Support NeoGAF

[Uzzy]

I'd have rolled a Wizard, and re-enacted BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner with CyclopsRock.

Anyway, Robert Peston wrote a good piece on his facebook page, about the difficulties the Tories face over this public pay cap issue.

Which is that Gove and Johnson are officially talking nonsense when suggesting that public sector pay can be increased without raising taxes or fundamentally changing the government's approach to reducing the deficit.
I say that's official, because it is the unambiguous view of the Office for Budget Responsibility - the government's own watchdog of its finances.
You see, at the time of the last budget, the OBR said it was touch and go whether the Treasury would balance the books by the target date of 2025-6 - and it presented two plausible scenarios, out of just three, which saw the government failing to eliminate the deficit, even without any new spending commitments (you can read the OBR's gloomy assessment below).
In other words there is no money down the back of the sofa to finance an increase in the pay of teachers, nurses, police officers greater than the ordained 1% ceiling.
That means the government has two choices:
1) it could finance such pay rises via a £6bn per year or so tax rise, which many Tories would find as palatable as a steaming plate of sick;
2) or it could publicly concede that the Labour Party of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are the economic gurus and have won the fiscal argument - and that too would be as edible for most Tories as an ice cold plate of the same noxious substance.
So at a time when this government's grip on power is tenuous and when the authority of the prime minister is nebulous, Tory MPs may be precisely wrong that giving public sector workers a real pay rise will be the rehabilitation of their party; it could equally confirm to much of the electorate that they stand for precisely nothing of significance.

Balancing the books has been the only distinctive thing the Tories have really stood for these past seven years. It might not be right, and they might have failed to meet their own targets repeatedly, but they've stood for it nevertheless. There's even a moral argument backing them up, that it's not right that our children pay our debts. If they abandon all that, it does make me wonder just what the Tories actually stand for.

 

[Spuck-uk]

I can certainly get behind STEM courses being paid for by the government, or at least heavily subsidised.
But if someone wants to do an Art History or Poetry degree then the state/taxpayer should not be contributing toward that.

People who don't think the arts are important for a country/civilisation, when it's arguably one of the very few areas of anything the UK is actually good at, hmmm.

I'll let you figure out what happens when only rich people are given the ability to create art and music..

 

[Pixieking]

And they're not just good for country/civilization. Economically, the arts are fantastic, and can create value for tourists and UK nationals alike.

 

[Dougald]

A society without Art or Poetry sounds pretty depressing. University Education should not just be about how much money you can earn off the back of it

 

[CyclopsRock]

There are more ways of becoming an artist than a three year bachelor degrees guys. I daresay art will survive if they cost £9k a term.

 

[Plum]

All this talk about STEM and people always seem to forget that it isn't some magic subject that anyone can do. People who can do such subjects, let alone at a more than mediocre level, aren't as plentiful as people seem to think. Swathes of unemployed software engineer with thirds because they never had the passion for STEM is not what we should be striving towards.

Abandoning everyone else if they have the gall to not be good at STEM is a counter-productive idea; a heavy STEM focus isn't a plaster we can put on to suddenly fix the issue of useless university degrees and a lack of youth employment opportunities.

 

[Dirtyshubb]

Theresa May's new chief of staff met Lib Dem equivalent last Thursday and discussed working together
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b8ca5c26-602e-11e7-b6f8-8145f3f5d431

 

[DodgyGeezerFella]

Theresa May's new chief of staff met Lib Dem equivalent last Thursday and discussed working together
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b8ca5c26-602e-11e7-b6f8-8145f3f5d431

NO

Spoiler

official

COALITION

 

[Theonik]

There are more ways of becoming an artist than a three year bachelor degrees guys. I daresay art will survive if they cost £9k a term.

See, like that stupid idea of performance based repayment, the problem with it is it doesn't save much money but remove much of the revenues we get from the loans system. If we can afford to subsidise stems we can probably afford teaching courses. Replacing loans with tax seems like the better way forward. Also banning unpaid apprenticeships and subsidising said programs also seems like a better way to tackle youth unemployment going forward.

 

[TimmmV]

There are more ways of becoming an artist than a three year bachelor degrees guys. I daresay art will survive if they cost £9k a term.

There are more ways of becoming a programmer without a compsci degree too, that doesn't mean its not helpful to doing so.

I think its worth remembering that here that "The Arts" includes subjects like History, Politics, English, and foreign languages. Its not all degrees in David Beckham studies, or whatever disingenuous example people are using to write off the whole subject area

I can certainly get behind STEM courses being paid for by the government, or at least heavily subsidised.
But if someone wants to do an Art History or Poetry degree then the state/taxpayer should not be contributing toward that.

If you're going to go down this route then surely it would be fairer to look at charging Arts degrees in line with their actual cost, as opposed to this flat rate of £9k a year for everyone

At the moment, Arts is in this rubbish position where you get people like this looking down on it, but they're also expected to subsidise the 'worthwhile' STEM degrees by being charged the same. It seems wrong to me for the government to be justifying tuition fees on the basis that its not fair for someone not in education to pay for someone else who is, when everyone pays the same flat rate, regardless of how much their degree actually costs to run

 

[Mr. Sam]

Theresa May's new chief of staff met Lib Dem equivalent last Thursday and discussed working together
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b8ca5c26-602e-11e7-b6f8-8145f3f5d431

Mm. There are rumblings that the Tories are looking to find room - and money - for a few Liberal Democrat pet projects.

 

[Theonik]

I think its worth remembering that here that "The Arts" includes subjects like History, Politics, English, and foreign languages. Its not all degrees in David Beckham studies, or whatever disingenuous example people are using to write off the whole subject area

I'm sure that would fall under something like 'Religious studies' or something.

If you're going to go down this route then surely it would be fairer to look at charging Arts degrees in line with their actual cost, as opposed to this flat rate of £9k a year for everyone

At the moment, Arts is in this rubbish position where you get people like this looking down on it, but they're also expected to subsidise the 'worthwhile' STEM degrees by being charged the same. It seems wrong to me for the government to be justifying tuition fees on the basis that its not fair for someone not in education to pay for someone else who is, when everyone pays the same flat rate, regardless of how much their degree actually costs to run

You know the better path forward might be reversing from that slippery slope and just getting rid of tuition entirely. Would be cheaper to for most students on account to spreading the burden more equally. The minority of people that end up paying off their loans quite quickly will end up paying more though, but on the flipside, they are the ones that benefited from their degrees the most so it makes sense that they should pay more. Bearing in mind all of this depends on how much each person ends up paying. If you borrow like 45k and end up paying 50 over 1-2 years you are making a ton of money but are paying very little back before you're off the hook whereas someone who borrows 45k in the right circumstances can pay 100k or more. Whereas most people will pay back fuck all.

 

[Dirtyshubb]

Mm. There are rumblings that the Tories are looking to find room - and money - for a few Liberal Democrat pet projects.

If the Lib Dems go ahead and make a deal with the Tories I hope that party dies off.

I appreciated their attempt to hold back the shit the Tories were trying to do last time but with the way Vince Cable has been speaking recently it just reeks of opportunism and self-interest and I have no faith in them.

I think I need to post this picture again:

 

[*Splinter]

If the Lib Dems go ahead and make a deal with the Tories I hope that party dies off.

I appreciated their attempt to hold back the shit the Tories were trying to do last time but with the way Vince Cable has been speaking recently it just reeks of opportunism and self-interest and I have no faith in them.

Some Lib Dem policies getting through (especially if that's instead of DUP policies) would be a good thing, surely?

If the Lib Dems prevent a GE I will be in agreement with you, but until then this is better than nothing.

 

[Dirtyshubb]

Some Lib Dem policies getting through (especially if that's instead of DUP policies) would be a good thing, surely?

If the Lib Dems prevent a GE I will be in agreement with you, but until then this is better than nothing.

In theory yeah it would be good for some Lib Dem policies to get in but with the way the stage is currently set the best hope we have to get some actual change we need to get the Tories OUT.

A hypothetical Lib Dem deal would be for added strength to the Tories and would simply help them stay around longer and still do shitty policies that the Lid Dems cant/wont stop.

The message from every party should essentially be “Fuck the Tories”, not ‘oh lets try this coalition malarkey and see how it goes’.

 

[jelly]

I still don't get the hate for the Lib Dems getting in bed with the Tories. If anything they held them back for the good of the country and when people protested after the University fees, well we live in the UK as it is now and hateful people with no interest in the EU into the EU as one example and we were lead down a shit path to the present day. It was a waste, you can't win them all and people were stupid to vote against the Lib Dems after that. I would honestly welcome them getting together again, May isn't ideal, that's for sure but I think someone like Hammond, pro EU with the Lib Dems holding the Tories back on some things would be ideal. I totally understand anyone but the Tories and I think they'll get booted out regardless. Tories aren't going to throw away power so Lib Dem team up is better than a DUP team up.

 

[JonathanEx]

I'm not going to blame the Lib Dems for supporting votes on very specific policies about things like mental health - if those policies are actually good ones. They're important things that should be dealt with in an adult way.

But hopefully no further in terms of a 'deal'.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

I still don't get the hate for the Lib Dems getting in bed with the Tories. If anything they held them back for the good of the country and when people protested after the University fees, well we live in the UK as it is now and hateful people with no interest in the EU into the EU as one example and we were lead down a shit path to the present day. It was a waste, you can't win them all and people were stupid to vote against the Lib Dems after that. I would honestly welcome them getting together again, May isn't ideal, that's for sure but I think someone like Hammond, pro EU with the Lib Dems holding the Tories back on some things would be ideal. I totally understand anyone but the Tories and I think they'll get booted out regardless. Tories aren't going to throw away power so Lib Dem team up is better than a DUP team up.

Held them back....propped them up....same difference.

 

[Dirtyshubb]

The issue with making deals is that the Tories aren't going to give the Lib Dems something for nothing so while they might get something good out of it they are still gonna have to help support the Tories for something.

Also The Tories want support from Lib Dems because what they want they clearly think Labour and even some of their own MPs are going to be against (otherwise stick with their Tories + DUP votes).

Its the equivalent of:

 

[TeddyBoy]

Found Laura Kunsberg in London, you've got 2 minutes before I need to leave for my train GAF!

EDIT: disappointed GAF

 

[Rodelero]

Held them back....propped them up....same difference.

It's all very well to repeat this, but unless you can explain what they should have done instead it's really hollow. If the Liberal Democrats didn't 'prop up' the Conservatives we would have quite likely had another election a few months later in which the Conservatives almost certainly would have won.

There was no feasible rainbow coalition and the country wanted Brown gone. Coalitions are about compromise and that's precisely what we got. We may end up with lots of coalitions in the future, particularly if we get a proportional electoral system, people might need to get used to the notion of compromise.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

It's all very well to repeat this, but unless you can explain what they should have done instead it's really hollow. If the Liberal Democrats didn't 'prop up' the Conservatives we would have quite likely had another election a few months later in which the Conservatives almost certainly would have won.

There was no feasible rainbow coalition and the country wanted Brown gone. Coalitions are about compromise and that's precisely what we got. We may end up with lots of coalitions in the future, particularly if we get a proportional electoral system, people might need to get used to the notion of compromise.

Then why did the Conservatives want a coalition? I'm all for proportional representation and coalition governments, I voted for the Lib Dems in 2010, I voted for AV in 2012. Of course the Lib Dems are not completely ideologically aligned with the Conservatives, but they obviously aren't ideologically opposed to them, unlike myself.

I find it amusing that anyone (outside of the Conservative party) would still claim the Lib Dems did the right thing in 2010 now we have the benefit of hindsight. I think even Huw wouldn't go that far considering what happened to his party and has happened in the decade since.

 

[Coriolanus]

Balancing the books has been the only distinctive thing the Tories have really stood for these past seven years. It might not be right, and they might have failed to meet their own targets repeatedly, but they've stood for it nevertheless. There's even a moral argument backing them up, that it's not right that our children pay our debts. If they abandon all that, it does make me wonder just what the Tories actually stand for.

How can a disingenuous argument be moral?

 

[Theonik]

How can a disingenuous argument be moral?

Because the nation's creditcard guys.

 

[TimmmV]

You know the better path forward might be reversing from that slippery slope and just getting rid of tuition entirely. Would be cheaper to for most students on account to spreading the burden more equally. The minority of people that end up paying off their loans quite quickly will end up paying more though, but on the flipside, they are the ones that benefited from their degrees the most so it makes sense that they should pay more. Bearing in mind all of this depends on how much each person ends up paying. If you borrow like 45k and end up paying 50 over 1-2 years you are making a ton of money but are paying very little back before you're off the hool whereas someone who borrows 45k in the right circumstances can pay 100k or more. Whereas most people will pay back fuck all.

I agree, people should be paying back relative to their outcome/ability to pay, not the services they have taken from the state.

I was basically just arguing against the 'STEM is the only thing worth learning' mindset there tbh, don't actually think people should be paying for any education.

 

[Uzzy]

How can a disingenuous argument be moral?

You'd have to ask the Tories that one. My point was simply that the Tories at least tried to put forward a moral component to their argument as to why Austerity was a good thing. If they abandon all that in favour of political expediency, then while that's something I'd warmly welcome (if for no other reason than self interest in seeing a public sector pay rise!), it'd leave me wondering just what the Tories actually stand for.

You know, other than power at any cost.

In other news, it'd appear that Jeremy Hunt's the latest person photographed leaving Number 10 with some documents on display. Apparently Hard Brexit means people fleeing the UK.

 

[bomma_man]

You'd have to ask the Tories that one. My point was simply that the Tories at least tried to put forward a moral component to their argument as to why Austerity was a good thing. If they abandon all that in favour of political expediency, then while that's something I'd warmly welcome (if for no other reason than self interest in seeing a public sector pay rise!), it'd leave me wondering just what the Tories actually stand for.

You know, other than power at any cost.

In other news, it'd appear that Jeremy Hunt's the latest person photographed leaving Number 10 with some documents on display. Apparently Hard Brexit means people fleeing the UK.

I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

 

[*Splinter]

In other news, it'd appear that Jeremy Hunt's the latest person photographed leaving Number 10 with some documents on display. Apparently Hard Brexit means people fleeing the UK.

That can't be an accident can it? I know this was a whole plotline in the Thick of It, but look at the size of that font!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

There is no way you will ever persuade me that was not a deliberate leak. The giant font, the simplistic language, the way he's holding it - it's just too much.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

There is no way you will ever persuade me that was not a deliberate leak. The giant font, the simplistic language, the way he's holding it - it's just too much.

I agree, but what's the goal here if it's deliberate?

 

[Rodelero]

Then why did the Conservatives want a coalition? I'm all for proportional representation and coalition governments, I voted for the Lib Dems in 2010, I voted for AV in 2012. Of course the Lib Dems are not completely ideologically aligned with the Conservatives, but they obviously aren't ideologically opposed to them, unlike myself.

I find it amusing that anyone (outside of the Conservative party) would still claim the Lib Dems did the right thing in 2010 now we have the benefit of hindsight. I think even Huw wouldn't go that far considering what happened to his party and has happened in the decade since.

Obviously what the Liberal Democrats did was bad for them as a party, but, to state with any degree of certainty that it was bad for the country is extremely questionable. It relies on an analysis which completely ignores what might have happened otherwise, and I think it displays a pretty short memory when it comes to what the political situation in this country in 2010 was like.

The Liberal Democrats are infamous for the tuition fee hike, a clear mistake in my mind, but nothing to what the Conservatives would have put together alone. I feel pretty confident that we can thank the Liberal Democrats for the various elements of the post-2012 student loan situation that are really rather progressive. They are also responsible for the personal allowance, a significant tax cut that most benefits the poor, and for the triple lock at a time where pensioners arguably did need it.

So in hindsight, no, I don't blame the Liberal Democrats for what they did. We may have hindsight but without knowing the outcomes of the alternatives they could have gone for (i.e. doing nothing or glorious rainbow coalition of all the left leaning parties) it's very hard to say definitively that what they did was wrong for the country. The fact they want into coalition not only didn't stop me from voting for them, if anything it encouraged me to do so.

For what it's worth, if you're so scared of things that aren't ideologically opposed to the Conservatives, you should watch out for that Labour Hard Brexit bandwagon.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I agree, but what's the goal here if it's deliberate?

Hunt was a Cameroon; I think this is trying to create negative press about Hard Brexit again.

Incidentally, I still have no idea how on earth he survived the May -> Cameron transition. I guess he was just so toxic it wasn't worth moving him.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

Obviously what the Liberal Democrats did was bad for them as a party, but, to state with any degree of certainty that it was bad for the country is extremely questionable. It relies on an analysis which completely ignores what might have happened otherwise, and I think it displays a pretty short memory when it comes to what the political situation in this country in 2010 was like.

The Liberal Democrats are infamous for the tuition fee hike, a clear mistake in my mind, but nothing to what the Conservatives would have put together alone. I feel pretty confident that we can thank the Liberal Democrats for the various elements of the post-2012 student loan situation that are really rather progressive. They are also responsible for the personal allowance, a significant tax cut that most benefits the poor, and for the triple lock at a time where pensioners arguably did need it.

So in hindsight, no, I don't blame the Liberal Democrats for what they did. We may have hindsight but without knowing the outcomes of the alternatives they could have gone for (i.e. doing nothing or glorious rainbow coalition of all the left leaning parties) it's very hard to say definitively that what they did was wrong for the country. The fact they want into coalition not only didn't stop me from voting for them, if anything it encouraged me to do so.

Well the Lib Dems don't seem to agree, they claimed in 2017 they wouldn't enter a coalition after the election no matter what with Labour or the Tories. Refusing to enter a coalition is not "doing nothing" it's a stand. The "good of the country" argument holds no water in the UK in 2017.

For what it's worth, if you're so scared of things that aren't ideologically opposed to the Conservatives, you should watch out for that Labour Hard Brexit bandwagon.

Check my post history.

 

[Mr. Sam]

There is no way you will ever persuade me that was not a deliberate leak. The giant font, the simplistic language, the way he's holding it - it's just too much.

I agree, but what's the goal here if it's deliberate?

Two words: quiet batpeople.

Edit:

Well the Lib Dems don't seem to agree, they claimed in 2017 they wouldn't enter a coalition after the election no matter what with Labour or the Tories. Refusing to enter a coalition is not "doing nothing" it's a stand. The "good of the country" argument holds no water in the UK in 2017.

Defending the Lib Dems isn't something I do with great frequency but one could argue, were one so inclined, that they were right about this in 2010 and wrong about it (and rightly fearful for the continued existence of their party) in 2017.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

On a different note:

Westminster voting intention: LAB: 43% CON: 41% LDEM: 7% UKIP: 3% GRN: 3% (via @ICMResearch / 30 Jun - 03 Jul)

 

[Theonik]

Leak means leak.

 

[Mr. Sam]

On a different note:

Westminster voting intention: LAB: 43% CON: 41% LDEM: 7% UKIP: 3% GRN: 3% (via @ICMResearch / 30 Jun - 03 Jul)

Somebody should do a paper, though I'm sure there are many, on how elections influence voting intentions - e.g. do Tory voters look at the results and think, "Theresa sure ballsed that up - I won't be voting for them again"?

 

[*Splinter]

Well the Lib Dems don't seem to agree, they claimed in 2017 they wouldn't enter a coalition after the election no matter what with Labour or the Tories. Refusing to enter a coalition is not "doing nothing" it's a stand. The "good of the country" argument holds no water in the UK in 2017.


Check my post history.

Ruling out a coalition was all about self-preservation, nothing to do with "the good of the country".

It was also (imo) a fucking stupid thing to do, but I can understand why they felt it was necessary.

 

[Beefy]

I'm not going to blame the Lib Dems for supporting votes on very specific policies about things like mental health - if those policies are actually good ones. They're important things that should be dealt with in an adult way.

But hopefully no further in terms of a 'deal'.

I can't see the Tories doing anything to help people like me. They closed down many schemes Labour started up saying they weren't cost effective.

 

[Hazzuh]

On a different note:

Westminster voting intention: LAB: 43% CON: 41% LDEM: 7% UKIP: 3% GRN: 3% (via @ICMResearch / 30 Jun - 03 Jul)

Tbh, the surprising thing to me about recent polls has been how well the Tory vote is holding up.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

Ruling out a coalition was all about self-preservation, nothing to do with "the good of the country".

It was also (imo) a fucking stupid thing to do, but I can understand why they felt it was necessary.

Right, so the fact that they were in a coalition shouldn't increase your will to vote for them, since their messaging now is that under no circumstances would they enter a coalition.

 

[jelly]

Politicians can change their mind, nothing is set in stone. You can argue why they do this or that and what the reasons are but you shouldn't get guaranteed flak for changing.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Tbh, the surprising thing to me about recent polls has been how well the Tory vote is holding up.

Is it that surprising? Our politics is very highly polarised. If you don't like the Conservatives, that doesn't mean you can necessarily turn to Labour. It's why I think the path back for the Lib Dems is moving to try and eat up the Cameronite wing of the Conservatives.

 

[Zaph]

In other news, it'd appear that Jeremy Hunt's the latest person photographed leaving Number 10 with some documents on display. Apparently Hard Brexit means people fleeing the UK.

Its like every politician/public figure even remotely involved is trying to get a news story out there prior to the hard Brexit, so they can point to it years from now and say they were against it.

 

[Rodelero]

Well the Lib Dems don't seem to agree, they claimed in 2017 they wouldn't enter a coalition after the election no matter what with Labour or the Tories.

As has been stated, that's pure survival and I don't agree with their stance. I don't really blame them either, but personally I would like parties to be ready to govern and make deals in the country's interest, which is what I think they did in 2010. Unfortunately, I don't think this electorate is mentally prepared for coalition governments.

Refusing to enter a coalition is not "doing nothing" it's a stand.

Yet you still can't describe what you think would have happened if they made that stand.

The "good of the country" argument holds no water in the UK in 2017.

Maybe it should.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Theresa May's new chief of staff met Lib Dem equivalent last Thursday and discussed working together
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b8ca5c26-602e-11e7-b6f8-8145f3f5d431

The LD Press Office debunked this - "This isn't true. They bumped into each other and made small talk. Nothing about working together or deals".

This is somewhat similar to that one time a Tory briefed on the topic of David Laws discussing defecting to the Tories. The cause of the brief? He made a joke in a corridor.

The Tories can brief as aggressively as they like. Our next leader regards working with them as like mating with a praying mantis.

If they propose something our MP group agrees with, we'll vote for it. If we oppose it, we will vote against or abstain as the case may be.

 

[JonathanEx]

There is no way you will ever persuade me that was not a deliberate leak. The giant font, the simplistic language, the way he's holding it - it's just too much.

I suspect a 'refuting' document, so that's one of the arguments, and it's that font size as it's meant for reading out.

That or leak.

I can't see the Tories doing anything to help people like me. They closed down many schemes Labour started up saying they weren't cost effective.

In practice I'm inclined to agree. But in theory, if they did come up with a policy that would help people, I wouldn't think it bad of the Lib Dems on working with them to agreeing to vote for it. If it were very specific to that of course.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

As has been stated, that's pure survival and I don't agree with their stance. I don't really blame them either, but personally I would like parties to be ready to govern and make deals in the country's interest, which is what I think they did in 2010. Unfortunately, I don't think this electorate is mentally prepared for coalition governments.

Yet you still can't describe what you think would have happened if they made that stand.

Maybe it should.

You miss my point, the last 7 years have been horrible for the UK, with austerity and Brexit. The Lib Dems were part of the government from 2010 and 2015 and don't escape criticism for their part in that. To claim that things would have been even worse if the Lib Dems hadn't partnered with the Tories to me seems far fetched and to at least require a lot more proof than you are giving it. Even if this is the case the Lib Dems did an absolutely shit job getting anything of value in the coalition. They practically destroyed their party and didn't even give us electoral reform, their tentpole policy.

I mean the idea "the Lib Dems being in the 2010-2015 government, yet being a political non-entity in the long term was for the good of the country" could only be supported by someone opposed to them. That's all I'm saying.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Somebody should do a paper, though I'm sure there are many, on how elections influence voting intentions - e.g. do Tory voters look at the results and think, "Theresa sure ballsed that up - I won't be voting for them again"?

This is kinda me, though I'll wait until a GE is called to make up my mind.

 

[Beefy]

In practice I'm inclined to agree. But in theory, if they did come up with a policy that would help people, I wouldn't think it bad of the Lib Dems on working with them to agreeing to vote for it. If it were very specific to that of course.

I have faint hope they bring back the scheme that means I can get a placement in work but have people understand when I feel like shit I can just call in. I loved that scheme but they closed it 😔