Home » Liberal Democrats
Guest blogpost by Tesmond Doto
Hello, my name is Tesmond.
I will not share a platform with Nick Clegg. This is because he sold out, in swopping his principles for a Ministerial Bentley. He doesn’t give a stuff about making students pay for their tuition fees. He wishes to throttle infrastructure spending, such that it’s harder to pay off the deficit. He enacted the privatisation of the NHS, and has done nothing to stop the destruction of law centres.
I expect him to win his safe seat in Sheffield, but to retire from parliament. He’s finished off the Liberal Democrat Party. The sad thing is that, even though David Laws and Jo Swinson will be given promotions this week, Jo is likely to lose her seat in Dumbartsonshire – I understand that Laws is well respected in Yeovil.
You heard it here first.
Lib Dem voice readers clearly feel that Nick Clegg has betrayed them
A post Opinion: Clegg has not betrayed us! caught my eye this evening, not really for a statement, which I simply didn’t understand
Clegg, along with other Liberal Democrats, signed a pledge before the election. Before the coalition was formed, and before there was any possibility that he might be in a position to even govern. But this was a pledge of political policy, not of political principle.
but these comments below.
Reader 8 is the most challenging, because it represents a discussed dilemma for the grassroots Liberal Democrat leadership: their party, or their leader?
Reader 1
This really is desperate.
The Libdems attacked Labour for years for broken pledges and for betraying their values, and now the ‘coalition’ is used as an excuse to do the same.
The hypothetical asks the question: “where would we be if the Tories had gained power, without the Liberal Democrats to temper them?”
No, the question should perhaps be this: “Should Libdems just stop writing up a manifesto?”
If we are in a new political era where coalition governments are more likely, and it’s also obvious that the possibility of the Libdems governing independently is quite low, then there’s no point making any pledges at all. Because they seem to be junked at the first opportunity…. and then we get articles like this asking people to be pragmatic… just as Labour did for years.
Reader 2
I’m sorry, but these are weasel words – as a Liberal Democrat voter I feel deeply let down and betrayed by Nick Clegg. not just on tuition fees but on many other issues, the latest to receive publicity being animal welfare, wildlife and the environment (see http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/the-great-animal-rights-betrayal-2132827.html ). On many of these issues we are seeing unfettered (‘Nasty Party’) Conservatism, despite the fact that the Conservatives did not win the election. For example, why is Nick Clegg and his fellow Lib Dems in Government not doing more to rein in the likes of the appalling Agriculture Minister Jim Paice?
Reader 3
People will not fall for this rubbish. The LibDems have already lost half their support (some polls put them on 10%). Most of their progressive supporters have fled, many to Labour. And it’s not likely they’ll be returning any time soon. The LibDems will probably now become a rather sad adjunct of the Conservatives. Maybe this is what Nick Clegg wanted all along.
Reader 4
It’s articles like these, that give the impression that LDV is now no more than just the LibDem equivalent of Pravda.
Reader 5
You misunderstand the point about the tuition fees pledge. It has nothing to do with coalition compromises and which party got how many seats. It was a personal promise by a candidate to their voters. It doesn’t matter which party won or is in coalition with which other party. Our MPs said to their voters “If I win I will do this”. The promise was not conditional on which party won, or if there was a hung parliament or not.
Those MPs who will vote in favour of increasing fees will betray those voters who believed that promise and all those of us who believed that Lib Dems stood for something better than the sordid, selfish, self-aggrandizing politics of recent years.
Clegg’s betrayal is that he is going to whip his MPs into breaking a promise, forcing those who stand by their principles of honesty and honour to be “rebels”.
Reader 6
If the the lib dems dont get their heads out of the sand you will be wiped out,i was a lib dem voter but the more people come out with rubbish like this the less chance i will ever vote for you again,The more you try to bullshit your way out of the mess you have got into the deeper hole you are diging for your party,Please stop trying to defend the indefensible and work to bring back the party to positions and policies it had before 6th may,its not to late.
Reader 7
Laughed, I nearly prolapsed when I read this article,.
What bloody planet are some of you Libdems on.
Are you sure you wouldn’t be better suited to the monster raving lunatic party?
“And here is the basis of understanding a coalition. One must no longer think about pledges, promises, scandal and success, but instead one has to think of the hypothetical”
The hypothetical asks the question: “where would we be if the Tories had gained power, without the Liberal Democrats to temper them?” Answer: More than likely Nick Clegg and co, would have joined the student protest march, demanding no increases to fee’s
The hypothetical asks the question: “where would we be if Labour were still in power?” Answer: in a damn site better state than we are now
The hypothetical asks the question: “where would we be if the Liberal Democrats had won the majority in the House of Commons?” Answer: in SH!T street, Liberal Democrats have already said their policies where wrong and the Tories where right and more progressive.
Reader 8
I find it hugely significant that in the last few days some of the more extreme Cleggmanicas have started to concede that propping up a right-wing Tory government will harm our party’s long-term prospects, but they consider this a price worth paying because they believe that the hollowing out of the public sector and hammering of the poor will ultimately be good for the country. Clearly, some Cleggmaniacs at least are perfectly prepared to sacrifice our party for the “coalition”, and I find their honesty in admitting it admirable.
What of Clegg? Does Clegg really care about this party, or did he join it and become its leader with the intention of destroying it? Clegg was a Tory when he was a student. His political views then were broadly Thatcherite, as they are today, but he couldn’t stomach the Tory Party’s fetishistic antipathy towards the European Union, so he joined the Liberal Democrats and only a short while later got himself elected to the European Parliament. Unlike most successful Liberal Democrat politicians, Clegg has never had to get his hands dirty. He has never been a councillor, he has never worked a ward, let alone a constituency. The guy has been handed everything on a plate. Why?
I, and others, warned that making Clegg Leader would be a very dangerous departure. Though seemingly coming from nowhere, Clegg was being hyped by the media as the “obvious” candidate to lead the Liberal Democrats (as Matthew Huntbach puts it). We were told that he was an oustandingly wonderful man, and that if we chose him, he would transform the party’s prospects in weeks rather than months. His right-wing views and lack of experience on the ground were known to many, if not most, party members. But still they were suborned into electing him, if only by 500 votes. Such is the power of the media.
The party was bounced into the “coalition” at breakneck speed by a catalogue of deceits: that Cameron would call a second general election and win an overall majority; that bond traders would take fright and send the economy into freefall; that Liberal Democrats would have real influence; that we would get some kind of PR. All these are now exposed as empty shams, and the disaster for the party grows starker by the day, but still there are Liberal Democrats who delude themselves into believing that the party should continue to prop up Cameron’s Tory government and that Clegg has not betrayed us.
I maintain that Clegg was propelled into the leadership by the media in order to realign the right. His long-term objective, I believe, is to merge the Liberal Democrats with the bulk of the Tory party to create an amorphous “super-party” of the centre right; a party that is pro-business and pro-American, but lacks the anti-EU fetishism and social authoritarianism of the Tory right. Such a party, supported by almost all the media outlets, could stay in power for generations, to the unimaginable benefit of the UK mega-rich, and the US military-industrial complex and billionaire families – the people who imposed Blair-Mandelson on the Labour Party and Cameron-Gove on the Tories.
Are we, as Liberal Democrats, going to sit back and let Clegg do this? Or do we get up off our knees and fight for our party?
The future of control orders
A friend of mine tweeted this morning: “254,998,923 laptops taken out of hand luggage and then 254,998,923 put back into hand luggage: success or fail?”
On issues of national security, many members of the general public should like to believe that they have an integral influence in matters of national security, the legislators, we all admit, decide upon national policy. Ultimately it is the Home Secretary, Theresa May MP, who is able to propose legislation on the basis of her advisors, the think tanks, the public, the media, the police, the rest of the judicial system, and of course the intelligence services MI5, MI6. Obviously, it is impossible to ignore the raft of events, such as 9/11 and the Mumbai bombing. There is in face a growing notion internationally, irrespective of political affiliations, that in the wake of September 11th, many civil liberties had been curtailed or suspended. There has been historical disagreement concerning how much risk to national security or civil liberties should be taken.
The need to achieve an appropriate balance of these seemingly competing goals was evident. In the USA, lawyers from the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Army called for aggressive prosecution of the terrorist proven suspects, while lawyers advocating civil liberties argue strongly for the safeguarding of individual rights, lest we cede victory to terrorists through the compromise of principles that define our view of a liberal democracy.
We are surprisingly at one here with the U.S., reflecting a strong entrenchment of our law in European law as a result of the European Communities Act (1972) (as amended), and numerous subsequent treaties. The legal notion of ‘proportionality’ originally developed in European Law, but it has been readily applied in English Law in the House of Lords and Supreme Court. One specific definition of proportionality given by Lord Lowry in the leading British case ‘Brind’, which examined the principle as one that requires a reasonable relation between a decision, its objective and the circumstances of any given case. This concise definition shows how proportionality is a theory that is ultimately intuitive to human nature. A vast majority feel that Labour went too far in the counter-terrorism legislation, which is a massive own goal in that one of the first achievements of Tony Blair was to introduce the Human Rights Act (1997).
In fact, Labour has had terms in coming to terms with their past on crucial matters of civil liberties, in lengths of detention and ID cards. For example, officers used Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 101,248 times but just 506 of those stopped were taken into custody and none on suspicion of plotting terror attacks. Furthermore, Home Office data provide that no terror suspect was held for more than 14 days before being charged, just half the 28-day limit brought in by the last Government. Shami Chakrabarti, of civil rights group Liberty, insisted Section 44 was a “crude and blunt instrument” that was also counter-productive. Shami Chakrabarti further said: “It costs us dearly in race equality and consent=based policing with very little in terms of enhanced security.” I fully agree.
Another bone of contention are ‘control orders’, also introduced under 2005 anti-terrorism legislation. Ministers have to sign an order to place a terrorism suspect under close supervision that some say is similar to house arrest. The orders were introduced after the then Law Lords declared that the previous system of detaining foreign terrorism suspects without trial, or without prospect of deportation, breached human rights. The previous Labour government said it still needed a mechanism, which would allow it to control the lives of some suspects whom it said it could not prosecute because of the rules over the use of secret intelligence in trials.
Control orders were originally introduced as an alternative to putting people in prison, that originally was supposed to not leave individuals suffering from a breach of liberty and personal freedom (1995). Obviously, curtailing this liberty and personal freedom has to be a necessary, balanced and proportional response to a threat of national security, and the Law Lords have thus far said that control records are legal. However, not everyone sees it this way. The issue of control orders, under which terror suspects are placed under “virtual house arrest”, is the one of the most sensitive civil liberties issues for ministers as opposition to Labour’s authoritarian counter-terror policy was seen as part of the glue that made the coalition possible.
Tom Brake MP, the co-chair of the Lib Dem home affairs parliamentary party committee, has said there was no evidence to suggest that control orders were effective in preventing terrorism. The other signatories of the letter, Baroness Sally Hamwee, and Lord Martin Thomas, represent Lib Dem peers. As the English legal system is a system of precedent, I feel that it any changes to the law could be introduced, but it would be their Lordships’ prerogative to decide whether any subsequent changes to the law are legal or not. And I fully trust Lords Hoffman, Neuberger and Baroness Hale, amongst others, to analyze with the legal issues with great precision if or when the time should come.
According to the most up to date figures for January 2010, there are 12 control orders in force – three fewer than a year before. Some 45 people have been subject to the controls since the system was created. Six of the foreign nationals held under the restrictions have been deported. The political situation is messy, as reflected in a rather informal conversation between Baroness Kennedy and Theresa May on the Andrew Marr show this morning. Liberal Democrats have openly warned David Cameron for the first time that any decision not to scrap control orders would jeopardise the coalition’s civil liberties credentials.
Senior Lib Dem backbenchers and peers have also written to Downing Street pressing for the limit on detention without charge to be cut from 28 days to 14 days, arguing that two-weeks is a “wholly adequate” time to bring charges, even in the most complicated cases of multiple terrorist attacks. The intervention from Lib Dem MPs and peers comes after an intense lobbying campaign by the security services. Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, recently wrote to Cameron saying that he could not guarantee the safety of the public if the control order regime was scrapped. Whitehall officials confirm that MI5 has played its “full part in the debate”. The review of counter-terrorism powers was set up immediately after the general election, with a specific remit to look urgently at the future of control orders and the wider matter of counter-terror measures and programmes.
The home secretary, Theresa May, is thought to have recently supported the retention of control orders as a necessary intervention despite repeated interventions by Nick Clegg, whose Lib Dem manifesto clearly had called for them to be scrapped. It feels as if a pendulum over civil liberties is still in damped smooth harmonic motion, but at least the review and the Supreme Court will help the UK legislature and public reach a stable equilibrium.
shibleyrahman.com first ever political survey 2010
This is the first year that shibleyrahman.com has run a poll of political journalists, commentators and presenters. Unlike the Total Politics poll, this poll is not interested in how influential you feel that these people are in the political and media scene.
I am therefore not concerned what you feel about what other feel; I consider that this is totally misleading and unhelpful. I am only interested in how useful you find the person’s professional analysis, and what impact you feel their analysis has on your considered judgment . You certainly do not have to rate every journalist mentioned, just rate the ones you have an opinion on.
There are questions, covering many different types of journalists, reporters, sketch-writers, presenters and bloggers, in different types of media, such as radio, TV, broadsheets and the internet.
The survey should take about 5-10 minutes to complete, considerably shorter than Total Politics’ survey, but this of course entirely dependent on how many people you rate! So remember, 1 is the lowest mark and 10 is the highest. Remember, you are rating them for their level of influence.
Many thanks for taking part!
Dr Shibley Rahman
You can take part in the survey by clicking here.
These are the questions this year:
Columnists and commentators
Please rate the following political columnists and commentators by how useful you find their political analysis and how much impact they have on your judgments. You do not have to rate every journalist mentioned, for example ones you have never one, but please just rate the ones you have an opinion on. Remember, 1 is the lowest mark and 10 is the highest. Not all professionals are represented.
Andrew Grice, The Independent
Andrew Porter, Daily Telegraph
Andrew Sparrow, The Guardian
Anushka Asthana, The Observer
Ben Brogan, Daily Telegraph
Bob Roberts, Daily Mirror
Charles Moore, Daily Telegraph
Daniel Finklestein, The Times
Dave Wooding, News of the World
Dominic Lawson, The Independent
Fraser Nelson, The Spectator/News of the World
Iain Martin, Wall Street Journal
Ian Drury, Daily Mail
Isabelle Oakeshott, Sunday Times
Jackie Ashley, The Guardian
Jake Morris, Daily Mirror
James Lyons, Daily Mirror
James MacIntyre, New Statesman
Janet Daley, The Telegraph
Jason Beattie, Daily Mirror
Jean Eaglesham, Financial Times
Jim Pickard, Financial Times
Johann Hari, Independent/Huffington Post
Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian/The Jewish Chronicle
Julia Hartley-Brewer, Sunday Express
Kevin Maguire, Daily Mirror
Kirsty Walker, Daily Mail
Marie Woolf, Sunday Times
Martin Bright, Jewish Chronicle
Matthew Parris, The Times
Mehdi Hasan, New Statesman
Melanie Philips, Daily Mail
Michael White, The Guardian
Nick Cohen, The Observer/New Statesman
Nigel Morris, The Independent
Patrick Hennessy, Daily Telegraph
Patrick Wintour, The Guardian
Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday
Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph
Polly Toynbee, The Guardian
Rachel Sylvester, The Times
Robert Winnett, Daily Telegraph
Roland Watson, The Times
Sam Coates, The Times
Simon Heffer, Daily Telegraph
Simon Jenkins, Guardian/Sunday Times
Steve Richards, The Independent
Suzanne Moore, Mail on Sunday
Toby Helm, The Observer
Trevor Kavanagh The Sun
Broadsheet sketch-writers
Please rate the following political sketch-writers by how useful you find their work, and how much impact they have on your judgments. You do not have to rate every journaist mentioned, for example ones you have never one, but please just rate the ones you have an opinion on. Remember, 1 is the lowest mark and 10 is the highest. Not all professionals are represented.
Andrew Gimson (Telegraph)
Ann Treneman (Times)
Quentin Letts (Mail)
Simon Carr (Independent)
Simon Hoggart (Guardian)
TV presenters and news reporters
Please rate the following TV presenters and news reporters by how useful you find their political analysis, and how much impact they have on your judgments. You do not have to rate every journalist mentioned, for example ones you have never one, but please just rate the ones you have an opinion on. Remember, 1 is the lowest mark and 10 is the highest. Not all professionals are represented.
Alex Forrest, ITN
Andrew Marr, BBC
Andrew Neil, BBC/This Week
Andy Bell, Five News
Anita Anand, Five Live
Ben Brown, BBC
Ben Wright, BBC
Carole Walker, BBC
Cathy Newman, Channel 4 News
Chris Ship, ITV News
David Dimbleby, BBC
Diane Abbott, This Week
Emily Maitlis, BBC
Gary Gibbon, Channel 4 News
Gavin Esler, BBC
James Landale, BBC
Jane Hill, BBC
Jeremy Paxman, BBC
Jo Coburn, BBC
Jon Snow, Channel 4 News
Kirsty Wark, BBC
Krishnan Gurumurty, Channel 4 News
Lucy Manning, ITN
Michael Crick, BBC
Michael Portillo, This Week
Niall Paterson, Sky News
Nick Robinson, BBC
Peter Spencer, Sky News
Reeta Chakrabarti, BBC
Samana Haq, ITN
Tom Bradby, ITV News
Vicky Young, BBC
Radio presenters and commentators
Please rate the following political radio presenters and commentators by how useful you find their political analysis. You do not have to rate every journalist mentioned, for example ones you have never one, but please just rate the ones you have an opinion on. Remember, 1 is the lowest mark and 10 is the highest. Not all professionals are represented.
Betsan Powys, BBC Wales
Eddie Barnes, Scotland on Sunday
Eddie Mair, Radio 4
Edward Stourton, Radio 4
Elinor Goodman, Radio 4
Evan Davis Radio 4
Gary O’Donoghue, BBC News
James Naughtie, Radio 4
Jeremy Vine, Radio 2
John Humphrys, Radio 4
John Pienaar, BBC TV and Five Live
Jonathan Dimbleby, Radio 4
Mark D’Arcy, Radio 4
Martha Kearney, Radio 4
Nicky Campbell, Five Live
Richard Bacon, Five Live
Ross Hawkins, BBC News
Sarah Montague, Radio 4
Shelagh Fogarty, Five Live
Victoria Derbyshire, Five Live
Political and lifestyle bloggers
Please rate the following political internet bloggers by how useful you find their political analysis, and how much impact they have on your judgments. You do not have to rate every journalist mentioned, for example ones you have never one, but please just rate the ones you have an opinion on. Remember, 1 is the lowest mark and 10 is the highest. Not all professionals are represented.
Alastair Campbell http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog.php
Alex Hilton http://www.labourhome.org/
Claire French http://clairefrench.co.uk
David Alexander Hough http://politicalpundits.co.uk/?author=26
Guido Fawkes http://order-order.com/
John Redwood http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/
Kerry McCarthy http://www.kerry-mccarthy.blogspot.com/
Luke Akehurst http://lukeakehurst.blogspot.com/
Mark Ferguson http://www.labourlist.org/
Mark Pack http://www.markpack.org.uk/
Mike Denham http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/
Phil Hendren http://dizzythinks.net/
Shibley Rahman http://shibleyrahman.com
Sunder Katwala http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/
Sunny Hundal http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/
Tom Harris http://www.tomharris.org.uk/
Walaa Idris http://www.walaaidris.com
Will Straw http://www.leftfootfwd.org
Political Scrapbook http://politicalscrapbooknet
Think Politics blog http://thinkpolitics.co.uk/tpblogs/
Robin Bogg’s spot http://boggsblub.blogspot.com
Free Gary MacKinnon http://tweetstorm4gary.wordpress.com
Red Rag Online http://www.redragonline.com
The Spiderplant http://www.spiderplantland.co.uk
Young Labour Politico Blogger http://blogtomscholesfogg.co.uk/
One Nation Tory http://onenationtory.com/
The Right Way http://piemandmu.blogspot.com/
Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com/
Chris Mills http://www.chrismills.me.uk
Votes at 16 – do you see its importance?
The Liberal Democrats did a sudden U-turn on this tonight, but Stella Creasy MP for Walthamstow managed to get several MPs to attend the vote in the House of Commons by tweeting about it. The support for lowering the voting age has been steadily growing in the UK, and has become a reality in many parts of the British Isles. In the Channel Islands, 16 and 17 year olds already enjoy the vote and although it is a reserved matter the ruling party in Scotland, the SNP, recently passed a policy motion in support of the rights of 16 year olds to vote.
There are also international precedents with some German Lãnder reducing the voting age to 16 for local and regional elections some years ago. Last year Austria reduced the voting age to 16 for all public elections. There are active Votes at 16 cam- paigns across Europe, and it has been adopted by the European Youth Parliament. There are substantial moves afoot for radical reform of the electoral system, not least the big AV vote. Do you think that votes at 16 is a good idea, in a week that mooted lowering the age of sexual consent to 14?
Oh, by the way, if someone complains about the use of the Ishihara plate because it diagnoses colour blindness, may I say in my defence my father is colour-blind, and that this picture is to make the point whether ‘votes at 16′ makes a perceivable difference.
Dr Shibley Rahman is a research physician and research lawyer by training.
Queen’s Scholar, BA (1st.), MA, MB, BChir, PhD, MRCP(UK), LLB(Hons.), FRSA
Director of Law and Medicine Limited
Member of the Fabian Society and Associate of the Institute of Directors
Nick Clegg's latest message is spoiled by a bit dollop of crap
Whatever Labour say, we have no choice but to tackle the deficit. Ed Miliband thinks otherwise. He says he represents a ‘new generation’. But he seems happy to saddle the next generation with the debt that his Government racked up. I am not.
This is utter shite. Nick Clegg should be ashamed of himself. He has spoiled a perfectly good message by a complete slur and lie about Ed Miliband. I am truly disgusted. Ed Miliband and the whole of Labour are devoted to a plan for reduction of the deficit, but not in the manner described which is sociological manslaughter manslaughter, running a genuine risk of a ‘double dip’, with rising unemployment.
Letter
Dear Shibley,
Today is a defining moment for the Liberal Democrats. Today we show what can be achieved as a party in power – that we can deliver on a promise that we put on the very front page of our manifesto: giving a fair chance to every child.
The Liberal Democrat’s purpose in Government is to make Britain a better, fairer nation. And ahead of next week’s comprehensive spending review, today we set out our plans for a four-year, £7 billion investment in improving opportunities for the most disadvantaged kids in this country.
Every disadvantaged two year-old will be entitled to 15 hours free early education – in addition to the existing entitlements at the ages of three and four. Every poor school child will get additional help from a Pupil Premium paid to their school. Every young adult who wants to go to university will be able to do so, undeterred by financial barriers.
By the end of the spending review period, we will be investing £3 billion a year on this Fairness Premium – including £2.5 billion on the pupil premium alone, £300 million on the extra help for two year-olds and £150 million on the university fairness scheme. From next year, we will he helping poorer children from two to twenty: from a child’s first shoes to a young adult’s first suit.
Given that we are having to cut spending these are sizable new commitments. But even as we cut spending, we are determined to invest in fairness.
Whatever Labour say, we have no choice but to tackle the deficit. Ed Miliband thinks otherwise. He says he represents a ‘new generation’. But he seems happy to saddle the next generation with the debt that his Government racked up. I am not.
Every day we lose more in interest payments to the financial markets: the amount we pay in interest is enough to build a new primary school every hour. Let me be absolutely candid: we have a hard road to recovery ahead of us. But also let me assure you, that as Liberal Democrats we are determined to ensure that road leads to fairness, too.
For me, this is personal. A decade ago I argued in favour of a pupil premium to help children and close the educational gap. Under Labour this gap has been left to widen and for too long the achievements in life have been dictated by the circumstances of birth. I represent a constituency in Sheffield where, for all Labour’s promises, inequalities still scar the community.
All of us are having to work hard in order to make the spending review fair. We’re all having to accept difficult cuts in many areas of public spending that we would very much rather avoid. Both parties in Government are having to negotiate and compromise. We’re all having to change our positions on some issues when the arguments demand it.
But all of us in this government, including the Prime Minister and myself, are not willing to compromise on a better future for the poorest children.
None of this would have been possible without all the hard work done by members up and down the country at the last election and over the many years before that. We should all be proud that we are delivering in Government the changes for which we have campaigned for so long.
Best wishes
Nick Clegg
Leader of the Liberal Democrats
Dr Shibley Rahman
Queen’s Scholar, BA (1st.), MA, MB, BChir, PhD, MRCP(UK), LLB(Hons.), FRSA
Director of Law and Medicine Limited
Member of the Fabian Society and Associate of the Institute of Directors
Are A level students fundamentally stupid?
Despite rising A level grades, it’s a genuine question: are A level students fundamentally stupid? When lots of young students who’d just reached 18 saw the leadership debates, I wonder how many of them were realistically thinking of the near future. OK, they would argue that they took Nick Clegg and Vince Cable at face value in promising no cuts, but you don’t expect me to be that stupid, do you? Here is a typical view of students in the election campaign, here with Julian Huppert MP, winning Liberal Democrat candidate in Cambridge.
These students voted for Nick Clegg like turkeys voting for christmas. I have absolutely no sympathy for them now. A good argument is that Labour commissioned the Lord Browne report, and therefore the conclusion would have been the same had Labour still been in power. The outcome seems to be not in favour of a graduate tax but to be in favour on no upper cap for how much Universities can charge for their tuition fees.
So why did you vote for Nick Clegg then?
You’ve only got yourselves to blame.
Vince's speech at the LibDem conference: Many themes should be a top priority for us too
Vince’s speech, unlike the misreporting of it mainly from the BBC who patently didn’t understand the business or legal issues involved, made for very interesting reading for me as a Labour member with an interest in both business and commercial law. I would like to discuss various intriguing aspects of it for me.
But to hold our own we need to maintain our party’s identity and our authentic voice.
This is now being an increasingly difficult problem for the Liberal Democrats. There has to be by necessity an alignment of the beliefs and values of the leadership of the Party and its grassroot members. It was interesting to eavesdrop on the discussion that the Party had earlier this week on brand strategy, as it was clear from the floor that there is much confusion about the brand identity and brand equity of the members of the Party. Of course, the position on the rate of cuts which ultimately emerged from Vince Cable and Nick Clegg remains for many quite unfathomable, and certain issues are pretty straightforward by the Liberal Democrats, for example strong Liberal (anti-statist) values in civil liberties. However, certain grey areas see problems for the leadership and activists alike; for example, free schools is an incredibly perplexing area for the Liberal Democrats to embrace in a way so enthusiastically as Michael Gove’s fervour.
We will fight the next general elections as an independent force with our options open. Just like 2010. But coalition is the future of politics. It is good for government and good for Britain. We must make sure it is good for the Lib Dems as well.
Yes, indeed. It is now ‘do-or-die’ for the Liberal Democrats. There won’t be an end of ‘boom-and-bust’ in this context, unfortunately, because if the Liberal Democrats get the economic recovery and cuts wrong, even if the recession ends, they will be unelectable for a decade. However, it is argued that if the Liberal Democrats make a success of their new Coalition policy, the Coalition politics of pluralism could become accepted.
There was, of course, a global financial crisis. But our Labour predecessors left Britain exceptionally vulnerable and damaged: more personal debt than any other major economy; a dangerously inflated property bubble; and a bloated banking sector behaving as masters, not the servants of the people. Their economic model combined the financial lunacies of Ireland and Iceland. They built a house on sand and thought that they were ushering in a new, progressive work of architecture. It has collapsed. They lacked foresight; now they even lack hindsight.
If Cable feels Labour is in denial over the deficit, undeniably he has been slow to come to the conclusion that the crisis was global. I remember him pontificating in the Commons about how it was an academic philosophical issue of where the financial crisis came from, but it was necessary to find a solution for it. Vince Cable’s lack of acceptance that this was a global crisis historically speaks volumes.
We know that if elected Labour planned to raise VAT. They attack this government’s cuts but say not a peep about the £23bn of fiscal tightening Alistair Darling had already introduced. They planned to chop my department’s budget by 20 to 25%, but now they oppose every cut, ranting with synthetic rage, and refuse, point blank, to set out their alternatives. They demand a plan B but don’t have a plan A. The only tough choice they will face is which Miliband.
This statement is totally ridiculous. If Vince Cable is so self-effacing, can he not at least give a suitable explanation for this poster?
But I am not seeking retribution. We have a pressing practical problem: the lack of capital for sound, non property, business. Many firms say they are already being crippled by banks’ charges and restrictions.
This is undoubtedly a sensible line of attack for Vince and George to pursue, as it encompasses the Liberal
Democrats’ values of fairness, and Labour’s lack of engaging with the public about how the bankers, who had largely caused this crisis, were not been punished for their recklessness. If anything, it is perceived that Labour pumped lots of taxpayers’ money in it, whilst the leading CEOs in the investment banks received knighthoods and huge bonuses. Labour’s fundamental error, if there is to be one single one amongst the plethora, is the unforgiveable increase in the rich-poor divide, which will forever be a legacy of Labour. It began in earnest with Thatcher, progressed with Blair, and compounded through Gordon Brown’s long stint as Chancellor. This should be a top priority for Labour too.
And the principle of responsible ownership should apply across the business world. We need successful business. But let me be quite clear. The Government’s agenda is not one of laissez-faire. Markets are often irrational or rigged. So I am shining a harsh light into the murky world of corporate behaviour. Why should good companies be destroyed by short term investors looking for a speculative killing, while their accomplices in the City make fat fees? Why do directors sometimes forget their wider duties when a cheque is waved before them?
This is an incredibly important paragraph in my opinion, as short-termism has been identified by many academics in leadership, including William George at the Harvard Business School, as a major cause of irresponsible leadership in business. This, together with failures in corporate governance and corporate social responsibility in a post-Enron age, remain admirable targets for Vince’s wrath. This should be a top priority for Labour too.
??But the big long term question is: how does the country earn a living in future? Natural resources? The oil money was squandered. Metal bashing? Mostly gone to Asia. Banking? Been there, done that. What is left? Actually quite a lot. People. Skilled and educated people. High tech manufacturing of which we already have a great deal. Creative industries, IT and science based industries and professional services. In my job I meet many outstanding, world class, British based companies. But we need more companies and more jobs in the companies we have. It is my job as Business Secretary to support business growth. And this knowledge based economy requires more high quality people from FE, HE and vocational training. Here, we have a problem. Businesses cannot grow because of a shortage of trained workers while our schools churn out young people regarded by companies as virtually unemployable. The pool of unemployed graduates is growing while there is a chronic shortage of science graduates and especially engineers. There has to be a revolution in post 16 education and training. We are making a start. Despite cuts, my department is funding 50,000 extra high level apprenticeships this year – vital for a manufacturing revival. My Conservative colleague David Willetts and I want to sweep away the artificial barriers between universities and FE; between academic and vocational; between full time, part time and continuing life long learning; between the academic and vocational.
The ‘Yeah, but’ is that Vince Cable is making savage cuts in universities such as Cambridge, currently top in the world, at a time when we should be investing in basic research, translationary research and applied research, with a view to investing in our country’s future. This should be a top priority for Labour too.
Nick Clegg: keynote speech 2010
Cynics expected us to back away. Instead, we confounded those who said that coalition Government was impossible. We created a Government which will govern and govern well for the next five years.
<
I don’t recall many people saying that Coalition government was impossible. However, I think that David Cameron and Nick Clegg have indeed created a Coalition that can last until 2015. I simply don’t agree with people who say it won’t last the full distance.
Of course there are those who will condemn us. We are challenging years of political convention and tradition and our opponents will yell and scream about it. But I am so, so proud of the quiet courage and determination which you have shown through this momentous period in British political history. Hold our nerve and we will have changed British politics for good. Hold our nerve and we will have changed Britain for good.
Yes, this is the sentiment that I get from genuine LibDem members and supporters all the time, that the torrent of abuse about the Coalition is pretty unselective and continuous. The “Yell and scream” phraseology I’m sure is to picture Labour members as thick yobs, but that doesn’t obviate the fact that Labour has to be highly disciplined and well-mannered in its selective criticism.
Just think what we’ve done already. We’ve ended the injustice of the richest paying less tax on investments than the poorest do on their wages. We’ve guaranteed older people a decent increase in their pension. In November, we will publish a Freedom Bill to roll back a generation of illiberal and intrusive legislation. By Christmas, Identity Card laws will be consigned to the history books. From New Year’s Day, the banks will pay a new levy that will help fill the black hole they helped create. On 1 April, 900,000 low earners will stop paying income tax altogether. In May, the people of Britain will get to choose their own voting system. And this time next year, there will be a pupil premium so the children who need the most help, get the most help.
The Freedom Bill I think will be a good move, as Labour did screw up on civil liberties. Many sane people thought this rapid progression into a super-surveillance state was ridiculous, as well as the intensity of over-criminalising people. I welcome the Freedom Bill, not because it will be a popular piece of legislation, but because it is inherently sensible after Labour has eroded civil liberties. Labour managed to achieve this in an insidious manner, including of course the ID cards scheme which some or all of the Labour leadership contenders themselves voted for.
Remember the four big promises we made in the election campaign? For the first time in my lifetime, Liberal Democrats are able to deliver on those promises.
We promised no tax on the first £10,000 you earn. We’ve already raised the personal allowance by £1000. And in the coming years we will go further to put money back in the pockets of millions of low earners.
We promised more investment in the children who need the most help at school. It will happen at the start of the next school year.
We promised a rebalanced, green economy, a new kind of growth. Already we’re taking action on the banks. We’ve set up a regional growth fund. There will be a green investment bank to channel money into renewable energy. These are the first steps to rewire our economy. New jobs, new investment, new hope.
And we promised clean politics. We’re giving people the chance to change our voting system, cleaning up party funding and finally, a century after it should have happened, we are going to establish an elected House of Lords.
Those pledges we made, together, in the election of 2010, will be promises kept in the election of 2015. The Coalition Programme, which commits the government to making all these changes, is not the Liberal Democrat manifesto. But it is not the Conservative manifesto either. It is our shared agenda. And I stand by it. I believe in it. I believe it will change Britain for good.
These are all impressive. However, the agreement with the Tories on Afghanistan, Trident, immigration and asylum, and free schools have been far from impressive. But then again – I am not totally clear on the views of the five Labour leadership contenders on these important matters.
The new politics – plural politics, partnership politics, coalition politics – is the politics our nation needs today. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are and always will be separate parties, with distinct histories and different futures. But for this Parliament we work together: To fix the problems we face and put the country on a better path. This is the right Government for right now.
The pluralism card was always going to be played by Nick Clegg in justifying the Coalition. It seems a perfectly reasonable one to play, in my opinion.
