Topic: Is it now time for the Liberal Democrats to abandon the coalition?

[tactica]

As we all know last year the (so called) Liberal Democrats did a deal with the devil and entered into a coalition government with the Conservatives. At the time the (so called) Liberals assured the public and their supporters that they, as Liberals, were not abandoning their left wing principals and would remain true to their beliefs. Since that time the Coservative-Liberal coalition has, amongst many other things, introduced the following, shameful policies...

• Increased tax paid by the poorest people in the UK by increasing VAT
• Cut tax for the wealthiest by reducing income tax for the richest and reduced corporation tax
• Dramatically reduced public spending on health, education and many key public services.
• Abolished support for many children with learning difficulties
• Privatized a huge number of schools meaning these schools are now run by private companies for profit
• Abolished legal aide for refugees and victims of torture
• Dramatically increased university tuition fees pricing many out of the opportunity of gaining a higher education.
• Slashed income support for people with physical and mental disabilities
• Reduced overseas aide to many of the worlds poorest countries

The above policies and doubtless very pleasing to Conservatives but what did the Liberals get out of the deal? Well the 30 pieces of silver they got was a referendum on AV which, if the polls are to be believed, the Liberals will have lost in a matter of hours.

Meanwhile only 9% of people when asked said they would vote for the Liberal Democrats compared to 43% of people who said they would vote Labour. Indeed the (so called) Liberals are currently being pummeling  in the local elections and are projected to get the worst local election results of any governing party in UK history.

Given the above my question is two fold...

1.Is it now time for the Liberal Democrats to abandon the coalition?
and if not
2.What will be the consequences for the country and the Liberal Democrats as an electoral force?

 

[Sheepz]

It's over for the liberals. They should cut their loses and go. I will point out, though, liberals aren't all cuddly and nice. Some of the things you listed, which are unpopular, are just liberal fiscal policy anyway. They're socially left-wing Tories. They get one shot at power and they ruin their credibility based on really fragile gains. They could have at least waited till they were half popular. I think from now one, the liberals as a political force are pretty much expended. It was a brave effort, but hey.

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

The Liberal Democrats are not now nor have they ever been left-wing. The clue is in the name: they are liberals. They are a centrist party. Anyone who believes otherwise and is punishing them for that is a beslubbering moron. That's my position

[Arquarian]

Chuckles is correct. The Liberals are a centerist party.

Lets not forget that the painful fiscal policies having to be introduced by the coalition government are a direct consequence to the lack of foresight in the previous govenrments "get rich quick", "buy now pay later", Boom and Bust" economic policies.

Tactica you proposed an interesting question however you failed to support it with credible argument. Its all very well bashing the other side but I don't think you've really grasped the liberal democrate position.   

[tactica]

The Liberal Democrats are not now nor have they ever been left-wing. The clue is in the name: they are liberals. They are a centrist party. Anyone who believes otherwise and is punishing them for that is a beslubbering moron. That's my position

  This is priceless a large scale poll of Liberal Democrat members at their conference last year showed 65% consider themselves to be left wing. So presumably you consider 65% of Liberal Democrat members to be morons?

Also its pretty clear that policies such as abolished legal aide for refugees and victims of torture is a sickening abandonment of Liberal principals weather you consider the Lib Dems to be left wing or not.

Now moving on from this to the point Chukyu raised, this is a global economic crisis, virtually every country in the world is in debt right now and the UK is far better off than most. However If you look at other European nations they are in far more debt than the UK and yet their cuts have not been as severe. That should tell you a lot

I recommend the Liberal Democrats listen to public opinion and abandon the coalition forcing the government to call an election, which according to the most recent polls, would result in a Labour majority government. Their policies would, amongst other things, cut VAT  and increase income tax for the wealthiest which is the polar opposite of what the (so called) Liberals have done. It is a far more social responsible  policy for all.

now in a desperate attempt to drag this back on topic...

Is it now time for the Liberal Democrats to abandon the coalition?

[Arquarian]

Quick answer because my stomach is rumbling and I want to get some lunch.

No, it is not time for the LibDems to abandon the Government BECAUSE they are unpopular. If they leave it is only a matter of time before the minority Tory Govt has to call an election. That election as you pointed out will most likely lead to a Labour Government and also to a lot fewer Lib Dem seats. Therefore it is not in the best interests of the Lib Dems to leave the government. Cleggs knows this and both Osbourne and Cameron have big cheesy grins on their faces as they know this too.

[tactica]

Quick answer because my stomach is rumbling and I want to get some lunch.

No, it is not time for the LibDems to abandon the Government BECAUSE they are unpopular. If they leave it is only a matter of time before the minority Tory Govt has to call an election. That election as you pointed out will most likely lead to a Labour Government and also to a lot fewer Lib Dem seats...
Cleggs knows this...

Indeed Clegg does! And that is the problem, Clegg has put the needs of his parliamentary party ahead of the party as a whole and far more importantly ahead of the needs of the country

[Calamity]

Now moving on from this to the point Chukyu raised, this is a global economic crisis, virtually every country in the world is in debt right now and the UK is far better off than most. However If you look at other European nations they are in far more debt than the UK and yet their cuts have not been as severe. That should tell you a lot

I'll draw your attention to this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/07/portugal-debt-crisis-george-osborne.  In particualar, the quote "We now have almost the same market interest rates as Germany, despite having a bigger budget deficit than Portugal, Greece and Spain,". 

So, it would be more accurate to say that while the UK has more debt than the two countries which required a massive bail out package, we are coping just fine on our own and are in a better position to deal with it.  The fact that we have mantained our triple a credit rating and cut the cost of our borrowing should say a lot.

I would say, in all honesty, that it would be wrong for the Lib-Dems to abandon the coalition now.  I doubt the minority Conservative government could survive long on it's own, which would trigger a GE, which Labour would propably win as people punish the existing government for the choices they have made.  Labour would then balls everything up again as they do, which might possibly force us into the sme position as a place such as Ireland or Portugal.

There is a phrase I have heard being used.  Labour buys you sweets, and the Conservatives are the Dentist.  As hard as these cuts (I prefer the term savings) are, I think that they are a necessary evil.

[Arquarian]

Labour would then balls everything up again as they do,

Lol  a bit cruel though. the Labour Government did do a lot of Good for the country and the fact we have kept the AAA rating is attributable to thier developing that financial infrastructure.

This discussion could easily dissolve into what party did what and when and maybe even stoop so low into a full on and proper mud slinging match, but let us rise above such things (normally the domain of politicains!) and answer the question.

I agree with Lard Rover Tangi, it is not the right time for the LibDems to leave the Government. It's not right for their party and its not good for the country. The the coalition falls and the Labour got back in and reversed all the savings I do believe the markets and our creditors would reflect a lessening of confidence and economic growth would slow (if it could slow any more than 0.5%!!)

What REALLY needs to happen is proper Political reform, where the emphasis of on popularuity politics is removed from governance, but that's a WHOLE other argument..... 



Ps fully fed and watered!

[tactica]

@Land Rover Tangi
You need to broaden your reading mate. The UKs debt as a percentage of GDP is lower  than the below countries (listed in order of debt)

Greece,
Italy,
Iceland,
Belgum,
Ireland,
Germany
France,
Portugal
Hungry


and yet our public spending is far lower than many of these....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt

[Shas'Oink]

The Liberal Democrats are not now nor have they ever been left-wing. The clue is in the name: they are liberals. They are a centrist party. Anyone who believes otherwise and is punishing them for that is a beslubbering moron. That's my position

  This is priceless a large scale poll of Liberal Democrat members at their conference last year showed 65% consider themselves to be left wing. So presumably you consider 65% of Liberal Democrat members to be morons?

Also its pretty clear that policies such as abolished legal aide for refugees and victims of torture is a sickening abandonment of Liberal principals weather you consider the Lib Dems to be left wing or not.

Now moving on from this to the point Chukyu raised, this is a global economic crisis, virtually every country in the world is in debt right now and the UK is far better off than most. However If you look at other European nations they are in far more debt than the UK and yet their cuts have not been as severe. That should tell you a lot

I recommend the Liberal Democrats listen to public opinion and abandon the coalition forcing the government to call an election, which according to the most recent polls, would result in a Labour majority government. Their policies would, amongst other things, cut VAT  and increase income tax for the wealthiest which is the polar opposite of what the (so called) Liberals have done. It is a far more social responsible  policy for all.

now in a desperate attempt to drag this back on topic...

Is it now time for the Liberal Democrats to abandon the coalition?

I can't work out if you are a Labourite, or just dislike the LibDems. But you certainly like to spin. Official Government Deficit targets show that in 2010 the UK was running at -11.2% GDP. Second from highest!




For an even bleaker picture, take a look at the following table:



This graph includes supposedly a full account of ALL national debt (not just government debt) as of 2008, compiled by
Citigroup, and found in context here


I'd also like to defend the current government (coalition) particularly in relation to the points that were raised by the initial post.It should be remembered that the increase in VAT was originally set into motion by the previous Labour government, a fact quickly brushed aside by said officials.It IS still unpopular, but certainly the biggest factor for being able to pay back our national debt as quickly as possible - a stance which the conservatives were very clear on during their election, and as agreed by the LibDems at that time too. Anyone voting for LibDems OR Conservatives would have (or should have) been aware that paying back national debt would have meant ... well... paying back national debt!

I am of the opinion that cuts to public services are necessary. The loss of jobs is undesireable, but a good quality service should be able to be self sufficient, and run in an efficient manner just as a private business would. This is the reason why Labour had previously pushed Private Finance Initiatives and Conservatives before them had gone a way to privatisation of services. Although both of those ideas were horribly executed, the principle is sound. Run services as if they are a business and they will effectively run (pay for) themselves! If you own a business and make enough money to pay 2 employees, you do not employ 4 employees. No, you sack the ones you cannot afford to have. Thinking that everyone can keep their job and just expect to be paid out of a bottomless pit of imaginary fairy dust money is foolish (almost as foolish as Labours election claim that they could spend their way out of debt!)

On the cuts, it should also be recognised that central government simply sets the allocation of budgets to the respective counties and thus local governments. However, the cuts are decided upon, for the most part, at the local level. A decision to collect your bins every other week has been made much closer to home... and not by the Con-Dem (!) government!

University tuition fees are a real crux though. Because this definately does fly against the principles of the Lib-Dems. However, it should be noted that government themselves have not raised tuition prices. They have only allowed the universities the chance to raise prices as a result of government reducing the amount they will subsidise. You should consider that prior to this, the difference in feees were covered by the government (read taxpayers). It should also be noted that AFAIK there is still substantial financial support to those who cannot afford university. I myself went to university with a bursury and reasonable re-payment loan - which should be noted has been changed to ensure that it is even more reasonable. I must say that I still don't agree with this, but looking at just one side of the coin is probably the incorrect way to approach the subject.

I am concerned with the cutting of income support AND benefits to a variety of groups. However for the most part this is negated by the increase in non-taxed income. it was made abundantly clear that the majority of people would still be better off without the benefits - instead keeping the money in peoples pockets and removing a confusing and expensive benfits maze. It should also be recognised that there is a promise to continue increasing the non-taxed earnings over the coming years (as originally proposed by the Lib-Dems), which should see us all benefit! As well as a continuation in increasing the amount of non-taxed personal savings for each person. (admittedly its essentially a small step considering the VAT increase).

Finally I'd like to take this opportunity to lambast the last point: "reduced overseas aide". Helping those poorer than you requires you to have the money in the first place. Charity needs to start at home, and to do that this country needs to get its own house in order. I wager that the OP does not give 110% of his earnings to charity! No one should give more than they can afford... this point is also a spin doctor - because if the government HAD NOT reduced aide, then people would be up in arms that cuts are happening elsewhere but we are still giving things away. I think any future reference to this absurd comment should be burried.

[tactica]

Im not quite sure how you have the audacity to accuse others of spin doctoring given your flagrant manipulation of facts and statistics. Out of common courtesy I will not stoop as low as you and start with petty name calling by referring to you as a Spin Doctor. Now to address some of your points

The previous Labour governemnt did not increase VAT (a tax that its the poorest hardest) and indeed when they came into power in 1997 they actual froze and never increased it during their time in office. I suspect this is an error on your part rather than deliberate lying 

To suggest the public services such as the Police and Schools would serve the public better if they were run for profit is fallacy and boarder line Spin doctoring. Just as example exclusions of ethnic minority pupils has doubled in schools that have been privatized!

It is rather sinister to suggest that there is "rather substantial financial support"  for poorer pupils that can not afford university. Only 1% of pupils currently at Oxford university would benefit from such support. Not even a Spin Doctor would suggest this is fare.

Lower income families are worse off under the Con-Dem coalition. This is a statement of economic fact. As far as I am aware this in not disputed by anyone outside of the coalition. Most importantly it is not disputed by the families themselves.

Finally Oversees aide under the previous government was only 0.5% of GDP, sickeningly low IMHO, but for the so called liberals to cut it even further is a disgrace. It is pure spin doctery for anyone to suggest the UK was giving more than it could afford. Charity does begin at home, but it does not have to end there.

btw I would be very happy to provide multiple links to any of the above points all you have to do is ask. But may I ask you...

Are you prepared to provide links to support some of the 'facts' you have raised?

[Arquarian]

Firstly, we all need to simmer down a little. This is a worth while and important discussion but it is emotive. Like Kipling said, "If you can you keep you head while those around you lose theirs?"

Ok so back to the discussion.
Erm, I'm not sure where the notion comes that the UK has cut overseas funding, I understood that in Real terms it was one of if not the only government department to grow and not be cut. I do understand tha the funding has been restructrued. (after all if India can afford a space programme why are we feeding their poor and If china is now the second biggest economy in the world is it really still considered poor??) Those are arguments for a separate discussion. either way I'd like to see the evidence of the FCO budget getting smaller.

I do believe the increase in VAT was touted by the Labour government under brown as a temporary measure to re address the balance after they reduced it to 15%. Weather they like the LibCon Govt would have kept the measure is speculation. It does remain a deeply unpopluar move and it does hit the poorest hardest but lets not forget the raise in taxable income which helps the poorer in our communities. If anythink I would say its the so called squeezed middle feeling the pinch the most.

Education I beleve is a universal right. It should be free for all and any stage of their lives. Personally i didn't go to University, I couldn't afford the fees. I did however get myself onto an apprenticeship travel the world and now have a good job and am now putting my self though university part time as a mature(!) student. There's no dancing around the facts, the LibCon didn't explicitly raise fees but by cutting funding and giving the universities the tools to raise them they may have well as raised them themselves. Labour can't escape scrutiny either though as they are the ones who introduced the idea in the first place. The more idelogical governments of Thatcher and Major didn't introduce uni fees, no that was a Blair thing.

As for the comment regarding the attendance at Oxford there's a big white elephant in that room I'm not going to go near...

[Irisado]

Tactica: If you have good quality links, it's simply better to post them in the first instance.  I will say, however, that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, so if you're going to use more information from that source, as you did earlier on, I will won't be able to take any of that information seriously.

There is plenty I could discuss here, particularly in relation to tuition fees, but I feel that this is the wrong thread for that, and I will, therefore, focus solely on the question in the title of the thread.

As someone who has voted for the Liberal Democrats ever since I was eligible to vote, I have been aware since day one of the coalition agreement that they did not bargain hard enough over key policy issues, and that the more right wing element in the party, which includes Nick Clegg, was actually happier going into coalition with David Cameron than they would have been with Gordon Brown.  As someone who is on the centre left of the party in terms of my policy preferences, this was, and remains, very disappointing, and with another key Liberal Democrat policy, electoral reform, likely to fail later today, I would be more than happy in many respects to see the end of this coalition.

There is, however, a serious danger of either the Conservatives winning an outright majority, or Labour getting back into power, if the Liberal Democrats were to withdraw from the coalition, which makes me think that while in my heart I would like them to pull out, from a pragmatic point of view, it would be a bad idea.  I don't want to see a Conservative majority because the cuts and policies against the public sector would be likely to become even more severe than they are now, while another Labour administration would certainly not fill me with any confidence, since their treatment of the public sector was equally shoddy during the Blair and Brown periods.

For the moment, therefore, I think that the Liberal Democrats need to take stock, and perhaps be more vocal in public about where they disagree with the Conservatives.  After all, it is interesting to note that they did very well locally in Eastleigh (Chris Huhne's constituency), and his well publicised disagreement with Cameron at Cabinet may well have played at least some role in that outcome.  Long term, however, if they continue to be the shield for the Conservative Party's policies, and suffer all the negative feedback as a result, they will have to reconsider their position as part of the coalition.

[Shas'Oink]

Just to make clear, I did not state that the previous Labour government increased VAT. No, they did temporarily reduce VAT - though more as a gesture to help business than to help consumers. However, it is easily forgotten that they also refused to rule out a VAT rise wihtin their most recent election manifesto. The Conservatives had already explored VAT to 20% as a way of cutting the deficit, and THIS report suggests that Labour chose not to make the promise of no VAT rise in order to keep their options open (in other words, not appear as though they are out right liars).

It should also be remembered that Labour had wanted to bring in a National Insurance Rise. (In a worst case scenario, if we had a Labour government at the moment we could be looking at 20%VAT AND higher NI, alongside no decrease in taxed earnings or savings!)

In fairness, a rise in Income tax would have been the correct move. But unfortunately this wasn't the course taken (why I don't know). Perhaps the VAT change is something that can be more quickly and easily addressed in sunnier financial times!?

I also did not say that front line services should be run for profit. However ALL services should be run in a business like manner - that is to say using the resources at hand to carry out the task required in the most effective and efficient manner possible. This helps to reduce wastage. Its the driving principle behind NHS reform and although the execution may not be something I can agree with, the idea is something I can. Again, I'd love it if there was a bottomless pit of money, but there isn't, so we have to do what we can with what we have - or you have to be prepared to pay more in order to get it!? So, assuming you are disgruntled by the spending cuts, I therefore assume you are willing to pay more in taxes... even more than we are now!? It is not possible to have it both ways, so which is it?

I don't think lower income families are worse off under the coalition. I thin kwe are ALL worse off. However, lets be honest and agree that drastic changes (cuts) have been a long time coming and are necesary in order to drive this country out of an unsustainable debt! its not nice, but it has to be done, and whilst I might not like it, I can accept it.

I'm not sure I want to even approach the comments on Oxford University. As you are taking an extreme example as opposed to a norm. lets just say this:

Part-time students, who make up 50% of all students, will no longer have to pay their fees up front as they will now be eligible to apply for student loans. Many of this group will be people trying to retrain, parents wanting to get back into work and people who cannot afford to give up work completely. They will be more able to take up part-time courses and this is good for social mobility.

The threshold for paying back your student loan will increase from £15,000 to £21,000.

The interest rate on the loans will be lower for poorer students and higher for those earning more. This is progressive. It is reckoned that the lowest earning (bottom 20%) of students will pay less than under the current system and it has been designed so that many low earning graduates will not have to pay back all their fees anyway, as they will eventually be written off.

Fees are being raised to £6000, not £9,000 a year. The higher limit is an option for universities.

A £150m scholarship fund is being set up to pay, in full, the tuition fees of thousands of bright students every year so that they can go to university. This will help those whose families qualify for free school meals.

However, it has been handled poorly by the Government who have presented it very badly and underestimated support for free education. Lets not foget that there are few places in the world that get free education, and this goes for all levels of education, not just university. The biggest issue here though, is that the Lib Dems made a pledge to oppose an increase, so it definately leaves a sour taste to LibDem voters!. However, iirc, Labour was looking at a blanket increase in fees without the 'fairer' system currently being adopted. In any case, it's not as good as we have had it in the past...

[tactica]

@O:nk
Most of the points you have raised are very far off topic and are so fraught with factual inaccuracies, I literally do not know where to begin.  I will start some new threads soon on the topic of Education Fees, Privatization and Third World Debt etc. I must say I do not envy the task of defending the Con-Dems indefensible policies so I wish you luck. Although as I understand it many Lib Dems are getting rather too used to defending Tory policy so I'm sure you will be fine

Now back on topic
As the results have trickled in it has become clear that the Lib Dems have slumped to a humiliating defeat. These are the worst local election results in Lib Dems entire history and the worst results of any party in government in UK history. Although on the plus side the Lib Dems actual did a little better than recent polls suggested so I guess thats something.

Anyway the inevitable is now happening and many members of his own party are now calling on Nick Clegg to resign. Given this i feel the debate should no be moved on to...

Is it time for Nick Clegg to step Down?
and if not
How long will it take for members of his own party to force Nick Clegg out of office?

I predict the following chain of events.
1) Nick Clegg is forced to resign around about the time of the Lib Dems next Party Conference
2) The moe left wing Simon Hughes is elected the New Leader
3) Lib Dems withdraw from the coalition
4) The Conservatives are forced to call an election
5) Labour wins the election with a slender majority the Lib Dems do better than expected due to a 'Hughes bounce' but still lose the majority of their seats.

thoughts? comments? predictions?

[Irisado]

Anyway the inevitable is now happening and many members of his own party are now calling on Nick Clegg to resign.

Three or four local councillors calling for him to resign does not constitute 'many members of the party', so unless you have some source to contradict this report, you might want to practise what you preach a little more about presenting the facts  .

Your prediction is based on very little substance.  I work and study in a politics department, and there has been no suggestion by the academics who are experts on British Party politics and election results that.  This comment from Professor Phil Cowley may be of particular interest to you:

There are two parties in the coalition, but only one of them is suffering as a result of the decisions they are taking together. They are, to coin a phrase, clearly not all in it together.

And that will put even greater stresses on the coalition.  But there’s no prospect of it ending soon. The Conservative leadership know that they would not win an election on their own, and the Lib Dems’ battering at the polls will merely make them even more aware of the fate that currently awaits them at an early election, binding them even closer to the Conservatives.

Nor will the (almost certain) loss of the AV referendum change that.  For all the heat generated, it will be seen as akin to one of those marital rows, in which afterwards you accept that maybe in the heat of the moment you both said things you shouldn’t have, and you try to put it behind you.

[tactica]

Three or four local councillors calling for him to resign does not constitute 'many members of the party', s

Actual this was a reference to the swathes of Lib Dem activists and ordinary party members that want rid of Clegg rather than the small but growing number of Lib Dem politicians that want rid of him. Part of the Lib Dmes problems stem from the fact they have thought more of the views of their politicians and ignored rank and file members. Its a pitfall that is best avoided

Incidentally with regard to my predictions I predicted on this very forum that the Lib Dems would break their election promises and increase tution fees long before they actual did so. This prediction was also much to the bemusement of certain members of this forum, interesting how things work out.    

[Razyus]

Well, with all due respect, this is what I feel the topic should be moved on to: Was oink factually innacurate...it's a simple game really.

Just to make clear, I did not state that the previous Labour government increased VAT. No, they did temporarily reduce VAT - though more as a gesture to help business than to help consumers. However, it is easily forgotten that they also refused to rule out a VAT rise wihtin their most recent election manifesto. The Conservatives had already explored VAT to 20% as a way of cutting the deficit, and THIS report suggests that Labour chose not to make the promise of no VAT rise in order to keep their options open (in other words, not appear as though they are out right liars).

Correct!

It should also be remembered that Labour had wanted to bring in a National Insurance Rise. (In a worst case scenario, if we had a Labour government at the moment we could be looking at 20%VAT AND higher NI, alongside no decrease in taxed earnings or savings!)

Correct!

In fairness, a rise in Income tax would have been the correct move. But unfortunately this wasn't the course taken (why I don't know). Perhaps the VAT change is something that can be more quickly and easily addressed in sunnier financial times!?

Debatable.

I also did not say that front line services should be run for profit. However ALL services should be run in a business like manner - that is to say using the resources at hand to carry out the task required in the most effective and efficient manner possible. This helps to reduce wastage. Its the driving principle behind NHS reform and although the execution may not be something I can agree with, the idea is something I can. Again, I'd love it if there was a bottomless pit of money, but there isn't, so we have to do what we can with what we have - or you have to be prepared to pay more in order to get it!? So, assuming you are disgruntled by the spending cuts, I therefore assume you are willing to pay more in taxes... even more than we are now!? It is not possible to have it both ways, so which is it?

I can't see any factual inaccuracy here...he even defined what he meant by business-like...
You know what, I may be being unfair to you here, but I don't really see how you can dispute the idea that if you want more, you have to pay more. Deficits aren't perfect, they are not a long term credible option for any government because in order to increase them they have to borrow money, which then stops coming. That's the sort of foresight that is at the centre of Ricardian Equivalence.

I don't think lower income families are worse off under the coalition. I thin kwe are ALL worse off. However, lets be honest and agree that drastic changes (cuts) have been a long time coming and are necesary in order to drive this country out of an unsustainable debt! its not nice, but it has to be done, and whilst I might not like it, I can accept it.

Some of this is opinion, yes, but not indefensible...

I'm not sure I want to even approach the comments on Oxford University. As you are taking an extreme example as opposed to a norm. lets just say this:

Part-time students, who make up 50% of all students, will no longer have to pay their fees up front as they will now be eligible to apply for student loans. Many of this group will be people trying to retrain, parents wanting to get back into work and people who cannot afford to give up work completely. They will be more able to take up part-time courses and this is good for social mobility.

The threshold for paying back your student loan will increase from £15,000 to £21,000.

The interest rate on the loans will be lower for poorer students and higher for those earning more. This is progressive. It is reckoned that the lowest earning (bottom 20%) of students will pay less than under the current system and it has been designed so that many low earning graduates will not have to pay back all their fees anyway, as they will eventually be written off.

Fees are being raised to £6000, not £9,000 a year. The higher limit is an option for universities.

A £150m scholarship fund is being set up to pay, in full, the tuition fees of thousands of bright students every year so that they can go to university. This will help those whose families qualify for free school meals.

However, it has been handled poorly by the Government who have presented it very badly and underestimated support for free education. Lets not foget that there are few places in the world that get free education, and this goes for all levels of education, not just university. The biggest issue here though, is that the Lib Dems made a pledge to oppose an increase, so it definately leaves a sour taste to LibDem voters!. However, iirc, Labour was looking at a blanket increase in fees without the 'fairer' system currently being adopted. In any case, it's not as good as we have had it in the past...

True-I mean, I'd argue that there are other factors to consider...the knock on effects are a bit different to what O:nk has pointed out. For instance I don't think it is a rational decision for any university to present themselves as second class by charging less. It's not particularly a profitable deviation.

Only 1% of pupils currently at Oxford university would benefit from such support. Not even a Spin Doctor would suggest this is fare.

Would you care to tell me where you got this from? You may wish to look here. Now here's an interesting fact for you. I happen to attend Oxford University, in fact, I know a lot about the background of everyone in my particular year at my college...so much so that I can tell you a couple of things. Numerous people are eligible and receive additional funding from both their college, department and the university as a whole. Individual college governing bodies will often submit students with monetary problems for external scholarships without telling them, because they'd like to make life easier.

Then there is the logically indefensible in this point...namely, a correlation causation fallacy. One of the major reason Oxons don't qualify for these benefits is not because poor kids don't choose to go here. It's to do with people not getting in and the failures of the education system at an earlier juncture to a)not necessarily explain to parents exactly what university entails for their children and how helpful it is, but also b) fail children in terms of the quality of teaching. Suburban state school kids do better not because they are smarter, but because these schools tend to have a different ethos and a different atmosphere. Unfortunately that's the way it goes.

Is it time for Nick Clegg to step Down?
and if not
How long will it take for members of his own party to force Nick Clegg out of office?

I predict the following chain of events.
1) Nick Clegg is forced to resign around about the time of the Lib Dems next Party Conference
2) The moe left wing Simon Hughes is elected the New Leader
3) Lib Dems withdraw from the coalition
4) The Conservatives are forced to call an election
5) Labour wins the election with a slender majority the Lib Dems do better than expected due to a 'Hughes bounce' but still lose the majority of their seats.

thoughts? comments? predictions?

No. Nick Clegg won an election for all intents and purposes, they got savaged in some local elections and the compromise of AV looks doomed, but would you expect Ed Milliband to resign because the Scottish Labour Party did badly in the Scottish Parliamentary Elections? Uh, nope.

That list of events is pretty much Speculation isn't it? You know what I think is going to happen in the next US presidential election? I think that there is going to be footage showing that they didn't kill Osama, that it was really Bill Clinton in disguise and then Palin is going to have sex with Mitt Romney leaving Joe Lieberman to win the election as an independent. Sheer speculation...then again it's pretty easy to tell stories without providing any real reason...

--------

Irisado and tactica have both posted in the mean time, but I don't really think tactica has added anything to the discussion. So I'm going to leave this as was.

[Irisado]

Actual this was a reference to the swathes of Lib Dem activists and ordinary party members that want rid of Clegg rather than the small but growing number of Lib Dem politicians that want rid of him. Part of the Lib Dmes problems stem from the fact they have thought more of the views of their politicians and ignored rank and file members. Its a pitfall that is best avoided

Do you have a source to back this up?  How certain can you be that 'swathes of Liberal Democrat activists and party members' want to get rid of Nick Clegg?  It's too sweeping a statement to make if you don't have any evidence to back it up, and I'm sure that you would not claim to know the views of grass roots members across the whole country  .

Note that this does not mean that I am defending Nick Clegg, but if you are going to claim that his position is under serious threat, then I'm afraid that you need to present much more evidence than you have up to this point to make your position credible  .