The Liberal Democrats have always prided itself on being the most democratic political party. Prided itself allowing its members to make decisions on all aspects of policy (and some time this has led to the media having a field day when reporting on our conferences), which in turn creates a volt of ideas that the leadership choose from to form basis of the party's manifesto at election. But it is clear from Vince Cable's remarks this morning that our leadership does not believe in this?
Vince Cable is making the rounds across the television networks promoting the coalition 'new' policy of increasing the cap on tuition fees, as we all know by now in contrast to official Lib Dem policy, although one chosen to feature so predominately in the last campaign.
If Vince think this policy isn't binding, although voted by Lib Dem members and chosen by the leadership to campaign on, then it begs the questions- what is the point of being a Liberal Democrat Member?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The party looks really weak now because it can't control its senior parliamentarians. Membership is worthless if the people that you elect ignore everything you decided together, and opt instead to support the strategy of an opponent.
The only real point of retaining membership is so you can get rid of these people. We never voted to increase tuition fees, and we never voted for a lot of the policies Nick and Vince have been pushing.
They've both got to go - and fairly quickly if there's any chance of rebuilding the party for the next election.
An interesting point Neil but Vince has ministerial responsibility and has to act as a minister. Are you suggesting that we pull out of the coalition because government policy is not Liberal Democrat policy?
No I am suggesting we party members should campaign to force our ministers and mps to stand by their promises!
But our ministers have a responsibility to back the government.
Our ministers have a responsibility to uphold lib dem principles and policies. This policy is a complete u-turn on what we campaigned on. Not one other policy has experienced this.
What's the point of being a member of any party?
Collective responsibility requires members of the Cabinet to publicly support all governmental decisions made in Cabinet, even if they do not privately agree with them.
Lib Dem members of the Cabinet could oppose the coalition policy, but only if they resign from the Cabinet, or are happy to get kicked out. In either case the coalition comes to an immediate end, as in all likelihood does the possibility of ANY Lib Dem influence in government for the next 80 years or so.
"Not one other policy has experienced this" is the perfect illustration of why we have to accept this situation, unfortunate though it may be. Vast chunks of Liberal Democrat policy are being implemented. The worst impulses of the Tories are being checked. Do you really think this could have been achieved with no concessions?
Tuition fees will increase, but in a way which impacts highest earners most. Low earners will benefit from targeted scholarships and will pay no interest on their loans. A quarter of graduates will pay less overall than they do at present. And for this you question the efficacy of membership? For this Anonymous insists that the leadership has to go? Please try to imagine what government policy would be like without the moderating influence of the Liberal Democrats.
"Our ministers have a responsibility to uphold lib dem principles and policies". How will they do this if they are out of office for the next eighty years?
Martin Gradwell
Martin: Recent reports suggest that the leadership had no intention of following party policy even before the election. All those pledges were being signed by people who were convinced that the policy could not be implemented. That is deceitful. While you say a quarter will be better off as a result of these measures, that implies three-quarters will be worse off. And you state that high-income earners will be worse off, as if that's a good thing - it's a disincentive to learn, particularly in those professions such as law and medicine where people study for more than three years in order to practice. We need lawyers, doctors, surgeons and scientists far more than we need call centre workers with degrees in Dramatic Arts and David Beckham Studies. Why disincentivise people to acquire the skills that this country needs to compete against China, India, Brazil and other emerging markets? It makes no sense at all. It's ludicrous. By all means, splash out money on nukes at the expense of education, but I won't be deceived by another Lib Dem "pledge" as long as I live.
Yes, I am inclined to agree. Principles matter in politics!
It doesn't matter than Vince and Nick are cabinet members. Who cares? It's completely irrelevant to their positions in the party.
If they do not follow the party's own rules, then they need to be held to account.
As it is, we are getting walked all over by the Tories. And doing exactly what many accused us of before the election - having no backbone.
Lets stand up for our views, which are supposed to be democratic, and tell Nick and Vince that if they wish to continue being Lib Dem party leaders they need to toe the party line.
We currently have a very small amount of influence on government policy, close to zero in fact. I'd rather campaign now to change that, then go 'oh well, we have to do what we're told' and get walked over for the next 5 years.
It's not a coalition - it's the Lib Dems adopting Tory policies because they are too gutless to fight for their own opinions and policies.
It's a bad time to be a Lib Dem and maybe that will change if we start actually sticking up for our views, instead of walking half heartedly into a convenient position as Tory scapegoats.
We are the junior partner in this coalition. It is worth remembering why the coalition was born. It was not to implement all Lib Dem policies, but to provide stable government at a time of great uncertainty. To achieve this there has to be compromises.
I too am disappointed with the proposals for student fees, but there are many other areas of concern for instance the way in which we treat the frail elderly.
I think many of the comments are from people who have never held positions of responsibility in government or local government. It is very easy to be pure when the hard decisions are not yours to take. Having had over a number of years the responsibility for social care there are numerous occasions when decisions have to be taken that do not accord with your own beliefs or with party policy. Nevetheless the decisions are necessary for the benefit of the local community.
Post a Comment