Should be noted that opposition in this case is the Liberal Democrats, SNP and Greens and the people supporting Liberty, its not the political oppoosition (the Labour party) who voted for it.
It should also be very cynically [1] noted that Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty for 12 years and excellent spokesperson, followed Labour party line and abstained [2]. So much for her strongly held beliefs. She wasn't a sell-out though - so she says [3]. No wonder voters are truly cynical about politics.
As far as I'm aware the case was originally bought by Conservative MP David Davies when he was a backbencher. He then had to excuse himself from it when he became a Cabinet member and was constrained by collective responsibility.
Extraordinary as it might seem, Tom Watson and Jeremy Corbyn aren't on speaking terms. Watson finds out most of Corbyn's decisions by reading about them in the newspaper. To call Watson a loose cannon would be a gross understatement.
Not really - opposing this is natural for the liberal democrats who have consistently been the biggest party consistently pushing for the right to personal privacy.
Everyone trashes them for supposedly just bandwagoning on student loans and not backing it up, but they were the junior partner in a coalition - right now we are seeing the proof that their involvement held the conservative government back from a huge range of terrible policy, which they are now pushing through given their full government.
It's a travesty the Lib Dems got slaughtered, right after proving their value.
Firstly, they didn't have to go for the coalition. They did it for the electoral system referendum, which proposed a mediocre system and lost. Given that a serious chunk of their vote is expressly anti-Tory, the coalition was always electorally risky.
Secondly, their popularity was built in large measure on their reputation for honesty - for not being the same two-faced shits as other politicians. Signing an ironclad pledge on tuition fees before the election and then reneging didn't just piss off students and their parents, it cannibalised their own political brand.
They didn't, but by doing so they ensured much better policies for that period. It's clear based on what the government is doing now that the liberal democrats firmly kept them in check and gave us a few years of much better governance.
As to the second part, this often stated thing about the pledge on tuition fees - they were the junior partner in a coalition - expecting them to somehow be able to uphold all their policies in that situation is insane.
They took the sane route and compromised to make sure that the situation was better, apparently people will only accept zealous idealism and pragmatism is wrong. They held a louder voice in the role they had, and used it to ensure better policies from the government in that period.
They made the best play, results-wise. That apparently doesn't matter to the voting public.
> It's clear based on what the government is doing now that the liberal democrats firmly kept them in check and gave us a few years of much better governance.
I'll agree so far as saying that Conservative/LibDem governance produces better policies than solely Conservative governance (as least as far as civil liberties etc. are concerned), but I'm unconvinced it was the right move to make.
Firstly, it may have enabled them to keep the Conservatives in check to some degree, but, by providing an effective government majority, it may have resulted in some of the Conservative proposals passing at all, rather than being rejected in the House of Commons if the Conservatives formed a minority government.
Secondly, I suspect that the LibDem support of the Conservatives, and the years of stable government that followed, may have contributed to Conservative gains in future elections (the Conservatives being the senior party, it is easier for them to claim the credit, deserved or otherwise).
> As to the second part, this often stated thing about the pledge on tuition fees - they were the junior partner in a coalition - expecting them to somehow be able to uphold all their policies in that situation is insane.
Again, I'll agree so far as them to uphold all of their policies in coalition is something that could never happen, but the pledge on tuition fees was rather different from the traditional manifesto pledges. It was signed by individual candidates/MPs, rather than as a party, and stated:
"I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative"
Expecting MPs to follow through on something so plainly stated, and importantly something that is not contingent on the LibDems being in government, is not unreasonable IMO. It should have been obvious that reneging on that pledge would cause a huge loss of trust in the LibDems, regardless of what they were able to achieve in government, especially in a year when one of their election broadcasts was titled "Say goodbye to broken promises".
Their own fault they got slaughtered tho. I lost count of the number of times I watched a Lib Dem politician on TV defending idiotic Conservative policies.
They were all so blinded by actually being asked on TV most never seemed to think it would be a problem that they were being asked to defend things completely opposite to their views.
Why the beep they didn't say "Your policy, you defend it" I'll probably never know.
On Topic: I was worried this would be a "we're leaving the EU so we don't care" thing. But turns out they already lost in the UK courts and it was the government trying to use the EU to overrule the British legal system. Which is the first good thing I've heard the British legal has done in ages.
Because very very few people vote for them, we have a defacto two party system in that voting for any other party feels worthless.
~2010 due to a number of factors a third party (the lib dems) gained a significant increase in votes on campaign promises centred around free university courses for UK citizens.
As no party had a majority, a coalition was formed between the conservative party & the liberal democrats.
The Lib Dems went back on every single thing they had promised and essentially forced a new generation of voters to either pick conservative of labour.
The "defacto two party system" results from the first-past-the-post voting system, not the number of voters who cast their ballot for other parties.
Other parties got around 30% of the vote at the last General Election, but won only 13% of seats.
(It is also worth noting that the Liberal Democrats did not gain a "significant increase in votes" in 2010 (23%) vs. 2005 (22%), and that they won fewer seats in 2010 than in 2005.).
Yes. Public perception and understanding of voting systems is consistently and distressingly abysmal. FPTP is an awful system that promotes ideologues and those that manufacture, manipulate and profit from them.
The fact that the legislation OP is talking about passed in the majority cons government and not under the Con/Lib coalition suggests that the Lib Dems did not: "Go back on every single thing they had promised."
What they did is go back on tuition fees which the press then merrily highlighted at every opportunity. Meanwhile New Labour & now the Cons are free to break promises every day of the week with barely a whisper from their mates in the press.
