How do you sell something you wouldn't buy yourself ?

Whenever I have been canvassing, I have always seen signs on doors saying "We do not buy or sell at this door", or "No canvassers". These people require special thought and some local knowledge before I decide whether to knock or not. If I do, I stress that "I'm not selling", which is a statement of fact whilst also being a little bit untrue, as I am in fact trying to sell the idea of voting for me, or a colleague. The main thing is that I believe in the thing I am selling. I think that is key to any good sales job, that you have to believe in the product you are selling.

So how on earth does Simon Hughes sell a policy to students that he himself did not support ?

Simon is in real danger of making himself look like a fool by choosing to take on the job of promoting a policy which the government have singularly failed to sell to the electorate and to students in particular. It may well be the case that what was passed is better for students than what went before, but this should have been explained and made clear by government. By palming off this job to Simon Hughes, they make the task of Simon holding on to his seat at the next election extremely difficult indeed.

The big issue for me, if I were a student, is how on earth could I be convinced by a policy when the person selling the policy to me didn't support it himself ?

Again, our party is made to look like a bunch of hypocrites. We had half our party break a pledge on student funding a month ago, and now those pledge breakers seek to drag down someone who did keep to his pledge.

Is it any wonder we sit at 8% in the opinion polls ?

I could certainly go canvassing for support for myself in 2010 as I believe in what I am selling. However, I couldn't bring myself to canvass for "the party" in 2010, after all, how can you sell a product you wouldn't buy yourself ?

What is the point in becoming credible if you lose your credibility by breaking promises ?

Those who support the coalition argue that perhaps the greatest thing about it from a Lib Dem point of view it makes the party relevant, shows that we can be a party of government, and that voting Lib Dem puts Lib Dem policies on the statute book.

These points are all well and good if you then use your power responsibly. However, there is a real danger that by voting and supporting tuition fee increases, the party may destroy this credibility in one fell swoop.

The party cannot argue "A vote for us is a vote for our policies" , when in truth, when we get in to government we actually legislate to introduce policies we pledged to oppose.

If I lived in a Lib Dem held seat, I'd find it very difficult to vote for any Lib Dem, even if they were my MP, if they voted to break a pledge made before the election. Many Lib Dems will not forgive the party for the line it is taking, the voters too will rightly question what out party stands for. The only people that can save the party from the abyss is the 30 or so back bench Lib Dems who can keep their promise and vote against Vince Cable's suicidal plan.

We can all argue that "the country is in a financial mess left by Labour", and this is the excuse constantly given by Lib Dems in the government. But when it comes to student fees, we knew the score, and an assumption must have been made back before May this year that this policy was a line in the sand, an issue the party would defend at all costs.

Quite how the party got to the position that a large number of our MPs are supporting raised tuition fees is ridiculous. But what is absolutely incredible is that those negotiating with the Tories allowed a Lib Dem, in the person of Vince Cable, to be the minister introducing this policy.

Only a bunch of fools could possibly have arranged for the Lib Dems to get a cabinet position we wanted to abolish (Scottish Secretary), the Minister for Nuclear Power (Chris Huhne), Ministry for Cuts (Chief Secretary) and Minister for Tuition Fees (Vince).

All hail our negotiating team. Next election, if we have any MPs left, we'll get the Teletubbies to negotiate on the party's behalf !

Why Lib Dem MPs MUST use power to show their pledges mean something

Over 500 Lib Dem candidates at the General Election signed a pledge to the NUS to vote against any increase in fees for students. Now, in power, surely the Lib Dems will have no greater opportunity to show that having Lib Dems in power really means something.

It is easy for the Nick Clegg to argue that those of us who oppose the coalition deal with the Tories to claim we are oppositionalists, scared of power, but the reverse argument is true also. It can be argued that there is little point in holding power if you vote against your own pledges made in opposition.

How many students voted Lib Dem because they felt they could trust us ? How many of them will abandon us if we abandon our pledge to them ? Remember what Nick Clegg said to the NUS about increased student fees.

“We will resist, vote against, campaign against, a rise in tuition fees."

That's pretty unequivocal and cannot be misconstrued.

If it is the case that the coalition agreement does not allow for Lib Dem MPs to keep their pledges, then it is a very poor negotiated agreement. If the agreement does allow for Lib Dem MPs to keep their pledges to students, then now is the time for out MPs to show that we do not make shallow promises to the electorate that we have no intention of keeping.

Tories to ignore Lib Dems graduate tax ideas

A few days ago Vince Cable launched his ideas on student finance, in many ways gaining favourable coverage in the press and from the NUS. It appears Vince had done the impossible in garnering support for a new method of student finance which was supported by voters, graduates and the NUS.

Now, a few days later, a senior Tory has declared the policy to be a non starter.

Isn't it nice to know that the coalition is a two way street where Lib Dem ideas and policies are accepted with the same amount of zeal as Tory ideas.

Student Loans Company - Not fit for purpose

Last year, after an enormous amount of effort from both myself and an amazingly helpful member of staff who deals with teachers pay, I finally got the Student Loans Company to admit I had repaid my Student Loan in full. The Student Loans company wanted me to carry on repaying my Student Loan for another year, whereupon they said they would repay me a year's worth of repayments at the end of the financial year.

Now, some 11 months later, the Student Loans company have sent me two further letters claiming I owe them different amounts.

To describe the Student Loans Company as "not fit for service" is to discredit other government agencies that have also been given this label.

The SLC are the student version of the Child Support Agency. Incompetent, unhelpful and totally unfocused on helping customers.

The utter uselessness of the Student Loans Company

I have written before about the Student Loans Company and the completely useless way they marry up data about people and the length of time it takes. But this month they have provided further evidence that they are not fit for purpose.

I knew from my tax records that I had paid up my student loan in full, so sent them my P60 so that they small amount they deduct each month would cease. I asked them to deal with this as a matter of urgency as I did not want further payments deducted from my wages. Sadly, they took three weeks to respond, and sent me a refund of only two months payments to them, not the further payment that they had deducted in the three weeks in which I had waited for a reply. They did assure me, however, that they had now informed my employers to stop making deductions from my wages. So I write them another letter asking for the third payment back, but on the day I am about to post this I get my pay slip and find they are still making deductions from my wages. When I phone them to ask why they are doing this despite telling me that they had advised my employers, it turns out that they had NOT informed my employers, when they said, but took nearly another whole week to advise my employers meaning that another payment has gone out.

I then re-write my letter, get further photocopies of documents and send this off to the SLC only to receive a letter from the Student Loans Company advising me that it is now easier than ever to pay off your student loan.

Surely they must realise now, after all the correspondence that I HAVE PAID OFF MY STUDENT LOAN ! And just to tub salt in to the wounds, they have sent me a password and login today so I can login in to their system and find out how much I owe them.

I DON'T NEED A PASSWORD TO TELL ME THAT THEY OWE ME TWO MONTHS DEDUCTIONS !

Completely and utterly useless would be the only way I could describe the Student Loan Company.