Lib Dems not ready to be Ministers. The country not ready for Coalition.

Norman Baker - fighting against apartheid?!

One of the delights of starting Politics A-level at my old school was the political engagement of so many of the pupils. One of the most frustrating aspects of it though was their inability to think about politics as shades of grey, only black and white, good and bad. It's the same with the country, and in particular many parts of the media, as they try and deal with the fact that the UK is governed by a coalition. Either it is working seamlessly, or it is a "sham", with nothing in between.

This shows naivety in the least, ignorance at the worst. Or, in the case of the Telegraph reporters who targetted Liberal Democrat leaders at their constituency surgeries, a sneaky, corrosive agenda that led them onto a fishing expedition which did, in the end, come up with something important (Vince Cable's lack of partiality as Business Secretary when it came to assessing mergers), but mostly has come up with comments that show at worst that some Lib Dems don't understand their responsibilities as coalition government ministers but at best that, hey, guess what...coalition means two DIFFERENT parties with DIFFERENT beliefs working together.

As Conservative MP Peter Lilley said, "We're going to have rough waters and we've got to brace ourselves for it and not be driven off course by every ill-judged remark,". From the start, many who are against the coalition (both within the Conservative and Liberal Democrats as well as Labour) have seized upon every single disagreement as a sign it "isn't working". Yet the coalition has done far more in its first 7 months than anyone could have expected it to.

More importantly, it has done so without silencing dissent. For journalists who had to endure 13 years of media-trained New Labour automatons claiming violent agreement with every single policy announced, it must be a pleasure that Government Ministers have been allowed to talk of their misgivings about policy. Debate has been permitted, and in many cases this has resulted in the Liberal Democrats being able to significantly influence many of the policies announced, in the process possibly making them more palatable to the public than they might have been had they been pure Conservative formulations.

Yes, they were hung out to dry over tuition fees. But then again I think tuition fees was the area in which the Liberal Democrats as a party had the most learning to do if they ever want to be a party of government, which is a lot harder than being a party of protest: You can't come up with pledges and promises which would be undeliverable should you be in government....because you might end up in government. However much I might argue that those who go on about "broken promises" possibly don't understand that coalition is a compromise in which both, or all parties HAVE to break some promises, this was a particularly silly promise to make.

But to argue that, as Norman Baker (Lib Dem Transport Minister) did - that he is like Helen Suzman - the South African MP who ought the apartheid regime, is particularly far-fetched. "She got stuck in there in the South African parliament in the apartheid days as the only person there to oppose it... she stood up and championed that from inside," said Baker. Comparing the need to deal with a £160bn deficit and £1 trillion pound debt with the apartheid regime may seem ridiculous, BUT it shows the lengths that Lib Dems are having to go to justify their "collaboration" (a connotation-laden word used by John Prescott) with the Conservatives.

Then we have Deputy Leader of the House David Heath commenting that "George Osborne has a capacity to get up one's nose, doesn't he?", and Local Government Minister Andrew Stunell talking about David Cameron and saying,  "I don't know where I put him on the sincerity monitor... is he sincere? I do not know how to answer that question."

There again, James Holt, the Lib Dem head of media, did point out that "In workplaces the world over, there will be personality clashes and differences of opinion.In this case, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are coming from very different points of view and they are coming together in the national interest."

And Lib Dem backbencher Adrian Sanders told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What is the point of being a separate political party if you don't consider that there are opponents to you? And the Conservative party is our opposition, in normal times."

The problem is that, faced by two young, female, pretty, giggling, fake Lib Dem party activists, these Lib Dem Ministers spoke completely candidly. They probably wouldn't have done so for two gnarled 60 year old bearded, sandalled Lib Dem activities, but then there wouldn't have been a story.

The Telegraph's readers don't like the Coalition, because it is watering down the Conservatism they want. That's their agenda. So they then set out to show it with this 'sting', but in the process relied upon the rest of the media and the country's lack of understanding of what coalition is and means to make it into a proper story.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has played this well, stepping into the Vince Cable affair by questioning whether his replacement on the BSkyB merger brief, Jeremy Hunt, who has been quoted on numerous occasions praising Sky, is fit to make the judgement to. He also used the word "sham" to describe the coalition, saying that "These are decisions of a Conservative-led government propped up by Liberal Democrat passengers. Passengers not in the front seat, not even in the back seat of the car, passengers who have got themselves locked in the boot," which is another open invitation to disgruntled Lib Dems to join Labour.

Miliband also opined that he would have sacked Cable for what he did. Many members of the Tory party wondered why Lord Young was relieved of his duties last month for saying something that was actually true (that some people had benefitted from the recession) yet Cable stayed within government. Miliband, of course, probably would have sacked a minister for doing what Cable did, had he been in charge of a majority Labour government. But he isn't, and neither is David Cameron, which is why it just wasn't as simple as that.

Also, Miliband is relying on everyone to believe that Coalitions are black or white. They are not. They are grey.

Clegg to decide - third party of protest or coalition partner?

The vote on tuition fees on Thursday is a chance to find out whether the Lib Dems in the coalition government really understand the choice that they made to share power. The decision they need to make is not about the moral issue of charging for university education, but about whether they would prefer to be the third party of protest or a legitimate, responsible member of the executive.

The debate on whether tuition fees should be charged at all is something I have addressed already. There is an argument against tuition fees being charged full-stop on economic and moral grounds. There is an argument that tuition fees should be nominal, so that students who benefit from university education contribute towards it, but the burden is shared with the state. There is also an argument that students should pay for their entire education, as they benefit from it, and in our current financial situation we need to ask them to do so. There are therefore legitimate grounds to oppose, abstain or vote for the rise in tuition fees. Where there is a difference is in the responsibilities of the three main parties.

Labour MPs can vote for or against and not many would bat an eyelid. It has been conveniently forgotten by many that Labour introduced tuition fees in 2002 having expressly committed in their 2001 election manifesto not to do. This, perhaps, is why they have been relatively quiet on the implications of Nick Clegg committing to oppose tuition fees then vote for them in government. Also, the rise has been suggested by Lord Browne of Madingly's commission, which was set up by the previous Labour government. However, as we know now, Labour is the party of opposition, and oppose they probably will, whether they believe it to be right or wrong.

Conservative MPs will vote for, and I imagine will be whipped into doing so, as they are the majority party in government and there should be a certain amount of discipline installed into them. They didn't make any rash promises on this issue before the election and there are few grounds of principle involved on which they can vote against or abstain.

Then there are the Lib Dems. They made their pledge to oppose tuition fees before the election. That is true, but it was the type of pledge you make when you are a third party and may never need to actually have the responsibility of government. It was an economically-irresponsible pledge considering the deficit, but it has been hung around them like a noose.  Which Lib Dem MPs vote for or against or abstain, depends on what their role is in our new political landscape. To understand what they might do, and what they should do, relies upon the clearing up of two major fallacies that many protesters are either not getting, or ignoring.

1) The Lib Dems are in government. They are in the coalition. If they hadn't joined the Conservatives in a coalition then there would be no effective government, given that minority rule in a time of economic problems is not advisable. When you join a coalition, you have to negotiate and compromise. This means you get to keep some of your promises to the electorate, you have to drop some of your promises and some of your promises will be amended. The Lib Dems secured an agreement that they could abstain in the vote on tuition fees, and Nick Clegg has offered that to his MPs, on the basis that they ALL do so. However, some Lib Dem MPs have said they will honour their pre-election pledge and vote against, thereby breaking the coalition agreement. This means Clegg cannot abstain and has a responsibility to vote for the legislation. As does every other Lib Dem government minister, and there are quite a few of them. Those Lib Dems voting against are saying that they are not prepared to be in power, and that's fine, but they must live with that decision.

2) The actual legislation being voted upon has the hallmarks of Lib Dem intervention, particularly on some of the provisions made to make it more progressive. Because you don't pay until you earn £21,000 you pay nothing unless you are in the top 60% of earners in the country - so you at that point are NOT poor. Because the interest rate charge rises as income rises there is a progressive nature to the payments, with those on higher incomes paying a higher proportion of those incomes. The Lib Dems HAVE had their influence here, and it is therefore a coalition policy, and members of the coalition government need to vote for it or shouldn't be in government. Vince Cable, for instance, should he not want to vote for the policy, needs to resign from the government payroll.

The fact is that Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems are socially liberal but economically conservative. Many who suggested they were a natural coalition party for Labour understood little about their politics. Clegg has managed to pull the Conservative party towards the centre, and should be applauded for that.

I completely understand the anger of students. I have students at school who want to protest and if there is anything they should protest about it is this as they are being asked to pay for the debts dropped on them by older generations.

However, they are also being asked to pay for a university system aimed at 50% of the population. If you want services like that you need money to be spent. If you want money to be spent you have to collect it in taxes. Those taxes could be paid by everyone or by those who directly benefit from the service. It has been decided that those who benefit will pay and there may be no going back on it. They need to receive a service worth paying for and £3000 a year wasn't doing that.

So, many reasons to vote against, although I would hope some of those people voting against could be bothered to understand the actual legislation. Maybe doing so would go against their "narrative". They want to call this a Thatcherite policy (which is interesting as it was a Labour policy, and Thatcher was all for investments in the supply-side of the economy - which university education is).

Let's hope the education they want us to pay for is not wasted on this quoted protester.

"There are no jobs and yet I'm being asked to take on massive debts. At £9,000 a year that's £21,000 of debt"

1) If you don't get a job after university you don't have to pay back anything
2) Do the Maths!