Yep...Just shows you the damage the liberals would do if they ever got in power
They did get a sniff of power once...
And immediately tore up their pledge regarding tuition fees in order to play lapdogs to the nasty party!
Has Truss resigned yet?
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
They did get a sniff of power once...
And immediately tore up their pledge regarding tuition fees in order to play lapdogs to the nasty party!
Sponsored Links
It was a coalition. That means you don't get to implement your mandate.
I suspect you knew that.
So it's ok to ditch a primary pledge in your book?
That ain't a coalition, it's capitulation in the pursuit of personal gains for a few!
And millions suffer because of it!
But as I said, all politicians will prostitute their beliefs and it's f*ck everyone else!
If they were in government, on their own account, they could implement all parts of their mandate.
They weren't, they were in a coalition, they couldn't implement their mandate without the cooperation of the other party. They did have the coalition agreement worded so that they could abstain, if they wanted, in any motion tabled on Uni Fees.
But they did have conflicting aims, to not increase government deficit, and the Uni fees. If they had stuck to their guns over the Uni fees, it would have meant increasing government deficit.
They chose to give priority to their more important policy of not increasing government deficit.
If they had been in power, all on their own account, they could have restructured the government's commitments so that Uni fees did not impact on government deficit.
They weren't, so they couldn't.
That's what being in a coalition means, you have to make compromises, based on your highest priority points. The government deficit was their highest priority, the Uni fees were secondary.
Your point about f*ck everyone else would also apply if they'd ignored their priority of not increasing government deficit, except that the deficit would impact everyone, whereas the Uni fees only impacted students, and perhaps their parents.
That's the problem of compromise, you don't get everything you want.
Edit:
Here's an excellent analysis of the issue:
The Liberal Democrats and tuition fees: lessons for the Conservatives today | Wonkhe
Chris Butler finds lessons for the Conservatives in an analysis of the way their former coalition partners responded to the question of student finance.
wonkhe.com
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Well funnily enough the non repayment rate (whereby the amount not paid back in order to make tuition fees cheaper than no fees) has already been breached...
It's 46% btw...
Tuition fees owed are added to government 'assets', and not classed as debt...
Yet another example of corrupt accounting, so balancing the books had nothing to do with it...
It was cementing the idea that education is a business not a public service...
The NHS is of course going the same way!
The privatisation of education is in my opinion a factor in this countries decade of stagnating growth.
The UK skills shortage + worker shortage discourages Inward investment.
many thousands of highly skilled EU professionals buggered off after 2016.
The Unis were already under threat of bankruptcy. If tuition fees hadn't ben introduced the government would have to bail them out and that would increase government deficit, a flagship policy for the Lib Dems.
The linked to article shows how the Lib Dems misjudged and mishandled the issue, but the situation was as it was. They had little choice.
As a parent of students, or as a post grad who benefitted from free Uni education, I, and I suspect so do many others, feel the students fees issue was the wrong direction. But at the end of the day, politics is about compromise. If we had a different voting system there would be far more of it, and we'd avoid the swings of the current system. But we are where we are, and we have to address the current situations, not a 14 year old issue.
Tony Blair cried, "Education, Education, Education!" then he introduced student fees.
There appears to be some rather strong feelings that Truss isn't going to last. The replacement wont be via the gone s of this world but that will need a rule change. They have factions. The Sunak one seems to have enough to win a vote but that doesn't really set who would win an MP only leader election. Someone else might figure. That suggest more turmoil for a longer period while people are canvassed / persuaded even via what jobs they will get.
Hunt - experienced pair of hands that will hopefully calm the markets down but it seems he sees low tax as the only way to achieve growth. He's mentioned being honest.
A long standing Sir Tory MP sees Hunt as a good choice who will help not seeing 1980 style mortgage repossessions again. Also has concerns about companies going broke due to paying back covid loans etc but I suppose those are already on the gov's debts. Those have to be paid off over some timescale anyway.
Eeeeekkkk.
Other posts - yes disgruntled Tory voters often shift to Liberals but those chose to offered something the country can't afford without a taxation increase. Oh we hadn't looked at the books etc.
The personal allowance change was interesting for me. When some one reaches their basic state pension age the amount from that is removed from the allowance. This doesn't seem to relate to how much someone gets from a private pension - it's just done.
gone s of this world but that will need a rule change. They have factions. The Sunak one seems to have enough to win a vote but that doesn't really set who would win an MP only leader election. Someone else might figure. That suggest more turmoil for a longer period while people are canvassed / persuaded even via what jobs they will get.Hunt - experienced pair of hands that will hopefully calm the markets down but it seems he sees low tax as the only way to achieve growth.
He's mentioned being honest.A long standing Sir Tory MP sees Hunt as a good choice who will help not seeing 1980 style mortgage repossessions again. Also has concerns about companies going broke due to paying back covid loans etc but I suppose those are already on the gov's debts. Those have to be paid off over some timescale anyway.
Eeeeekkkk.
Other posts - yes disgruntled Tory voters often shift to Liberals but those chose to offered something the country can't afford without a taxation increase. Oh we hadn't looked at the books etc.
The personal allowance change was interesting for me. When some one reaches their basic state pension age the amount from that is removed from the allowance. This doesn't seem to relate to how much someone gets from a private pension - it's just done.
Eh? You haven't got that right.
So did Boris.
In the UK your personal allowance and the remaining tax due is based on your government pension plus your private pension, i.e. your total income.
That doesn't always apply in other countries. Sometimes your government pension is not included in your personal allowance, nor your subsequent tax liabilities.
There appears to be some rather strong feelings that Truss isn't going to last. The replacement wont be via the
Hunt - experienced pair of hands that will hopefully calm the markets down but it seems he sees low tax as the only way to achieve growth.
A long standing Sir Tory MP sees Hunt as a good choice who will help not seeing 1980 style mortgage repossessions again. Also has concerns about companies going broke due to paying back covid loans etc but I suppose those are already on the gov's debts. Those have to be paid off over some timescale anyway.
Eeeeekkkk.
Other posts - yes disgruntled Tory voters often shift to Liberals but those chose to offered something the country can't afford without a taxation increase. Oh we hadn't looked at the books etc.
The personal allowance change was interesting for me. When some one reaches their basic state pension age the amount from that is removed from the allowance. This doesn't seem to relate to how much someone gets from a private pension - it's just done.
Sunak, Hunt, they're all safe pairs of hands who will calm the markets. Unfortunately, they're not election winners.
I have as Pat explains. Taking the state amount off the allowance means it's effectively being taxed. Nice simple way of doing it.
What I was pointing at is that this can have a rather undesirable effect on people who receive a rather low private pension. Pension credits come in if some one is getting less than ~£9500 PA. More if a couple but based on joint income. The basic state pension is ~£7,400 PA which reduces the allowance to a tax code of 510L.
Another knock on effect. Say they apply the rules to state pension increases. People wont get the amount this suggests as more will be taken off their allowance. That needs changing as well for them to benefit fully from the increase.
In the UK, if your income (state pension + private pension) is greater than your allowance, you are taxed on the extra over your allowance, but the tax is only deducted from your private pension. Nothing is deducted from your state pension, even though it counts in the overall sum.
Similarly other pensions might be considered in your overall income, e.g. military pension.
In some other countries, your state pension is excluded from any allowance and tax calculations. i.e. only your private pension is considered in your allowance and subsequent tax. Sometimes this may depend on your employment prior to retirement, e.g. government, etc.
Sponsored Links
