Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

John Drake

Who'd be in Nick Clegg's shoes...

132 posts in this topic

but has been cleared  via due process?  I guess who you believe is dictated by who you want to believe and why.

 

Nick Clegg doesn't appear to believe Rennard's claims of innocence and he's the leader of the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she made a complaint and it was ignored, then the party deserves to be in the pickle it currently finds itself in.

I think that was what was being suggested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that was what was being suggested.

 

Exactly,they had been warned, they did nothing, they now have a bigger problem.

 

Just because someone complained, and got it on record, doesn't mean that something was done, other than writing it down in the complaint book and sniggering as she left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Who'd be in Nick Clegg's shoes?

 

In a job only paying £134, 500 for a something like a 34 week working year, where you can't be sacked for 5 years, even for the grossest incompetence.

 

If he loses his seat in the next election he'll be parachuted into a MEP's job in Brussels on another eye-watering salary, with similar job protection!

 

After politics, he'll be invited onto the boards of a load of businesses where he'll be able to lie in the five languages he speaks.

 

With all of that to worry about,I don't know how he can get to sleep at night. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in case anyone forgets

Nick-Clegg-tuition-fees-pledge.jpg

A politician not sticking to his promises? That has to be:

1. A first

2,a surprise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can pick any party, you can pick any era, and you can pick any senior politician, and you will find the the realities of the situation over-rule unrealisable promises.

 

Of course, if you have an irrational personal dislike of someone in power, that trumps everything...except a perfectly justifiable reasonable and rational dislike of the man who promised he'd ended boom and bust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can pick any party, you can pick any era, and you can pick any senior politician, and you will find the the realities of the situation over-rule unrealisable promises.

 

 

Yes that is true BUT, are you saying its ok for a politician to lie whereas it would be wrong and unreasonable for you or me to?

 

And yes, I'm human, I've told lies on more than one occasion, but that still doesn't make it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in case anyone forgets

 

Nick-Clegg-tuition-fees-pledge.jpg

As we move into an era of coalition governments we are going to find more political leaders apparently going back on their promises.

 

I have no doubt that if the Tories had won an absolute majority and had been in government without the Lib Dems, Clegg would have been doing what the piece of paper's he's holding said he would do.

 

But he unexpectedly found himself in government, and had to compromise on his manifesto, as did the Tories. Both parties are unable to deliver on certain of their promises, and that's the price of entering into a coalition.

 

They may look like liars, but there's little alternative if they are to govern in coalition.

 

Those who favour coalition government should perhaps stop moaning about the consequences of such a system. We are going to see them far more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I favour coalitions and have never complained about supposed backtracked promises. Negotiations happen as somethings get lost!

 

My one thing is I think they should have held out for a referendum on STV instead of AV, but I guess thats a different topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we move into an era of coalition governments we are going to find more political leaders apparently going back on their promises.

 

I have no doubt that if the Tories had won an absolute majority and had been in government without the Lib Dems, Clegg would have been doing what the piece of paper's he's holding said he would do.

 

But he unexpectedly found himself in government, and had to compromise on his manifesto, as did the Tories. Both parties are unable to deliver on certain of their promises, and that's the price of entering into a coalition.

 

They may look like liars, but there's little alternative if they are to govern in coalition.

 

Those who favour coalition government should perhaps stop moaning about the consequences of such a system. We are going to see them far more often.

 

That works to an extent.  But where clear commitments from within the coalition agreement itself are being dropped (i.e. MP recall) there's not much excuse at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That works to an extent.  But where clear commitments from within the coalition agreement itself are being dropped (i.e. MP recall) there's not much excuse at all.

Exactly.  There was a specific clause in the Coalition Agreement where the Lib Dem ministers could differ from government policy on tuition fees without them breaching the collective responsibility rules that typically bind government ministers, instead that nice Mr Clegg whipped his party to vote for the increase.  That's not just compromise for the sake of keeping a functional government, that's taking that nice bit of paper he's holding in the picture and using it as toilet paper.

 

If you go to the effort of making an agreement that keeps the best principles of each others' manifesto pledges then they should at least have the decency to keep to them.  This wasn't at the end of a 5 year parliament either where things had changed radically, this was a year after they were in power when very little had changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.  There was a specific clause in the Coalition Agreement where the Lib Dem ministers could differ from government policy on tuition fees without them breaching the collective responsibility rules that typically bind government ministers, instead that nice Mr Clegg whipped his party to vote for the increase.  That's not just compromise for the sake of keeping a functional government, that's taking that nice bit of paper he's holding in the picture and using it as toilet paper.

Or maybe Clegg is just being realistic.

 

You can't have ministers in any government being able to pick and choose which bits of government policy they are prepared to support. If you're going to go into a coalition you have to be prepared to compromise and then govern effectively.

 

It's the difference between being a governing party and being one of perpetual opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe Clegg is just being realistic.

 

You can't have ministers in any government being able to pick and choose which bits of government policy they are prepared to support. If you're going to go into a coalition you have to be prepared to compromise and then govern effectively.

 

It's the difference between being a governing party and being one of perpetual opposition.

What was the point in them spending all that time getting the Coalition Agreement written and then approved by their parties?  Was it just marketing fluff?  Should we be asking for our votes back as mis-sold under the Sale of Goods Act?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can't have ministers in any government being able to pick and choose which bits of government policy they are prepared to support. 

 

You can if you're in coalition with a pre-agreed set of things you will wave through and those you will not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the point in them spending all that time getting the Coalition Agreement written and then approved by their parties?  Was it just marketing fluff?  Should we be asking for our votes back as mis-sold under the Sale of Goods Act?

Did you vote for the Con Dem coalition then?  Because that's the only way you could claim anything was mis sold! 

 

A coalition agreement written at the outset of a five year parliament cannot have been a particularly accurate exercise.  Nobody then would have known what route the economy was going to take or that we'd have a very soggy two year spell after a very dry two year spell, or that riots would kick off a year before the Olympics or that Margaret Thatcher would die just when the next round of fixtures for the Challenge Cup were about to be announced.  In the real world I would imagine the coalition agreement was an agreement in principle, at least until about a year ahead of the next election when the gloves would come off and the LibDems would start calling the Tories rude names.

 

On the point about the tuition fees, far from putting people off going to university, UCAS and other bodies recorded the highest number of applications ever for this academic year.  So clearly all that stuff about the fees putting everyone off was lefty nonsense.  Which I knew at the time anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you vote for the Con Dem coalition then?  Because that's the only way you could claim anything was mis sold! 

 

A coalition agreement written at the outset of a five year parliament cannot have been a particularly accurate exercise.  Nobody then would have known what route the economy was going to take or that we'd have a very soggy two year spell after a very dry two year spell, or that riots would kick off a year before the Olympics or that Margaret Thatcher would die just when the next round of fixtures for the Challenge Cup were about to be announced.  In the real world I would imagine the coalition agreement was an agreement in principle, at least until about a year ahead of the next election when the gloves would come off and the LibDems would start calling the Tories rude names.

 

On the point about the tuition fees, far from putting people off going to university, UCAS and other bodies recorded the highest number of applications ever for this academic year.  So clearly all that stuff about the fees putting everyone off was lefty nonsense.  Which I knew at the time anyway. 

I voted Lib Dem.  A complete waste of a vote for two reasons.  1: my MP is Tim Yeo, it took a Tory revolt from the local party to unseat him otherwise people would still be voting for him in droves despite him living in Kent and rarely being seen near Suffolk. 2: as far as I'm concerned, Nick Clegg lied to me and fraudulently misrepresented what his party was about.

 

The fees were and are a shameful ladder-pulling exercise.  I went to university, my fees were fully paid and I got a bit of a grant.  For that privilege, I expected to have a higher chance of being a higher rate taxpayer where I'd substantially more than repay those tuition fees and grants as well as a lot more.  From that excess I pay back to the state, I expect the state to pay for the education of the next generation going to university, affording them the same free education without the stress of having a crippling debt to pay off.  ALL education to first degree should be completely free.  Even post-grad education should be completely free for certain subjects that are vital to the nation.  Instead, what's happened is that the last two governments have shamefully pulled up the ladder behind themselves and said "thanks for the free education suckers, you can pay for your own now".  Lefty nonsense?  No, just a desire to see a better country rather than one where it's all about the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted Lib Dem.  A complete waste of a vote for two reasons.  1: my MP is Tim Yeo, it took a Tory revolt from the local party to unseat him otherwise people would still be voting for him in droves despite him living in Kent and rarely being seen near Suffolk. 2: as far as I'm concerned, Nick Clegg lied to me and fraudulently misrepresented what his party was about.

 

The fees were and are a shameful ladder-pulling exercise.  I went to university, my fees were fully paid and I got a bit of a grant.  For that privilege, I expected to have a higher chance of being a higher rate taxpayer where I'd substantially more than repay those tuition fees and grants as well as a lot more.  From that excess I pay back to the state, I expect the state to pay for the education of the next generation going to university, affording them the same free education without the stress of having a crippling debt to pay off.  ALL education to first degree should be completely free.  Even post-grad education should be completely free for certain subjects that are vital to the nation.  Instead, what's happened is that the last two governments have shamefully pulled up the ladder behind themselves and said "thanks for the free education suckers, you can pay for your own now".  Lefty nonsense?  No, just a desire to see a better country rather than one where it's all about the money.

Unfortunately, though, it was that 'desire to see a better country rather than one where it's all about the money' which lead to the very cost cutting you claim is disgraceful in another thread, thanks to the inability of a Labour government to manage its bank account.  Education is a massive budget as it stands.  When a person leaves statutory education they choose what they do with their lives.  If they choose to go to university then they should pay at least a contribution towards that cost.  Why should people who don't choose university or who don't have the ability to go to university fund such a luxury?  Because university IS a luxury.  I know, I've been.  I also know about student loans because although I'm old enough to have gone to university when it was still free (just about; loans were looming large), I didn't go back then.  I went as a mature student and got a BA.  I then went back and got a teaching qualification.  I have four years of student loans at a total cost of around £15,000, an amount which is actually growing because I haven't had enough work in subsequent years of a sufficient salary to make significant inroads and so the interest is higher than my ability to pay it back.  Also, the rules changed and when I went for my teaching qualification the student loan became repayable until death rather than retirement, which is the case for my degree loan.

 

I'm too old to ever pay it off.  But I wouldn't have it any other way.  I chose university and I loved it.  I spent hours studying in a library and discovered that I could have been a student all my life, I enjoyed it that much.  I didn't do drugs or booze until I was comatose.  I just loved learning.  It was a real privilege but one I believe fundamentally that I should contribute towards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people voted Lib Dem purely on the promise made in the photo, and who could blame them, it seemed a genuine enough line to take.

The reality was one of the worst deceptions I have seen in an election campaign, come the next election I am afraid the Lib Dems will take a hammering, lost deposits all round. Nick will be fine though, already made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, though, it was that 'desire to see a better country rather than one where it's all about the money' which lead to the very cost cutting you claim is disgraceful in another thread, thanks to the inability of a Labour government to manage its bank account.  Education is a massive budget as it stands.  When a person leaves statutory education they choose what they do with their lives.  If they choose to go to university then they should pay at least a contribution towards that cost.  Why should people who don't choose university or who don't have the ability to go to university fund such a luxury?  Because university IS a luxury.  I know, I've been.  I also know about student loans because although I'm old enough to have gone to university when it was still free (just about; loans were looming large), I didn't go back then.  I went as a mature student and got a BA.  I then went back and got a teaching qualification.  I have four years of student loans at a total cost of around £15,000, an amount which is actually growing because I haven't had enough work in subsequent years of a sufficient salary to make significant inroads and so the interest is higher than my ability to pay it back.  Also, the rules changed and when I went for my teaching qualification the student loan became repayable until death rather than retirement, which is the case for my degree loan.

 

I'm too old to ever pay it off.  But I wouldn't have it any other way.  I chose university and I loved it.  I spent hours studying in a library and discovered that I could have been a student all my life, I enjoyed it that much.  I didn't do drugs or booze until I was comatose.  I just loved learning.  It was a real privilege but one I believe fundamentally that I should contribute towards.

So... you've had a free education then if you can't pay it back?  You're not contributing towards it.

 

Even then, if you did earn enough to pay it back, you're right into the nasty socialism of super-taxing higher earners, taxing them for the "privilege" of being educated through having to pay back their loans while also taxing them for the privilege of earning above the random criteria that makes you a higher-rate taxpayer.  You... you... you... nasty leftie socialist.

 

Surely, if having a degree means you have a chance to earn more then that means you'll pay more tax and therefore pay back what you owe the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted Lib Dem. A complete waste of a vote for two reasons. 1: my MP is Tim Yeo, it took a Tory revolt from the local party to unseat him otherwise people would still be voting for him in droves despite him living in Kent and rarely being seen near Suffolk. 2: as far as I'm concerned, Nick Clegg lied to me

1. I'm sorry your MP is a Tory. So is mine. Your vote wasn't wasted or didn't count, it's just that the person you voted for lost because more people voted for the other guy. Bad luck.

2. Nick Clegg didn't mean to lie to you. He's just a very stupid man who has no grasp of what coalition politics should be about. He's very open that the Lib Dems will, in a future hung parliament, have a preference to form a government with the largest party. Not necessarily the party he feels is best placed to allow the implementation of Lib Dem policies. He has reduced the status of a Lib Dem vote to a proxy vote for the largest party - with the fun twist that at the time of casting your vote you won't know who that largest party will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017