Friday, 26 July 2013


Prior to the 2010 the Liberal Democratic Party seemed to offer something different to the UK electorate.

Some of the party’s positive points were…
  1.  In the absence of a proper opposition (since the Labour Party went from red to lavender in the 1990s) the Liberal Democrats were actually more left wing on many points than the Labour Party. 
  2. They offered a new vision of working together for a better future. 
  3. They promised an ‘End to broken promises’. 
  4.  They offered a clear guarantee on student funding. 
  5.  They offered a fairer electoral system. 
  6.  They offered the promise of a federal United Kingdom. 
  7.  Mr ‘read my lips’ Clegg promised that the party would never go into coalition with the Conservatives. 
  8.  They therefore promised real change.

What actually happened was the Liberal Democrats sold out. As part of the coalition agreement…
  1. They ditched the vast majority of their left wing promises. 
  2.  They decided to work together for a worse future by virtually giving the Conservatives a free reign over everything except a select few items. 
  3.  They broke almost every promise they made. 
  4.  The guarantee on student funding turned out to be a lie and was ditched at the first opportunity. They should have been done under the trade descriptions act. 
  5.  The electoral system offered as part of the coalition agreement was no fairer (indeed arguably even less fair) than the existing one. 
  6.  They ditched the federal United Kingdom. 
  7.  They went into coalition with the Conservatives. 
  8.  They have merely removed some of the nastiness from some of the Conservatives policies but any positive changes they have achieved have been minimal.
The Liberal Democrats have therefore have proved themselves to be in many ways just as bad as the others, if not even worse, as you cannot trust them at all.

For people in England what is the choice? There are only 3 parties likely to gain power and all have sold people out. This is except for the rich, and those with shares or owners of big corporations.

At least in Scotland there is a 4th realistic option.

Wednesday, 24 July 2013


It recently occurred to me that students are now paying for their education 5 times over.
  1. I pay for it by not claiming any welfare benefits for the time I am in higher education.
  2. I pay for it through my hard work and toil to get the qualification.
  3. I pay for it through the time spent studying. I could after all get a lower job and be earning or doing something less boring instead.
  4. I pay for it through paying higher taxes or more taxes on my graduation as presumably I should get a better job.
  5. 1.      I pay for it through the repayment of the student loan.

    In England I must tuition fees too!

    Therefore what is the UK Government actually putting into this equation? Is it not having its cake and eating it?