Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Clegg breaking veral contract? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Okay, Clegg says 'vote for me and I won't put up tuition fees' and so people vote for him. Isn't this a verbal contract (legally binding in the UK) with his electorate? Why is he not being sued for breach of contract? Surely everyone who voted for him would have a case according to UK law?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Einheri)
    Okay, Clegg says 'vote for me and I won't put up tuition fees' and so people vote for him. Isn't this a verbal contract (legally binding in the UK) with his electorate? Why is he not being sued for breach of contract? Surely everyone who voted for him would have a case according to UK law?
    He's not the one in charge. . . .

    Although I agree he is an arse, the agreement was if he WON he wouldn't put up fees. He didn't win.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilina)
    He's not the one in charge. . . .

    Although I agree he is an arse, the agreement was if he WON he wouldn't put up fees. He didn't win.
    If most of the Lib Dem MPs voted against it and Clegg spoke out about it and made a fuss then I think enough votes would be against it to stop it getting through - the Labour and Lib Dem votes together would make a majority. Besides, I think if he really pushed the issue Cameron would perhaps rethink the situation but as it happens he just rolled over and went completely against what he had promised. If we accept that he and the Lib Dems have the ability to stop it through voting 'no' then he has willfully broken his verbal contract.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sue him then.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You do realise that if he goes along with voting for the increase then he can be ousted from Parliament don't you?

    If he abstains then he does not go along with it so therefore covers himself - this I why I think he'll abstain in the end to cover his own backside.

    http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/13559
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Labour for the next government
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinda.college)
    Labour for the next government
    No Way.

    I'm voting for

    "The Islamic Takeover Of Britain Extremist Party Of Destruction".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Einheri)
    Okay, Clegg says 'vote for me and I won't put up tuition fees' and so people vote for him. Isn't this a verbal contract (legally binding in the UK) with his electorate? Why is he not being sued for breach of contract? Surely everyone who voted for him would have a case according to UK law?
    No sorry, no contract recognised in law on the basis of election manifestos, speeches etc.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilina)
    He's not the one in charge. . . .

    Although I agree he is an arse, the agreement was if he WON he wouldn't put up fees. He didn't win.
    The vast majority of people who voted for the Liberal Democrats did not think that the Liberal Democrats would win, hence they voted for a coalition as a means to neutralise the inevitable win of the Conservatives.

    The people expected a cooperatation of joint action- not for the Conservatives to rule and the Liberal Democrats to nod their heads to every action like Churchill going "oh yes" in an advert.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    The vast majority of people who voted for the Liberal Democrats did not think that the Liberal Democrats would win, hence they voted for a coalition as a means to neutralise the inevitable win of the Conservatives.

    The people expected a cooperatation of joint action- not for the Conservatives to rule and the Liberal Democrats to nod their heads to ever action like Churchill going "oh yes" in an advert.
    That's a bit of a generalisation. I voted Lib Dem, but not in the hopes of a coalition. . .

    However my point still stands, whether the voters wanted him to win or not, the things they agree to are if THEY THEMSELVES win. He's not the one in charge, so his promises take a back burner.

    However I do think he is an arse for voting 'yes' to the tuition fee rise. . . That IS his fault. . .

    But still not something you can sue him for:rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilina)
    That's a bit of a generalisation. I voted Lib Dem, but not in the hopes of a coalition. . .
    Let me get this straight, you voted for Liberal Democrats thinking that they could win the election? :lolwut:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    Let me get this straight, you voted for Liberal Democrats thinking that they could win the election? :lolwut:
    No I voted Lib Dem,because I don't give a rats arse about politics but I agreed with them the most.

    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilina)
    He's not the one in charge. . . .

    Although I agree he is an arse, the agreement was if he WON he wouldn't put up fees. He didn't win.
    Did anyone really win?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Did anyone really win?
    No, but that's not got anything to do with what I said, or the OP asked. . . .

    He's not the one in power.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    The vast majority of people who voted for the Liberal Democrats did not think that the Liberal Democrats would win, hence they voted for a coalition as a means to neutralise the inevitable win of the Conservatives.

    The people expected a cooperatation of joint action- not for the Conservatives to rule and the Liberal Democrats to nod their heads to every action like Churchill going "oh yes" in an advert.
    That isnt entirely true imo

    The last election wasn't entirely tactical, so the arguement that people voted lib dem because they wanted a coalition is absurd. For he most part, people voted for the lib dems as they found Labour to be useless and the Tories to be unconvincing.

    Now they accepted a coalition, which was a good thing. However, when Mr. Clegg parades around campuses and schools telling people he was entirely against the raising of tuition fees, signs physical pledges and pretty much makes it his flagship policy, of course he will attract the student vote. Then, when he actively promotes the trebling of fees, using his killer buzzphrases;

    1. "It was in the national interest"
    2. "Two parties came together to solve the problem of one"
    3. "Its a realist policy for the real world"
    4. Further anger

    then ofc students will be disenfranchised with him. Basically, Mr. Cameron has sent cleggy to the streets to try win over the students that despise him, while he jets off around the world and is basically invisible after PMQs.

    Im very sure students would have been ok if Clegg voted against, and stuck to his principles. Yes, it would cause a rift in the coalition, but it would have been the honest politics clegg has been trying to advocate throughout his political career. If we have learnt anything from the past 13 years of Labour, and even today, it is that the truth is the most important thing in any democratic society.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilina)
    No, but that's not got anything to do with what I said, or the OP asked. . . .

    He's not the one in power.
    He is in an agreement. If he wants to defy his party's policies and main Liberal values that's up to him I guess.:rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It should be pretty clear to anyone remotely paying attention that manifesto commitments aren't enforceable in court.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    He is in an agreement. If he wants to defy his party's policies and main Liberal values that's up to him I guess.:rolleyes:
    Yea I know, and I mentioned all that in a previous post. . . .
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    he said he wouldn't vote for it
    he won't
    he just won't vote against it
    which is bull**** you shouldn't be allowed to abstain otherwise what's the point in having a parliament?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hilux)
    It should be pretty clear to anyone remotely paying attention that manifesto commitments aren't enforceable in court.
    No-one has tried yet. English law is largely based on precedent, so it's not impossible. I think it's unjust that political parties can go back on key issues after coming into power, and the whole purpose of our legal system is to enforce justice so . . . yeah.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 9, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.