The non-apology that speaks to the cynicism at the heart of modern Westminster politics

Once upon a time, Tony Blair offered this trademark piece of creative ambiguity to the Labour conference -

"And the problem is I can apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong, but I can't, sincerely at least, apologise for removing Saddam."

Now if we'd had a Leader of the Opposition worthy of the name, the first question that would have been asked of Blair when parliament reconvened was : "when you say you 'can' apologise for the information on WMDs being wrong, does that mean you are in fact apologising, that you're physically capable of apologising if you wished but you're not actually going to, or something else entirely?" I mean, I "can" play In an English Country Garden on the recorder, but I've no intention of doing so today. Impossible as it seems, though, the cynicism of the Blair non-apology has just been effortlessly surpassed by the current Deputy Prime Minister.

I was genuinely gobsmacked and dismayed in 2010 when Lib Dem apologists for the coalition reacted to the betrayal over tuition fees by suggesting that a stupid mistake had been made - but that the mistake had not been to break the promise, but to make it in the first place. Does honour have no part to play in modern Westminster politics? It seems not - the philosophy is that it's best not to make any watertight promises at all, because every non-cretin knows that you'll just have to break them, and that you'll become very unpopular as a result.

I might have regained a modicum of respect for Clegg if he had proved better than his cheerleaders, and had made the appropriate and honourable apology for tuition fees - namely an apology for breaking the promise, rather than for making it. But oh no. Instead we were treated to yet more drivel about the supposed utter impossibility of the pledge ever being kept. Well, that's odd, because the promise (which was practically signed in blood) was not in fact to guarantee that a rise in tuition fees would be blocked, or to change the minds of anyone in the Labour or the Conservative parties. It was much more narrow than that - it was simply a guarantee that Liberal Democrat MPs would vote against any increase in fees. There may be many things in this world that Liberal Democrat MPs cannot control (thankfully), but how they themselves cast their votes in parliament is not one of them. It simply requires walking through a door. Were you really not "absolutely sure you could deliver" your own MPs through a door, Nick?

I'm beginning to wonder if he can even deliver the milk.

But...but...the three London parties don't like the idea. How can this possibly work?

I break off from my Christmas blogging abstinence for the 79th time to bring you this unrivalled gem on the subject of tuition fees from Richard Nabavi at Political Betting yesterday.  Unfortunately, I missed his final comment, so wasn't able to respond at the time...

Me : Seth, there was nothing remotely “undeliverable” about a solemn pledge to vote in a specific way in the Commons come what may. All they [the Lib Dems] had to do was locate the ‘No’ lobby.

Richard Nabavi :  As a protest, yes. As a policy, no.  The main point, though, still remains.

Me : Not at all. The idea that it was impossible to avoid an increase in tuition fees doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny - there were a number of alternatives, albeit ones that Tories find unpalatable. But in any case, the pledge the Lib Dems signed - virtually in blood - was about how they would vote regardless of whether they were in government or not.

Richard Nabavi : So you think. But since Labour, the LibDems and the Conservatives have all concluded that there was actually no alternative, your view doesn’t really amount to anything very practical.

If there were an alternative, why has no-one proposed it?

So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen of the jury - if the three London-based parties don't propose alternatives, then those alternatives simply don't exist.  Scotland and Wales must seem like Narnia to these people.

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, it was the voters who let the Liberal Democrats down

Of all the spurious justifications for the Liberal Democrats' breach of faith on tuition fees, this one has to take the biscuit : a post by Mike Smithson entitled "Did the students renege on their side of the deal?". After pointing out that one of the reasons the Liberal Democrats underperformed in the general election was that 18-24 year olds turned out to vote in lower numbers than other age groups, Smithson poses this question -

"Why, to put it bluntly, should politicians be arsed for a section of the electorate that might make a lot of fuss about things but can’t be arsed themselves to go down to the polling station and put a X on a ballot."

Dear God. Where to begin? How about with the bleeding obvious - the pledge the Lib Dems signed was not in any sense conditional upon students voting in a particular way, let alone in sufficient numbers. That's why it was, indeed, a pledge, not a "deal". Secondly, if Mike is seriously suggesting that the mistake students made was not to produce more votes for the Liberal Democrats, I have a sneaking suspicion students themselves might just beg to differ - they almost certainly feel they gave the party far too many votes. After all, does Mike honestly believe that the student vote didn't deliver for his party in any way? If so, I'd suggest he may be in for a rude awakening at the next general election, with the Lib Dems facing a likely massacre in university seats.

In any case, the fact that young people are disproportionately less likely to vote is hardly a startling new revelation - it was known at the time the tuition fees commitment was made. Memo to all Lib Dems : if you want to make a cynical calculation to neglect the concerns of one section of the electorate, feel free to do so before giving a solemn pledge to those voters without any qualifications, and signing it in blood.

More broadly, it's all very well lambasting 18-24 year olds for not participating in the democratic process, but politicians have a responsibility for that problem as well. It's extremely hard to persuade young people that their votes are meaningful when the empirical evidence is that promises made to them in an election campaign are tomorrow's fish-and-chip paper.

(Note : "Can't be arsed" appears to be one of Mr Smithson's favourite phrases at the moment. A few days ago, he told us hopefully that the SNP and Plaid Cymru often "can't be arsed" to stick around at Westminster until Thursday evenings. Sadly for him, the division lists on the tuition fees vote tell a somewhat different story.)

'Wishart makes me boak' - how about supporting fiscal autonomy then?

Over at my old haunt Political Betting, there's been a fair bit of wishful thinking recently about the prospect of SNP abstentions on tuition fees helping to get the Lib Dems off the hook. Mike Smithson noted that simply holding the vote on a Thursday night might help, because the nationalists sometimes "can't be arsed" to stick around that late in the parliamentary week (translation - their constituencies are further away from Westminster than most), while a couple of posters claimed this morning that the SNP's policy of not voting on domestic English affairs ought to guarantee an abstention anyway. When it was pointed out that Pete Wishart had already confirmed in the Herald that the SNP would be sticking with previous practice and voting against higher tuition fees due to the impact on Barnett consequentials, it provoked these rather colourful reactions...

"Sorry but this ‘have you cake and eat it’ attitude makes me grrrrr."

"Boak - Wishart makes me sick."

Now, here's a novel suggestion. Instead of grumbling about the SNP following the inescapable logic of an inadequate devolution settlement that leaves Scottish funding totally at the mercy of the side-effects of "domestic English" policy decisions, why not do something about the system itself? These posters can rest assured that under full fiscal autonomy, the SNP would have no need or wish to ever again intervene on English tuition fees.

Also, isn't it curious that, in the eyes of PB Tories, Inverness MP Danny Alexander's vote in favour of the coalition proposals doesn't seem to have the same boak-inducing qualities, or indeed to fit the definition of a politician attempting to possess an already-consumed cake?

*

From what I saw of the coverage of the Megrahi leaks on the ITV lunchtime news, it couldn't have come out much worse for Scottish Labour - the message was that the London government had been quaking in the face of threats from Libya, while in contrast the SNP government had turned down each and every inducement offered by the Gaddafi regime. Having said that, I do have to question the quality of the reporting when it was suggested at the end of the piece that the cables "reveal" that Megrahi is expected to live five years - it should be clear from even the most cursory glance that talk of that kind of timeframe predated the decline in his health, and even at that stage five years was thought to be unlikely.

Instances of Iain Dale missing the obvious : No. 273

"I see Ming Campbell and Charles Kennedy are leading the LibDem rebellion on tuition fees. Er, they represent Scottish constituencies, which are unaffected by any change. What the hell has it got to do with them?"

Oh dear. Whoever taught Iain about the birds and the bees clearly forgot to mention the Barnett consequentials...

Tonight's fascinating fact

Former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell on tuition fees :

"I'm going to stick to the promise I made. My credibility would be shot to ribbons if I did anything else."

Fascinating fact - that last sentence makes just as much sense if you replace the words "my" and "I" with the words "our" and "we".

Meanwhile, outside the bubble...

What is it with Westminster bubble journalists? Stick them in a room together for ten minutes and they'll convince each other that the moon is made of green cheese, and then solemnly report it to the masses. Their latest piece of collective wisdom is that the Liberal Democrats have "got away" with their breathtakingly cynical about-turn on tuition fees in England, with Nick Robinson asking "has Vince pulled it off?". Er, no, Nick, is the concise answer to that one.

I really think politicians and lobby correspondents alike need to take a step back and consider just how ghastly the 'before and after' footage of the Liberal Democrats on the news tonight would have looked to the average voter. How they can even begin to judge the damage done when there hasn't yet been time for the public to give their initial reaction via polls is beyond me. This, remember, is much, much worse than the Lib Dems' finessing of their position on tuition fees in Scotland after the 1999 Holyrood election - at least then they could tenuously claim to have kept their word, even if there was a fair bit of sophistry involved (ie. that the graduate endowment bore no resemblance to tuition fees because "it didn't pay for tuition"). This time they've been caught absolutely bang to rights, and where the evidence is that the electorate are feeling particularly indulgent towards the party at the moment is a bit of a mystery.