a strategy to communicate the message in a non middle class and overly educated way.

But this has always been the issue of had with the party, the members live in their own little over educated world and are just not part of the real world.

I remember a while back I was part of this group to get women more into politics and this yng black girl who grew up in council estates was really keen to join the Libs but was listening to her peer group about politics because this was HER reality. Obv, I heard to educate her but I didn’t make it academic nor did I patronise her.

Furthermore as someone who like said above didn’t an arts degree, I am still paying back my student loan because guess what? I’m unemployable! Doesnt matter how hard I try, which is why I am putting myself through an expensive MBS and figured I’m on my own so I many as well start my own business…again…except this time it’s not something creative but bringing little profit but with a very clear financial strategy. Of course I’m not out to rip people off and I’ve designed a model with a triple bottom line feature but nevertheless, I like many of my friends struggling to find employment because of our art degrees, have to make our own luck.

But not everyone is like me and I don’t expect them to be. My lovely friend who has been on job seekers for ages doesn’t even get told why she doesn’t get a job. A 2.1 from Manchester Uni is hardly a bad thing but it was in social anthropology.

Its not that easy to get a job if you don’t fit in to what the organisation you are applying for wants, so this rubbish concept that ‘hey I’ll just apply and bingo, I can start paying back the fees is ridiculous’

Some people just don’t live in the real world where there all sorts of glass ceilings.

Case in point my sister had a degree from McGill AND a post grad from LSE and was unemployed for a year. She hot so depressed that it became a vicous circle.

I could go on and on and on and on…

@rantersparadise

“But your suggestion of doing nothing isn’t going to help the party with the public, not the press!”

And I suggested doing nothing where exactly?

I said this:

“I don’t know how to square this circle any more than anyone else does. But I hope somebody has some more subtle and workable ideas than this.”

Which is… yeah, pretty much what I still think several hours later. And as for this frankly offensive tripe:

“Continuing this arrogant educated elitist and patronising attitude that is soooooo prevalent in the party ‘that was the best thing to do’ is so far removed from speaking to peope, y’know not the ones who agree with you.”

Erm, where the fuck did I say it was the best thing to do!? Wherever I have commented on this over the past few weeks, I’ve said I thought the Lib Dem MPs should vote against the motion, because that was their pledge. That is totally separate from saying I think George’s idea of how his motion will pan out is utterly cracked.

Of course, I appreciate you may not have read my comments about the pledge, because I think I’ve only said so a handful of times. But then you didn’t ask, did you. You assumed. Talking of which…

“Case in point my sister had a degree from McGill AND a post grad from LSE and was unemployed for a year. She hot so depressed that it became
a vicous circle.”

Woah! If we’re suddenly and for no readily apparent reason playing unemployability bingo I can beat a mere *year* of vicious-circle-unemployment-depression hands down. Which I suspect will come as an enormous and paradigm-shifting surprise to you, but you’re just going to have to suck on it, I think.

Speak for yourself, but I’m a hair away from cutting up my membership card and sending it back.

What’s stopping me? At the moment, one too many glasses of Champagne. Stupid holidays… *hic*

Sounds good to me. The only reason I’m not resigning my membership right now over this issue is that I’m waiting for older and wiser heads to let me know if they need my party vote to count in ANY way to bring Nick Clegg down in future.

I can accept that not all Lib Dems are ‘lying bastards’ like Nick Clegg but there is enough of them to make th British public realise that they are never to be trusted again. The public are not stupid and they will remember this betrayal for a long, long time. Just face the truth – the Lib Dems are finished as a political party and I can see a rump of them breaking away before the next election and joining the Tories (who will welcome them with open arms). The rest will be then left to rot in the political wilderness.
The chances of this resolution passing at the Lib Dem conference are about as good as Nick Clegg ever being voted most popular man in Westminster!

i’m a lib dem member and i that agree that, the way things stand, nick has to go. but can we not wait until after the AV referendum? if we do this in the spring, the tory press will present us as falling apart right when we need them to be focussing on our arguments for electoral reform – and if we don’t get that then all this pain will have been for nothing…

40 bgb

I know everything I need to know about you for the purposes of this debate from your posts @ 37 & 38; it’s not a value judgement on you as a person, it merely stating the fact that you are one of those LD’s (hopefully in the minority) who are fully behind Clegg and the rest of the Uncle Tom’s who sold their souls to the devil.

57

I think most people accept that it is unlikely the turkeys are going to vote for Xmas, and ditch Clegg before the AV referendum.

Looked at from the point of view of those who support electoral reform, it is to be hoped that the LD’s decision to join the Coalition, and their supine stance within it, has not served to scupper the chances of success for AV. There are no doubt some who will vote against AV not because they oppose reform, but to give the LD’s a bloody nose.

With luck, the collapse in your support (and it seems membership) will not rob us of what may in fact the ONLY significant achievement of your politically suicidal decision to get into bed with the Tories: electoral reform.

Parties have no natural right to exist, which is a lesson the LD’s will learn soon enough. The question is, what takes the place of the LD’s?

41

It isn’t a Labour site thankfully…! As we saw over the past 13 years, that would be pretty far away from being progressive, radical or left of centre.

If 64% of the Lib Dem manifesto is in the Coalition Agreement as you note, that simply goes to show how homogenised with the Tories and New Labour the Lib Dems have become. If they ever were radical challengers to the “buggins-turn” two-party system, they certainly aren’t now – just look at the ease with which your MPs have taken jobs alongside the Tories, the enthusiasm they pronounce for their project as they role back the State exposing many of the most vulnerable in our society to uncertainty, vilification in the media and poverty. Whether students, disabled people, “probelm” families or the longterm unemployed, there is virtually nothing to distinguish what we hear tripping out of Lib dems mouths from the pronouncements of rightwing Tories.

Good luck with your motion of no confidence – from my experience as an author/proposer of conference motions in years gone, you will be lucky in the extreme to get anything controversial past the LD Conference Committee, and for all the hand-wringing that is going on, if it is debated, your fellow delegates will doubtless vote it down massively. For the Lib dems have long given up their progressive soul – the Coalition is in fact the logical conclusion of a long process of depoliticisation and assimilation into the political Establishment, which is now chewing you up before spitting back out all but the morsels, like Clegg and Laws, that it might want to keep.

I’m a bit unclear about why the focus is just on confidence in Nick Clegg.

Consider this recent news item about my local hospital:

“Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust is slashing at least 30 jobs as it struggles to cut £30m from its budget. The trust has informed staff that 30 non-clinical managerial and administrative posts to make a saving of £600,000. The trust has also warned there may be further job losses as a result of the trust ‘sharing services’ with other hospital trusts. The savings made by the redundancies will only scratch the surface of the £20m the trust still needs to cut from its budget.”
http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/news/8623076.UPDATED__Hospital_trust_slashes_jobs/

A reasonable expectation is that the local LibDem controlled council or one or the other of the two local LibDem MPs would have had something to say about that, especially since one, Paul Burstow, is a minister of state in the Department of Health and in the run-up to the election in May, the Nursing Times was reporting this:

“David Cameron has denied that ‘tough’ decisions on spending will mean cuts to frontline health services while campaigning in marginal seats he needs to win to secure overall victory.” Nursing Times, 4 May 2010
http://www.nursingtimes.net/whats-new-in-nursing/news-topics/conservative-party/cuts-wont-hit-frontline-nhs-insists-cameron/5014238.article

Despite many online searches, I can’t find any reported comments from the local council or our two local MPs.

Hah, and now:
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8732980.Liberal_Democrat__rebel__councillor_suspended/

From this seat, the local party seems to be slowly devouring itself.

@61 Adrian Crudden: “If 64% of the Lib Dem manifesto is in the Coalition Agreement as you note, that simply goes to show how homogenised with the Tories and New Labour the Lib Dems have become. If they ever were radical challengers to the “buggins-turn” two-party system, they certainly aren’t now….”

Statistics failure for Adrian and the post he quoted. It is the other 36% of the manifesto that demands examination.

Half of the manifesto of any mainstream party will be echoed in that of the BNP.

At the 1979 general election, “The British Road to Socialism” manifesto of the Communist Party of Great Britain read more like that of the Liberal Party than any other. But both parties had their 36% of significant differences.

A private sector company which launched a prospectus to raise new capital that made fraudulent claims is – very properly – liable to prosecution.

But when political leaders seek votes at elections making attractive policy promises which, on election to government, they renege on just seven months later, the only “acceptable” recourse electors have in the “lawful democratic process” is to bear the pain of the consequences of the broken promises and wait through the years for the next election. Is that it?

In case of doubt about what is happening to healthcare services for all Cameron’s reported promises at the election, try this news item a few days ago from the Telegraph:

“Across swathes of the country, patients waiting for the most common types of surgery, including hip and knee replacements, and cataract operations, will now be forced to wait months longer for treatment.

“Patients’ groups described the decisions as ‘desperate’, warning that thousands of people, especially the elderly, will be left to suffer in pain this winter as their conditions deteriorate.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8181390/Patients-denied-hip-surgery-and-fertility-treatment-amid-NHS-cash-crisis.html

You are perhaps overlooking one thing. You will have to get your motion selected for debate.

“You are perhaps overlooking one thing. You will have to get your motion selected for debate.”

A lot of folk will be watching now to see how the LibDem Party conference responds to popular concerns about their party’s integrity.

67

It will be in the interests of Clegg and his supporters to batten down the hatches, and to try and weather the storm. They no doubt hope that by 2015, people will have forgotten all about tuition fees. I think they are deluded, but only time will tell. The Tories must be loving the fact they can use LD’s as lightning rods.

I honestly can’t see the LD conference having the guts to try and face down the Cleggistas. Those who are horrified with what has been don in their name really only have 2 alternatives; leave the party, or keep their heads down and hope the electorate have short memories.

It’s not just the student fees issue now, it’s also about what is happening with the cuts in NHS healthcare services as the link to the recent Telegraph news report @65 shows and despite clear pledges made at the election in May to gather votes.

The LibDems are deeply implicated in both issues.

A new generation of graduating students will be growing up with newly acquired and instructive insights into the integrity of political leaders and how the police in Britain behave.

Personally, I learned much from the experience of student demonstrations in London in the autumn of 1956 against the Suez debacle when I was part of a crowd charged down by mounted police. RAB Butler was later reported in the news as saying in the Commons that the crowd included “communists”.

The illuminating irony then was that President Eisenhower brought the Suez invasion to a quick end by threatening to pull the plug on Sterling, which was under pressure in the foreign exchange market. Eden, the PM at the time, duly retired on “health” grounds a few month later. So much for all the propaganda put out about communist agitators. Btw the government tried to stop the BBC from allowing Gaitskell, leader of the opposition, the opportunity to broadcast a speech criticising government policy. So much for political pluralism.

News update:

Try:

“Nearly half of Liberal Democrat voters are ready to abandon the party over its backing for a hike in tuition fees, according to a poll. . . ”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5j6ONQ8TNDPRBqXn3U5wSidQ5uq2w?docId=N0094891292095132993A

The motion is far too long and only serves to show why the LibDems are seen as a bunch of useless tosers. That and a bunch of lying bastards.

Nick Clegg and Vince Cable are interested in power, nothing else. The LibDems: how will this harm the party? Nothing but contempt for the electorate.

What we saw on Thursday was a sad day for democracy.

I trust all will rush out and download, retweet on twitter, Captain SKA – Liar Liar.

A far better motion: Nick Clegg is a lying bastard. He has let down country and party. He should resign.

I am really happy to see a new poll says the LibDms are unelectable.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5j6ONQ8TNDPRBqXn3U5wSidQ5uq2w?docId=N0094891292095132993A

The sooner they are kicked out the better, and I hope all those MPs who refused to vote no will be removed by the electorate.

I fully support a motion of no confidence in Nick Clegg. That proposed is too wordy and lacks focus.

How about? Nick Clegged showed a lack of integrity in refusing to honour an election pledge. He has brought the party into dispute. He should resign.

But why stop there? Remove Vince Cable too.

http://keithpp.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/captain-ska-liar-liar/
http://keithpp.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/a-sad-day-for-democracy/

@7 Mr S Pill: Give Clegg some credit, he’s radicalised the youth for the first time in a generation…

LOL

@65 Bob B: But when political leaders seek votes at elections making attractive policy promises which, on election to government, they renege on just seven months later, the only “acceptable” recourse electors have in the “lawful democratic process” is to bear the pain of the consequences of the broken promises and wait through the years for the next election. Is that it?

This is why I favour recall elections for politicians.

A consequence of those cuts underway in NHS healthcare services which Cameron in May had pledged to protect:

A friend phoned on Friday to tell me that she had gone private the previous day for a cataract operation as the result of receiving another hospital letter postponing her scheduled NHS cataract operation once more, to March next year this time.

Her special predicament is that she is of an age where she has to periodically apply to renew her driving licence and her very reasonable apprehension was that she would be unable to renew her licence as necessary in the near future without a cataract operation.

@ George Potter

I suggest you follow your former party colleague Richard Huzzey, and actually make a statement that might be noticed, rather than your over wordy motion which has no chance of doing any good?

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-richard-huzzey-i-resign-22345.html

@66 and 67

In order for a motion to be accepted to go on the agenda it needs to either be sponsored by a local branch or an associated organisation (such as Liberal Youth for example) OR be nominated by ten voting representatives. I am completely confident that we will get the necessary support to have the motion accepted for debate.

Sorry, but you say you support the coalition – I don’t think the coalition would survive without Nick Clegg. And, what would be the point now. We still have the same tuition fees policy.

I think that Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and Danny Alexander spent a lot of time ‘liberalising’ this policy, and therefore felt they couldn’t vote against it. If it wasn’t for them there’d be no cap on fees at all, no scholarships etc.

In hindsight they shouldn’t have made that stupid pledge, but the fact is that given the current economic climate and the swift cuts that have to be made it’s not possible to have free university tuition. Therefore, we need an alternative, which is what we have now. A full graduate tax would be worse and not progressive. So what would we be left with? A blank sheet of paper?

I can’t say I agree with the £9,000 level, and think it would be a much better policy without that higher level cap. But I don’t know if the figures would then add up with only one cap of £6,000.

As for the issue of them drawing up a compromise on tuition fees before the election – they HAD to. It would have been silly not to having known that neither the Conservatives nor Labour would agree to scrapping fees. They had to prepare for a hung parliament as that was what the polls were pointing to.

The fact is Nick has got all 4 main manifesto issues agreed upon by the Coalition, plus we have a lot of other policies making it through.

I think even proposing this vote of no confidence in Nick Clegg will damage the party more than keeping him. Change the leadership now and you have a Gordon Brown situation. Please don’t do this – especially since you don’t even expect this to go forward at conference. Why post this and give the opposition amunition about the party splitting? I believe that party as a whole can weather this.

There should be a vote of no confidence in Cameron as, quite frankly, I can’t see what he has done apart from let the Lib Dems and Nick take all the blame for everything. I know we as a party cannot do this, but just making a point.

It is not just about getting the number of signatures to get the motion technically correct. It is about the conference committee giving it a slot.

To be honest, I think you have got a bit too overexcited. I appreciate the strength of feeling, and share some of your disquiet but a motion of no confidence is helping enemies of the Lib Dems to portray us as fatally split. It will do absolutely nothing to change anything else, just get everybody worked up.

It is not so sexy or exciting to try and change things by persuasion, but that is usually the only thing that works. Confrontation generally puts people’s backs up against the wall, and then they are less likely to change their views or actions.

Hope you take this in the way it is meant. I am sure we both want to help the party keep its soul and beliefs.

78

“I am sure we both want to help the party keep its soul and beliefs.”

I fear you are a day late and a dollar short!

I can see why many members feel this move is a mistake; it is understandable that they would have the view that people who are opposed to what has been done should not give ammunition to those attacking you.

However, if you are to have any hope of recovering the support of those you have alienated, simply battening down the hatches won’t do. 2015 may be a long way off, but people have long memories.

If for no other reason (such as perhaps it would be the “right” thing to do?) self preservation ought to tell you that continuing on the current path can only result in the LD’s becoming at best the FDP of British politics. You will end up as a pathetic, social liberal rump polling in single figures, and haemorrhaging support to both Labour and alternative minor parties.