UKC

Maybe this should be in the thread "stuff you really don't get"....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42514116

In reply to gribble:

Sir wankpeice? Like all the rest of them

In reply to gribble:
Mine must be delayed in the post.

Knighthoods seem to have as much credibility as a degree these days.
What a crock of ....

In reply to Lusk:

Never did.

All rats crawling up each others arses.

Royalty - Credibility. Pick one.

D

In reply to gribble:

I've been pretty impressed with him. A strong proponent of drug decriminalisation (a social change up there with the decriminalization of homosexuality and, globally, the abolition of slavery) and amidst hugely polarized politics he represented a middle path.

Student fees and coalition politics are a necessary evil I'm afraid.

In reply to David Martin:



Lying about tuition fees was not a necessary evil though.

In reply to Lusk:

If a degree isn't credible in an academic sense then what is? What else do you propose?

The fact that more people than ever have the opportunity to go an get one says more about the success of the education system than the education itself.

In reply to gribble:

Christ, if he were the least deserving recipient it would be a fine thing.

In reply to bouldery bits:


To be fair the country did largely vote for a conservative manifesto and that's what they got (and have kept getting). If the Lib Dem's had formed a majority government and gone against their pledge people could rightuflly feel indignation but if they don't get enough votes to enact their manifesto I'm not sure how much blame you can put on one man. Rarely for a politician he did apologise for tuition fees as well, a hollow compensation for those that have been saddled with a life time of debt but people would complain if he hadn't. His mistake was entering into a coalition thinking the lib dems would be anything other than a flak jacket for the tories least popular policies and for making a headline grabbing pledge in the first place which hindsight shows they couldn't keep.

Anyway, Labour and the Greens are now the only parties advocating abolishing tuition fees next time round...

In reply to gribble:

Political honours are just wrong on any level. He should be ashamed for accepting it as should any others who have.

In reply to bouldery bits:

He didn’t lie over tuition fees.

He made a promise he couldn’t fulfil. Compromise is an essential part of politics, especially when you enter a coalition. And he didn’t have as much leeway after the election as people seem to think - an anti-Tory coalition would have been almost impossible to arrange and a nightmare in power.

Given the terrible mess that a Tory majority has plunged the country into we should at least recognise that the Lib Dem’s did at least moderate them a bit. My biggest gripe is that Vince Cable made such a hash of the Post Office sell-off, allowing the Tories to ensure their mates in the city could make a killing.

And going back Nick Clegg, I rather suspect the voters in Hallam are rather regretting their choice at the last election - a contender for the worst MP ever ?

In reply to Sharp:
There was nothing in the Tory manifesto or the coalition agreement to oblige the Lib Dems to support the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, which also ran counter to the core beliefs of a great many Lib Dem supporters.
But the Lib Dems in coalition voted for it anyway.

Decades from now, if (as I rather pessimistically predict) the NHS is just a fond memory, that will be the date we can point to more than any other single date for its abolition. That act removed overall responsibility for the nation's health from the secretary of state for health for the first time since it was founded in 1948 and the National Health Service arguably ceased to exist.

Student loans be damned, it's playing such a significant role in f*cking the NHS that I will never forgive Clegg for.

In reply to Pedro50:

>
What is a "political honour" and why?

In reply to deepsoup:

That act removed overall responsibility for the nation's health from the secretary of state for health for the first time since it was founded in 1948 and the National Health Service arguably ceased to exist.

And arguably the world is flat.....

In reply to Chris the Tall:
It was Royal Mail - The Post Office is a separate entity.

In reply to Sharp:

64% of those that voted, did not vote for a Conservative manifesto. However, it’s the fault of the system, not Cameron and Clegg.

I’ve not got any particular axe to grind against Clegg, although tuition fees are likely to cost me in a big way soon. He does seem like an odd choice, but it is easy to forget that he has held very high office. What is perhaps more interesting is none of the last three Prime Ministers have been honoured since leaving office, unlike Sir John, Baroness Thatcher and Baron Callahan, Baron Wilson and Sir Ted.

It’s all a bit silly to me to be honest.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Absolutely. Clegg is head and shoulders above his replacement both as a parliamentarian and a human being.

In reply to Postmanpat


Your posting history makes a lot more sense now!

In reply to gribble:

I don't get these aristocratic titles at all. I thought he was already a Count.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


First laugh of the New Year Tom that is genuinely funny

In reply to Postmanpat:



Well the first part of my statement is objective fact.

In my original post the "National" in the second part of that statement was in italics - whether or not the National Health Service ceased to exist, it certainly did cease to be truly national.

In reply to deepsoup:



In what sense, apart from it now being the English National Health service?

incidentally, the S of St for health retains ultimate accountability for the Health Service and has a legal duty to promote a comprehensive health service.

In reply to gribble:

Doesn't Nick Clegg deserve a knighthood for having had to put up with and play second fiddle to David Cameron's intolerable arrogance when he was Deputy PM?

In reply to profitofdoom:


It's not the new year yet. And the joke can also go in the "things I don't get" thread. Could someone explain please?

In reply to Robert Durran:
Bit out of date now but here's a nice little song about MPs, including Mr Clegg, from lovely Grace Petrie.

There's a clue for you two and a bit minutes in - the same joke a wee bit more obviously applied to Mr Hunt.

Edit: Oops. Forgot the link.
youtube.com/watch?v=NLtkUjRIwsc&

In reply to bouldery bits:


It's a sad day when voters are too stupid to appreciate the difference between a lie and a promise that couldn't be fulfilled because he didn't win the election.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Errmmm...

In reply to timjones:

I voted for this guy on the basis of scrapping tuition fees. He was then complicit in the raising of tuition fees.

Where has he not lied?

In reply to bouldery bits:



Where he was a minority partner in a coalition government and didn’t have the power to deliver everthing in the Lib Dem manifesto. It’s called compromise and the electorate needs to be more grown up about accepting such compremises as inevitable, or we will continue to end up with May or Corbyn or some other extreme government beholden to minorities such as the DUP.

In reply to MG:

Ah, that's alright then.

In reply to bouldery bits:



Do you understand how coalition government works?

In reply to Sharp:

Actually he took care to get as close as he could without quite doing that. He didn't apologise for breaking his promise, he apologised for ever having made it in the first place.

In reply to timjones:


Yes.

It doesn't actually work.

In reply to bouldery bits:


If by "work" you mean one party in a coalition getting everything they want, then you are right. Otherwise they work just fine, and mostly in fact better than any one party getting all it wants.

In reply to MG:

What did the lib Dems get that they wanted again? I can't seem to recall...

In reply to bouldery bits:

Here is their list. I would add avoiding destructive Brexit referendums. Pretty good I'd say for a minority partner. But, hey, they didn't get their way with tuition fees, so let's let the swivel-eyed-loons take over instead.

The allocation of 0.7% of GDP to International Development, both in practice and as law

The raising of the Income Tax personal allowance from £6475 to £10,600

Steve Webb delivered the "triple lock" on the State Pension

Nick Clegg saw through the pupil premium of (eventually) £1320 per primary school child and £935 for secondary children to reduce the attainment gap in England and Wales

A £2.5 billion banking levy

Free school meals for infant-school children and in the first three years in primary school in England

Vince Cable vetoed a proposed "fire-at-will" employment law

Stopping welfare cuts and ensuring benefits kept up with inflation

Same sex marriage legislation

15 hours free child care for disadvantaged children

Prohibition of the export of chemicals to where it is known they may be used to carry out the death penalty

Strong and stable government (true!)

5p charge on plastic bags.

In reply to MG:


None of those things had a clear cut signed promise attached to them. He chose to give up flexibility on how he would act in the future by making a signed promise in order to persuade people to vote for him. Then he reneged on the deal. He had no right to prioritise other things over tuition fees when negotiating with the Tories.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Of course they did. They were (all?) in the Lib Dem manifesto. Their job was to implement as much of that as they could given the situation they were in, which is what they did.

In reply to MG:

I find it disturbing how many otherwise right-minded people fail to grasp this simple fact of coalition politics. Or who fail to see things in relative terms - the alternative being a hideously unstable anti-Tory coalition, or a minority Tory government, which would very well have resulted in far worse short and long term outcomes than the unfortunate (but in my mind inevitable) student fees. I certainly don't see Corbyn reimposing subsidised Media Degrees any time soon.

In reply to David Martin:

I understand how a coalition works.

I also understand how a pledge works.

Clegg and his mates all signed a pledge to vote against any rise in tuition fees.

They didn't stick to the pledge they made.

I don't think that's ok. Do you think that's ok?

In reply to The New NickB:



The value of the honours system is debatable but if we are to honour people who contribute to society in their chosen fields then it would be a bit perverse to omit all politicians, particularly those who have held high office. I suspect Blair and Brown may have been offered and refused. Cameron may be due next time around.

The titles Baron and Baroness are not honours in the same sense - they are appointments to the House of Lords. I'm not much in favour of the current system of appointments to the "Upper House" but I've no objection to people of the calibre of former PMs being appointed. I'm old enough to remember the very significant contributions made by Lord Stockton (Harold Macmillan) in his later years. Lord Hesletine has been saying a lot I agree with recently as well. And I'm no Tory supporter.

Martin

In reply to bouldery bits:

Yes it’s coalition politics. They got other bits of their manifesto instead. They couldn’t get everything and had to choose. They could have gone for no tuition fees and not raising the tax fee rate, say, in which case you would now be berating them for that. “Half a loaf is better than no bread”, or indeed May and the DUP.

In reply to MG:

Ok.

I think making promises and not following through on then is not acceptable.

I'm not a big fan of being lied to by the people who are meant to represent me.

In reply to bouldery bits:

You really don’t get the difference between lying and being unable to fulfil a promise? If you say “I’ll meet you at 5pm” and can’t because the train is late, are you a liar?

In reply to MG:

The promise was not to not raise tuition fees. The promise was to always vote against any rise in tuition fees. Which would have been entirely possible.

In reply to bouldery bits:

Only at the expense of other promises. It was a coalition. They had to support the widergovernment on some issues not in their manifesto. They couldn’t do everything they said they would or it would have collapsed.

In reply to MG:

Principles > other stuff.

In reply to bouldery bits:


I'm afraid it is very clear that you do not.

A coalition is based on compromise; compromise means that both parties have to accept that they cannot get exactly what they want.

In reply to bouldery bits:


So you would have preferred they got nothing. Fine, I suppose, but you can’t the. complain about the result which is the current government - maybe you don’t?

In reply to captain paranoia:

Yes, and as a partner in a coalition you choose what you will and won't compromise on.

In my view the wrong thing was compromised.

In reply to MG:


You what now?
The result would have been a Tory minority government who would have been completely unable to do anything. Result of you ask me...

In reply to bouldery bits:


You are shifting your ground here. Above you couldnt think of anything the Lib Dem’s had done, now it’s just the wrong things. I can’t make any sense of your next post.

In reply to MG:
Ok.

My ground:

The lib Dems achieved a load of stuff that was not their main selling point for me (they wanted PR and PROMISED to always vote against increases in tuition fees).

I would have preferred NO coalition.i would have preferred a severely limited Tory minority govt.

In reply to bouldery bits:

Well OK but that seems very odd to me, unless you actively oppose what the Lib Dems achieved.

In reply to MG:
Thanks for a great evening of debate without any need for personal insult or slight.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Have a great new year!

BB

(Weirdly, I am in fact a card carrying Lib Dem member...)

In reply to bouldery bits:

Happy NY!

In reply to MG:

https://krupesh4brent.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/nick-clegg-tuition-fees-p...

If you choose to make a signed promise in order to persuade someone else to do something for you then you stick to it. Nobody forced him to write that promise down and sign it.

In reply to MG:


You're in favour of the Tory/DUP alliance then?

In reply to Martin Hore:
You seem to be disagreeing with something I haven’t said.

Honours are generally a bit silly and when it comes to honours that lead to being part of the legislative, a bit worse than silly, but that isn’t the point I was making.

Clegg has held high office, so receiving an honour is normal.

It is the none offer or refusal of honours from those three that I find interesting.

In reply to bouldery bits:


If Labour got in tomorrow. I doubt they'd keep even 50% of their pledges and promises.

The difference between the current government and the previous coalition, shows just how much Clegg and co. were able to water down Tory policy. The lib dems were the smaller coalition party, they were never going to have it all their way.

The UK is decades behind the rest of Europe in grasping coalition politics, only the USA is worse.(or nk etc..)

In reply to bouldery bits:


4 or 5 years of inaction. Then there would have been no cuts and national debt would have been double what it is now. I don't consider that better, even as a lib dem voter.