The Student Room Group

Clegg announces new careers advice & vocational education strategy - TSR was there!

Scroll to see replies

A way of trying to get back the young voters, after lying about tuition fees.

Nice try.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
You're just being ridiculous. I understand that you're against tuition fees, but he did his best for all his policies in the circumstances. To reduce it to ego, and his original -- doubtless well meant and intended, at the time -- pledge to lies, is totally absurd.



Well he can't shape political circumstances and make all his compromises based on what 'you'd rather'. He was voted in on his whole manifesto, and I see no reason at all to think that he did anything but do his best to push as much of it forward as he could in the circumstances. He promised all the things in his manifesto, but you can't deliver everything you want when you don't have a majority of the seats.



Well that's a really original sentiment. You strike me as a very thoughtful and perceptive person.


Yes he can, its called a "coalition agreement". If he really cared about students and stuck to his manifesto as you say, and was not a disgusting liar, then he would have PRIORITIZED Tuition fees above some bull crap PR voting scheme that no one wanted.
Original post by Blueray2
Yes he can, its called a "coalition agreement". If he really cared about students and stuck to his manifesto as you say, and was not a disgusting liar, then he would have PRIORITIZED Tuition fees above some bull crap PR voting scheme that no one wanted.


People who voted for him voted for his manifesto, which included, but was not limited to, not increasing tuition fees. You draw attention to the fact that it was an 'agreement'. That's precisely my point. An agreement has two parties. Maybe the tories wouldn't have accepted a condition put on tuition fees; maybe they would, but the cost in terms of other policies would have been unacceptably high. He couldn't move forward on the basis that that one promise, above all the others, was infinitely more important than any other, so that any sacrifice to push it forward would be acceptable.

This is just childish and stupid. The general 'I hate politicians' attitude which has sprung up amongst people is childish and stupid too, but refusing to vote for a party because they made a compromise once is just ridiculously so.
Original post by Blueray2
Yes he can, its called a "coalition agreement". If he really cared about students and stuck to his manifesto as you say, and was not a disgusting liar, then he would have PRIORITIZED Tuition fees above some bull crap PR voting scheme that no one wanted.


This so much. It's not like that agreement was forced upon him, there was room for different compromises. He decided on the one that might give him more power in the future rather than policy that won him votes.
Original post by revron77
He also revoked his own elected democratic right to vote against?


No. He agreed not to exercise it. He had to agree not to exercise his votes in some of the ways he would wish to.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
People who voted for him voted for his manifesto, which included, but was not limited to, not increasing tuition fees. You draw attention to the fact that it was an 'agreement'. That's precisely my point. An agreement has two parties. Maybe the tories wouldn't have accepted a condition put on tuition fees; maybe they would, but the cost in terms of other policies would have been unacceptably high. He couldn't move forward on the basis that that one promise, above all the others, was infinitely more important than any other, so that any sacrifice to push it forward would be acceptable.

This is just childish and stupid. The general 'I hate politicians' attitude which has sprung up amongst people is childish and stupid too, but refusing to vote for a party because they made a compromise once is just ridiculously so.

Resulting to name calling suggests your arguments have already failed. If we are to go down the route of what is "stupid" then raising tution fees is.
It is clear logic and not at all "stupid" that with a better educated public your productivity increases and it brings you out of hard economic times and REDUCES the "cost" in the long run.


Also read the bellow backing me up as well.

Original post by St. Brynjar
This so much. It's not like that agreement was forced upon him, there was room for different compromises. He decided on the one that might give him more power in the future rather than policy that won him votes.

Cheers.
If you think that arguing the merits of the policy is relevant that only goes to support my case. Clearly Nick Clegg thought that increasing tuition fees was a bad idea, too, else he wouldn't have agreed not to increase them. But the tories thought differently, and Nick Clegg couldn't have all his own way as the junior partner in a coalition.

For what it's worth, I think that the tuition fee rise was perfectly sensible. I'm not going to have that argument here, however.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 27
Original post by the_pie_man
A way of trying to get back the young voters, after lying about tuition fees.

Nice try.


Tuition fees aren't everything. Granted he shouldn't have made such a stupid pledge.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Well that's a really original sentiment. You strike me as a very thoughtful and perceptive person.


Well that's a pointless reply. You strike me as someone with self-esteem issues. I bet you have thousands of posts.
Original post by meenu89
Tuition fees aren't everything. Granted he shouldn't have made such a stupid pledge.


I agree and I have very conflicting thoughts on the issue. I shouldn't let it overshadow him as a politician but at the same time I'm filled with anger every time I see him pre-election and I don't want him to get away with this without bruising.
Original post by a-witty-name
Well that's a pointless reply. You strike me as someone with self-esteem issues. I bet you have thousands of posts.


I bet you checked how many posts I have before making that bet.

Claiming that all politicians are cynical liars is just absurd. Once they get into government they have to obfuscate and dodge questions, because anything they say negatively will pulled out of context and quoted by everyone forever, but there's no reason to think other than that most of them go into politics with anything other than good intentions.

Original post by revron77
..


Well, those two paragraphs from the guardian sure conclusively showed me.

Frankly, even if it were true, I would infinitely rather a cynical, manipulative Nick Clegg be in power than an honest Ed Miliband.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
I bet you checked how many posts I have before making that bet.


I was right?? HAHAHAHA.

Why would I want to read the rest of your post?
Original post by a-witty-name

Why would I want to read the rest of your post?


You might learn something.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
You might learn something.


Isn't it convenient that it's only ever that way round?
Original post by a-witty-name
Isn't it convenient that it's only ever that way round?


Actually, it's rather tiresome always having to educate people.
Reply 35
Original post by Pro Crastination
I Agree with this.

Manifesto pledges are those created for the eventuality of a majority government. The Lib Dems made the right decision in forming a coalition (not a majority), and of course, there has to be compromise.


That's absolute rubbish. If you pledge to do something that is a solid promise you have to keep. There are not implied conditions that mean you can just wiggle out of it. And as for there HAD to be a compromise, there didn't. The conservatives could have lead a majority government, or the lib dems could have formed a coalition with labour and a few smaller parties. It could have even came down to a re-election.

The fact of the matter is he sold out his principals for power. He made a promise and broke it, it's indefensible. :rolleyes:
Original post by revron77

I feel so sorry for you. Youd rather a liar in power than a man with honesty... that's tragic. Morals and standards appear to be virtues you hold dear.


I care what politicians do above anything else. Nick Clegg is, at least, somewhat liberal. He spoke out against the recent car smoking ban, for instance. Labour wants to tax, ban, regulate, and control. I don't care with how much integrity those ends are pursued. I don't want to see them pursued.

Original post by Markg125

The fact of the matter is he sold out his principals for power.


I wasn't even aware he was acting as an agent.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending