Home » Posts tagged 'Nick Clegg' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: Nick Clegg
Labour must indicate what its 'red line' issues are before 2015
Like it or not, there is now a sense that ‘anything goes’ in general elections. It could be that the arithmetic returns a Coalition government, where the Conservatives can only be in government with support of UKIP, or Labour can only govern with the support of the Liberal Democrats. Of course, the most preferred option for Labour members would be for a Labour government to be returned with a landslide.
The current coalition is what can only be described as a ‘miserable compromise’. As a result of the Conservatives continuing to be in denial that the explosion in the deficit had been caused by injecting money into the banks as an emergency measure in the global financial crisis, Labour still have difficult in making the case for safe management of the ‘nation’s finances’. This is of course extremely frustrating for Labour, since the facts are that Labour ran a deficit comparable to the tenure of Norman Lamont and Ken Clarke otherwise, and George Osborne, assisted by the Liberal Democrats, has managed to reverse a fragile economy into a double-dip, and now possibly a triple-dip recession, only saved by some creative accounting over the Olympics and the 4G receipts, as revealed by George Eaton.
In civil litigation, all parties are supposed to adopt a “cards on the table approach”, and given what has happened in the past, all parties should make clear, I feel, what are “red line issues” for them; in other words, what is unnegotiable. Labour might definitely wish to repeal the NHS act and to reverse Part 6 of the Act, UKIP might wish to withdraw from Europe, and the Liberal Democrats might wish to [insert a reasonable choice here]. The combined total of Conservative and UKIP polling figures suggests an alliance would significantly narrow the difference of popularity between the two parties. David Cameron has, in fact, promised the Conservatives will fight the 2015 general election as an anti-Europe party in a bid to see off the threat of UKIP. The Prime Minister delighted Conservative MPs last night when he pledged he will fight for his first overall majority from a ‘clear Eurosceptic position’. However, the chance of UKIP gaining a significant number of seats is still small. They are also dependent upon the continuation of the Eurozone crisis in order to maintain their popularity.
However, we can only really draw conclusions from by-elections, albeit they may fall under the ‘mid-term protest vote’ umbrella. According to Andrew Sparrow’s “live blog”, Nigel Farage is quoted as saying the following:
“It’s a big advance. It’s our best every byelection result. I said at Corby two weeks ago that Rotherham would move us on further. We’ve got a good, active local branch here. We fight local elections here. We are well known. The fostering row didn’t hurt our vote. But I rather agree [that] whilst people were very upset and outraged by it, not that many people changed their vote purely on that issue.”
No prime minister has improved his party’s vote share since October 1974, which is a bit of a special case anyway. The election of February 1974 had produced a hung parliament. Harold Wilson went back to the country soon afterwards to ask for a stronger mandate, repeating a tactic he had pulled off in the 1960s. The Liberal Democrats’ decision to frustrate boundary changes which Conservative high command regarded as vital to their chances of victory at the next election still is troublesome. Indeed, not all Conservatives have given up hope of getting the boundary changes through the Commons. Senior Tories have vowed to press on with changes to constituency boundaries, saddling taxpayers with a bill for £12 million, even though the Liberal Democrats have vowed to stop them going ahead. However, the Liberal Democrats have reason to wish their heels in. Tom Clark, also in the Guardian, provided a comprehensive overview of why the AV referendum was lost, with this as the no. 1 reason:
“1. If the lack of a hate figure was the gaping hole for the yes side, Nick Clegg provided an unbeatable one for the noes. The man himself recognised that voters wanted to poke him in the eye, and he dutifully kept a fairly low profile in the campaign that was by far the most visible single concession that he obtained from the Conservatives. Shrewd as it was for him to go to ground, it could not prevent the noes from warning that “President Clegg” would be kept forever in power by everybody’s second preferences. He had a horrendous hand to play last year, but he made things worse for himself by appearing to the country as a head boy thrilled at being unexpectedly tasked with helping to run the school. When the headteacher and his staff meted out their long-planned litany of horrors, it was not they but Clegg who felt the force of the pupils’ revolt. Having once dismissed Gordon Brown’s pre-election promise of an AV referendum as doomed by association with him, there is a bitter irony here. It is not association with Brown but association with Clegg that has now sunk the electoral reform he was so desperate to achieve.”
Richard Reeves, the Lib Dem leader’s senior strategist and speechwriter, has now left. Reeves, the ultimate in tong-term strategists, had personally worked out the three-step programme to see the leader through to 2015. First, the Liberal Democrats would share the spoils of a recovering economy, “after the mess that Labour had left”. Then they would move into the “differentiation” phase. Finally, they would set out their own agenda prior to a smooth disconnect at the election. The first phase is perceived to have gone well by loyal Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg, though Labour members still think that much legislation from the Conservatives has only been enabled through Liberal Democrat votes on the NHS, education support allowance, legal aid reforms, to name but a few. Few people in Labour have sympathy with Sarah Teather, who was sacked as minister for families in September, appears to have found some reservations.
“But she also makes no bones about the fact that, for her, the cuts and caps already agreed by the coalition are unacceptable and wrong. Brent, she points out, is an area with high rents where many people are already living in appallingly crowded conditions. She is in favour of that part of government policy which encourages people off benefits into work but not when it seeks to erode sympathy and support for the poor. “Having an incentive in the benefits system to encourage people to work is a good thing,” she says. “It is a good thing because it encourages people to participate in society. But having a system which is so punitive in its regime that it effectively takes people entirely outside society, so they have no chance of participating, crosses a moral line for me.””
However, such late confessions may not be sufficient for her seat to be saved ultimately. As regards “the economy stupid”, the Bank of England now thinks it is likely the UK economy will contract in the fourth quarter of 2012, with governor Sir Mervyn King predicting a “zig-zag” road to recovery thereafter. It recently downgraded its forecast for gross domestic product (GDP) in 2013 to around 1 per cent, while the UK government’s tax and spending watchdog is not much more optimistic, at 1.2 per cent.
So, quite unbelievably, Ed Miliband and Labour might be able to win the 2015 general election in some form or other, and as per usual the policy review is still under way. However, Labour could reap much political capital by saying what it definitely will not do, given that most of the most damaging actions of this Government were not set out in front of the electorate prior to May 2010 (the £2bn NHS restructuring for example). The danger is that, if Labour actually does win a landslide in 2015, it will not use this as an opportunity to reshape a definition of the UK, away from misguided marketisation of “New Labour”, but towards a society where citizens can aspire to be fully employed in salaried work and where the genuinely vulnerable are not troubled by securities over the health and social care for example. Nick Clegg’s pathological hatred for Gordon Brown and Labour may be ‘water-under-the-bridge’ if Labour does need to work with the Liberal Democrats, but it could be that Ed Miliband states that one red line he does not wish to cross is to work with Nick Clegg.
Nick Clegg's promise to be in the Top 40 was a promise too far
I’d like to take this opportunity to set a few things straight. Nick Clegg’s promise to be in the Top 40 was a promise too far. In fact, he didn’t enter the Top 40 at all as exclusively revealed on National Radio 1 yesterday, according to the Official Charts Company. Congratulations, however, to ‘Professor Green’ with ‘Avalon’ at number 38. Professor Green made his feelings known about ‘the Nick Clegg apology’ perfectly clear last night. 15 hours ago (as of the date and time of this post), Professor Green had received 1,933 re-tweets for this comment:
I am further disappointed and angry that Nick Clegg could not keep all his promises, such as to enhance the powers of PCTs in the NHS (in the Coalition Agreement). The PCTs have now been abolished. I am sorry, am sorry, so so sorry, but you are insincere, duplicitous, untrustworthy and a complete liar.
And please add to that ‘hypocrite’. It is easy to underestimate the significance of many students being conned into voting for the Liberal Democrats on the basis of a ‘cast-iron pledge’ not to increase them. Nick Clegg had previously sounded off about ‘broken promises’ in this PPB. Clegg had said categorically, “Now it is time for promises to be kept”, knowing full well that he had made an undeliverable policy.
The fundamental problem is that “Plan A” has failed due to a complex interplay of factors nothing to do with the Eurozone crisis, such as the withdrawal of infrastructure investment which might have kick-started key industries such as the construction industry (“Building Schools of the Future”) and the murder of consumer demand (through the controversial increase in VAT). As a direct consequence of this, Richard Reeves’ plan for the LibDems, Plan A, has been severely derailed. The first half of this parliament was of course to consolidate growth – and this failed as a predictable consequence of the economic incompetence of Coalition policy. The second half of this parliament is supposed to be ‘differentiation’, but there is nothing to distinguish the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, in everything from austerity, to NHS privatisation, to scrapping of the education support allowance, to scrapping of libraries, to imploding GDP figures, demolition of high-street legal aid, and a welfare benefit policy providing a substantial tax cut for the rich, for example. This desperate situation is accurately described as one of ‘despair’, by Linda Jack, Chair of the ‘Liberal Left’, as described on BBC Radio 4’s “Westminster Hour” last night. Nick Clegg is not just a ‘figure of fun’ politically. Actually, politically, he is hated, in as much somebody that you have never met can be hated. There is absolutely no sense that the Coalition reaches a consensus on anything. The idea of a permanent coalition in UK politics, specifically, fills people with utter dread. The ‘pupil premium’ is cited as a LibDem triumph, but independent experts unanimously agree it’s been a damp squib. The Conservatives wished the Health and Social Care Act to be passed, giving a free run for the corporatisation of the NHS. They have succeeded. It is likely that all the key personnel of Monitor will from the big corporates. Even Jeremy Hunt’s new assistant is likely to be the Communications Manager of Circle, it is reported. When Nick Clegg offers to tax the wealthy more, because he feels that the current frontloading of the austerity agenda is unfair to those who are disadvantaged in society, he has to concede briefly, as he did on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday morning, that he does not have a cat in hell’s chance of getting this approved by David Cameron and George Osborne. This is a current example of why the idea that ‘coalition politics’ works is simply outrageous and banal, and insults the intelligence of voters.
In the midst of it, Clegg knows he has no choice but to carry on lying. He lies, lies, and thrice lies about the financial stimulus which was required by the last Government to avert a serious depression. Clegg also had no choice on tuition fees, the abolition of large swathes of legal aid including welfare benefits legal aid advice, or the education support allowances. The ‘Building Schools for the Future’ initiative, which would have assisted in the recovery through stimulation of the construction sector, was also killed by LibDem MPs. Clegg’s career is over, and he has done spectacularly in damaging the future of coalition politics forever. Nobody serious on the left can trust the Liberal Democrats to be a force for the public good, as evidenced by the examples above. He has also failed spectacularly on Lords reform, and the alternative vote, which had been deemed as ‘once in a lifetime opportunities’. People will be terrified to vote for the Liberal Democrats, because their function is toxic and poisonous, and actually worthless apart from supporting a weak government. This Conservative administration actually lost the election, and have been given no mandate to bring into law any of their unpopular or undemocratic policies. Of course, desperate times call for desperate measures, and most Liberal Democrats feel as if they’re trapped are “in the loveless marriage”, where they are better off staying put in the Coalition for fear of going alone. Jon Lansman (@JonLansman) produced a very clever analysis on the blogpost in “Left Futures” this morning, which offers an interesting solution to the mess which is simply dragging the UK down ‘in the national interest’.
People are not stupid, and certainly not stupid enough for vote for him or his party in 2015. They simply would prefer not to take the risk. When he gets angry, he spits bullets at Gordon Brown and Labour in general, and his manner is repulsive. He has embued a visceral hatred by Labour members for the Liberal Democrat party, which are seen as limp, principle-less, direction-less and ineffective. Nick Clegg has proved himself to be willing to lie to the general public, against the advice of Danny Alexander and other members of his party, to win a few extra seats over a promise which he knew he could not deliver. Nick Clegg is treated with contempt for much good reason, and the demise of his political party is certain. The electorate’s frustration will be at tipping point when they finally have an opportunity to deliver a verdict on his MPs, but Clegg must know the ‘writing is on the wall’. He came from nowhere, so it’s only appropriate that he should return to nowhere. The tragedy is that some Liberal Democrat activists have had the “crisis of insight”. Clegg wishes to portray the situation as him needed not bailing out in a ‘difficult climb up the mountain’, but whilst Clegg, Laws and Swinson remain in this political suicide pact and do not comprehend that there is unlikely to be growth in the economy in the near future due to the death of consumer demand as a direct effect of Coalition economic policy, they do not comprehend that half-way up their mountain claim they have become submerged in a near-fatal avalanche.
After Clegg made it easier for top earners, this is the message he wants you to hear instead
I’ve just been sent this email by Nick Clegg.
Fairer tax. There’s two words that rarely appear together. Too often it feels like there are two sets of rules when it comes to tax in Britain. One rule for the richest. Another for the average worker.
I want to change this. It’s time for fairer tax.
It means cutting the tax bill of average workers. It means making the very rich pay their fair share.
I want the super-rich to pay their fair share, through policies like our mansion tax.
If you support this, please add your name to the campaign now.
Make no mistake – if this was a majority Liberal Democrat Government, we would introduce this tax tomorrow.
But we can already see that opposition to this tax will be strong from those that want to protect the status quo. That’s why I need your support.
Back the campaign today and help make sure the richest pay their fair share.
Together we can deliver fairer tax in Britain.
Meanwhile this is how the Guardian reported on Clegg’s last attempt at tax fairness on 17 Mar 2012:
Nick Clegg faces a growing mutiny within his own party before this week’s budget as Liberal Democrat MPs, peers and grassroots activists accuse him of caving in to the Tories and failing to stand up for low earners.
The Lib Dem leader is struggling to maintain discipline after it emerged that the chancellor, George Osborne, is poised to announce a cut in the 50p rate of income tax for higher earners – without meeting the Lib Dems’ key demand for a “mansion tax” or other property tax on the wealthy in return.
The word ‘incompetent’ doesn’t do this fiasco justice.
Andrew Mitchell and Nick Clegg may be 'sorry', but not as sorry as we are
Nick Clegg’s convoluted description of what he is apologising for is reminiscent of a criminal who is not particularly regretful about the actual offence, but rather that he has been caught red-handed. Rather than drawing a line under the pledges debacle, which could see its ultimate denouement with Julian Huppert losing his Varsity seat in Cambridge, it has triggered an unpredicted sense of hostility to the Liberal Democrat Party. Whilst it is a valid criticism that there is no apology which Nick Clegg could give, which could be accepted by the majority of Labour voters, a number of people sincerely ask whether Nick Clegg shows any remorse at being guilty of ultimately enacting the privatisation of the NHS, or signing the ‘death warrant’ for thousands of law centres and similar establishments around the country.
The way in which the Coalition makes decisions, by ‘diktat’, shows no shame. Michael Gove has ploughed ahead with his E-Bacc system, albeit rooted in a deep-seated sense of dissatisfaction with how private providers have not delivered competition but profit in the GCSE examining system. However, the way in which he has done this is distasteful, as he has not engaged with the teachers or headteachers unions. Likewise, the Conservative Government, whilst having a favourable relationship with Circle, Virgin and Serco, have not been able to engage the goodwill of the Royal College of Practitioners, making the notion that GPs are leading the recovery an unmitigated joke. Nick Clegg has become a laughing stock, with LibDem strategists apparently behind-the-scenes questioning his judgement over providing a bare-faced apology with such bare-faced cheek.
That his party will be annihilated in 2015 is not in any question, but he seems to have virtually no insight into the demise of his party. His activists have not experienced a crisis of insight yet, which means that they are currently delusional in their party conference in Brighton. The feeling that Nick Clegg will always look after himself, and look after his chauffeur-driven cars, has always pervaded the sense of business of this government. The “out-of-touch” label previously attached to the Conservatives still promises to do much damage to the Coalition in general, more so than the economy. George Osborne is not particularly sorry for wilfully denying a Keynesian stimulus, thus reversing the economy from growth to recession in a space of about two years. He has not said sorry for this, and nor will he. He has not said sorry for the tax cut benefit which has been of benefit to a substantial number of his core supporters, and nor will he. He has not said sorry for the borrowing requirement, in the face of rampant corporate tax avoidance of a much bigger magnitude, and nor he will he. However, George Osborne is not alone in his lack of apology. Iain Duncan-Smith has not apologised for the fact that the disabled citizens of the UK feel demonised and victimised by this Government, feeling that the new welfare reform mechanisms will be unfair. It has been warned that the administration of the ‘universal credit’ and ‘personal independent payment’ will be a disaster, and, whilst the ATOS contract was initially awarded under Labour, nobody appears to be accountable over the problems which have led to an unusually high rate of successful appeals on benefits decisions. Nick Buckles appears to be ‘sorry’, but does not wish to return the money that G4s received for the Olympics to the taxpayer.
Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell, at least has said ‘sorry’. After police prevented him from leaving the main Downing Street gate on his bike on Wednesday, the cabinet minister reportedly launched into a class-based rant against the officers. According to the Sun, he demanded: “Open this gate, I’m the Chief Whip. I’m telling you — I’m the Chief Whip and I’m coming through these gates.” When officers refused to do so, he allegedly responded:
Best you learn your fucking place. You don’t run this fucking government.
You’re fucking plebs.
It is the alleged use of the pejorative “plebs”, denoting those of a lower order, that is toxic for Mitchell and the Tory-led government. Like Mitt Romney’s attack on “the 47%“, it’s brilliantly designed to confirm the view that this is a government of the wealthy for the wealthy. Mitchell has already apologised for the altercation, although he denied using the language ascribed to him by the Sun. In a statement he said: “On Wednesday night I attempted to leave Downing Street via the main gate, something I have been allowed to do many times before. As well as the deep-seated ‘out-of-touch’ issue above, however, there is also a pervasive theme from the Hunt handling of Hackgate; Gategate like Huntgate reveals an element of two-facedness, where the Tories appear to tell the public one another and act behind-the-scenes in a completely different manner. Trust is of course something which voters concern; apparently both parties are not trusted on the economy, despite the economic incompetence of the Tories being well evidenced. The Conservatives have been able to maintain their fraudulent lie that Brown’s government overspent recklessly because Sir Mervyn King, outgoing Governor of the Bank of England, has never explained why such a big stimulus was necessary to prevent the global economic crash in the UK turning into an outright depression, and the state broadcaster, the BBC, somehow became complicit in producing a distorted narrative for the general public. The social media, however, have been able to undermine this fraudulent lie, however, in recent times.
Andrew Mitchell and Nick Clegg may be sorry, but not as sorry as we are. Due to the nature of fixed term governments, the incompetent Coalition will not be thrown out until May 8th 2015. Instead of producing solid government in a time of uncertainty, they have provided disunity exacerbating massively a sense of uncertainty. If the economy continues to go downhill (and a Keynesian stimulus would not have effect for several years now), with poor GDP output and continued recession for after 2015, it is very plausible that the UK will lose in fact its coveted ‘credit rating’. The economy is ‘broken’, with shareholders reaping massive dividends from imperfect privatised markets, and successive Governments have done everything they can to undermine the employment rights of workers and employees. Labour of course has a chance to remedy this on behalf of its ‘core vote’, and the critical next step will be the policy review. If Ed Miliband is unable to produce a coherent direction for Labour soon, the 2015 election, if it delivers a Conservative majority, will see the E-Bacc inflicted on the UK for certain, and the first ever mandate for the NHS privatisation. At that time, all the Liberal Democrat carping about “that illegal war” will simply be a painful memory, as indeed their party will also be a painful memory for many on the left.
Nick Pledge's Clegg
In a bewildering interview with Jeremy Paxman last night, Vince Cable produced a less than coherent explanation as to what the point of the tuition fees apology was. Cable, normally as solid as a rock, got so confused he called his leader, ‘Nick Pledge’, as Jeremy Paxman gave him a kinder, but equally effective, time as Chloë Smith. Many on my Twitter thought that this was a strategic mistake for Nick Pledge to make such an offering, but I suppose it acts as a useful decoy for the Party Conference. This takes the heat out of talk about his personal poll ratings (much worse than Ed Miliband’s, who is not that popular himself), or the privatisation of the NHS.
Here anyway is a helpful video to explain Nick Pledge’s apology once you get rid of the spin.
Also here is a graphic from ‘Jamie The Troublemaker II’, using the technique of ‘labourphotoshopping’, a method used by Labour armchair activists to make quick mass media in the name of parody (or legal defense of parody rather.)
How Nick Clegg ended up being blamed for New Labour
Put another way, Nick Clegg ‘sided with the devil’, and ‘made his bed so he can lie in it.’ In an excellent previous article on the ‘Tax Research’ blog, Richard Murphy sets out the case that Tony Blair was a neoliberal, commencing how Blair himself spoke about his new book to the Guardian. The Guardian notes:
Blair’s outspoken remarks about the financial crisis and the aftermath of the British general election of 2010 in his book’s postscript are likely to have a wide party political impact, especially his caution about any embrace of the view that “the state is back”.
Tony Blair specifically cites that:
“The problem, I would say error, was in buying a package which combined deficit spending, heavy regulation, identifying banks as the malfeasants and jettisoning the reinvention of government in favour of the rehabilitation of government. The public understands the difference between the state being forced to intervene to stabilise the market and government back in fashion as a major actor in the economy.”
Murphy then articulates that the Blair administration was thoroughly ‘New Labour’, noting that: “It betrayed as a result the very core of what Labour did stand for and should stand for. It was desperate – power at any cost. But that was wrong. Power comes with a responsibility to those who grant it – and New Labour failed in that duty.” This is an interesting observation, as Blair considered that he was continuing in the tradition of Thatcher, and that Cameron has been continuing in the tradition of Blair. Brown is not included in this ‘chain of indemnity’, save for being a powerful member of the Blair government. Nick Clegg unwittingly found himself holding the ‘balance of power’, and is now a target within his own party.
This morning, Lord Matthew Oakeshott, a very senior Liberal Democrat peer (and friend of Vince Cable) indicated the party must oust leader Nick Clegg if it wants to avoid electoral disaster in 2015. Oakeshott further explained that it was time to examine the party’s “strategy and management” to ensure it has a chance of success at the polls. It is probably fair to say that tribal hostility between Labour and the Liberal Democrats has intensified since the famous general election of May 2010, with many Labour activists blaming Nick Clegg for ‘selling out to the Tories’. In particular, Nick Clegg is blamed for his U-turn on tuition fees (the famous “Nick Clegg pledge”), and not stopping the privatisation of the NHS. This criticism of Nick Clegg has been advanced by many Labour activists wishing to see destruction of aspirations of members of the Liberal Democrat Part in 2015. Labour dare not openly criticise Tony Blair itself – the reason that Ed Miliband can only pussyfoot around the legacy of New Labour is that he fully realises that he risks internecine warfare within Labour.
This is a pointless concern of Labour in perpetually being concerned about the image of the Unions. New Labour made no effort to dilute the anti-Union legislation of the previous Conservative administrations, and Labour has always had a thirst for powerful backers from the corporate sector. This is sheer folly, as corporates will rarely have the welfare of its workers as a primary consideration in formulating its business strategy over profit; the reality of this is brought home with the lack of investment in Labour which will come to Ed Miliband as a result of him envangelising about ‘responsible capitalism’ in politics, or ‘corporate social responsibility’ as it is known to everyone else in law and business.
The history of New Labour’s contribution to tuition fees and the privatisation of the NHS is all too clear, however. In May 1996, Conservative Prime Minister John Major commissioned an inquiry, led by Sir Ron Dearing, into the funding of British higher education over the next 20 years. Published on 23 July 1997, the Dearing report made 93 recommendations. It estimated additional funding of almost £2 billion would be needed over the next 20 years, including £350 million in 1998-9 and £565 million in 1999-2000, in order to expand student enrllment, provide more support for part-time students and ensure an adequate infrastructure. The inquiry favoured means-tested tuition fees and the continuation of the means tested maintenance grants as well as student loans. It recommended that graduates made a flat rate contribution of 25 percent of the cost of higher education tuition and that a mechanism for paying for this should be established by 1998-9. Following the publication of the report, the Labour education secretary David Blunkett announced the introduction of means-tested tuition fees to begin in September 1998. He also announced that the student maintenance grant would be abolished and replaced by student loans.
In fact, New Labour also began to tinker with the NHS almost as soon as it came into office, with promises “to overturn the Conservatives’ internal market structure, vowing to replace it with a more collaborative, quality-based approach”. Following its “Agenda for Change” initiative of 2004, the New Labour government then, in 2006, installed a new chief executive, David Nicholson, whose role was to carry out reforms of the NHS “to tackle its debt crisis”. In a speech delivered behind closed doors back in 2009, it was Nicholson who told health service finance directors that a new programme of reforms was needed to deliver between £15 billion and £20 billion [which equated to 6% of the total budget] in ‘efficiency savings’ over three years from 2011 to 2014. In response, Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the British Medical Association council, warned that if efficiency savings went ahead on such a scale “there is a real danger that patient services could be threatened”. What had started with Thatcherism, and then continued under Blair and Brown, has now reached a critical phase under Cameron, inspired by John Redwood and Oliver Letwin.
I feel that, whilst it is convenient to blame Nick Clegg, the policies being enacted by the Coalition are end-products of significant policy planks of New Labour. Labourites who choose to ‘punish Nick Clegg’ for enactment of these policies are in a way reminiscent of a Shakespearean tragedy attacking the foundations of education and NHS policy that they helped to produce in New Labour. Nick Clegg, instead of being a visionary who changed politics, has simply enacted ‘more of the same’, and it is a moot point whether Labour or the Conservatives would have followed this policy path anyway. It is parsimonious to conclude that all people on the Left who vote against Nick Clegg are voting against New Labour, even if they would never dare to admit it if they were members of New Labour, but the problem is that Nick Clegg is merely a symbol for what has gone on for more than a decade. If Ed Miliband, by fluke or hard work in criticising the demonisation of the disabled or privatisation of the NHS, enters Downing Street on May 8th 2015, it could well be ‘more of the same’, even if Nick Clegg has retired from full-time politics despite winning his very safe seat in Sheffield.
In fairness to us, in Labour, we voted against all these measures, unlike the Liberal Democrat MPs; we voted against this, scrapping the Education Support Allowance, against disability benefit changes, and much more, but we are sadly not in government for the time-being. More than that, Labour has pledged that the maximum university fee for students in England would be cut by a third under Labour. This would be partly funded by higher interest on student loans for graduates earning more than £65,000 a year. Furthermore, Labour currently also has a strategy for coping with the NHS reorganisation. The first of these is a proposal to raise the cap of the amount foundation trusts can receive from private sources to 49 per cent. Secondly we wish to reframe the role of Monitor, the body charged with regulating competition within the NHS, as the small print suggested at the moment the role of the market would be “modelled explicitly on the role of privatised utilities”. Thirdly, it is proposed that GPs might be stopped from commissioning services from themselves, which is felt to be a “a conflict of interest”.
So if Tony Blair and David Cameron got away with it, why can’t Nick Clegg? Nick Clegg can’t, because he has a repeated tendency to say one thing and do the opposite (or do one thing and say the opposite, like the wealthy and taxes). Ultimately, voters hate it if leaders blatantly lie to them. Few people have any feelings towards Nick Clegg apart from complete contempt for ‘selling out’, and Labour has always argued that it had no intention of ‘going this far’. I don’t wish to diminish any scrutiny of Nick Clegg’s rôle in implementing policy in the UK, but I do wish us in Labour to learn lessons about how evolve our policy for the future in a constructive way. Believe me – on this Matthew Oakeshott is completely right, I feel – Nick Clegg is finished! Most importantly, history will be the best judge of whether Tony Blair or David Cameron have in fact ‘got away with it’, after all. Ed Miliband’s own political career, in distancing himself from these policies (or not), will be the best testament to that.
A coalition with the LibDems would stink, but Clegg's motives are nakedly clear
I know it’s all about not shutting any doors, and keeping all options open. However, much as I like Neal Lawson personally and the whole of Compass, especially Gavin Hayes, I think the best way to save the “progressive left” is to vote Labour at the general election of 2015.
Why do I bring this up now? Nick Clegg said he could imagine working with Labour after 2015, and Ed Miliband has said politely, “it would be difficult”. This is the equivalent of a boy saying, “Do you fancy us going to Claridges’ tomorrow evening?”, and the girl saying, “Not really, you stink”.
It would be impossible for us to work with Nick Clegg or the Liberal Democrats. While Clegg can use empty words such as “duty” and “national interest”, actually his proposition is deeply offensive. It’s deeply offensive to those innocent people who objected to his party enacting the privatisation of the NHS. It’s deeply offensive to those disabled citizens who hate the new disability benefit legislation. It’s deeply offensive to those with housing or other social welfare problems who are seeing a swathe of free law centres and citizens advice bureaux shut down.
The Liberal Democrats are now in self-destruct mode, en route to commit a full political apoptosis on May 8th 2015. They will be utterly obliterated from English politics. Do you think that Nick Clegg is lending an olive branch to Labour members? No, Nick Clegg hates Labour and the Unions. He is sending out a message that a vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote for Labour.
Ed Miliband must reject this at all costs. We do not need a sympathy vote from Nick Clegg or his party. His MPs enacted three of the most destructive laws, without involvement of the people concerned, in my lifetime. He is hoping that Social Liberal Democrats won’t bother voting at all, and his Orange Liberal Democrats will provide “one last heave” to get David Cameron winning his first ever general election.
Nick Clegg’s message is politically odious. He never explained why the deficit had increased due to spend on the hospitals or schools, nor why a desperate measure was needed to save the banks. I would say, “If he wins Sheffield, I’m a baboon”, but unfortunately he has a very safe seat which would be impossible for Labour to win.
Sending rights abroad
John Smith QC made a speech on 1 March 1993 entitled “A Citizen’s Democracy” in which he called for a ‘new constitutional settlement, a new deal between the people and the state that puts the citizen centre stage’. This objective found its way into the Labour Party’s proposals for constitutional reform published in 1993, and reiterated at their Conference in that year where a two-stage process was outlined: the incorporation of the Convention, followed by the setting-up of a Commission to prepare a British Bill of Rights.
In 1994, Lord Lester QC introduced a bill in the Lords which was based on the New Zealand Bill of Rights which would give the ECHR a similar status in UK law as that accorded to European Community law, i.e. allowing courts to disapply future and existing Acts of parliament, which were incompatible with the ECHR, imposing a duty on public authorities to comply with the ECHR and making provision for effective remedies (including damages) for breaches of the ECHR.
Lord Lester QC, of Blackstones Chambers, is recognised by Chambers UK 2012 as a leading silk in Administrative & Public law and Human Rights & Civil Liberties, with commentary that he “remains a much-revered figure of the Bar when it comes to constitutional and human rights-related public law issues.” He“remains one of the first names out of the hat for solicitors who require a practitioner with a wealth of human rights law expertise. His knowledge of the law is such that he took a major role in the promotion of the Equality Bill, which subsequently came into force as the Equality Act 2010.”
Upon the advice of senior members of the judiciary, a second bill was introduced in February 1997 which, unlike the first bill, did not confer the power on the courts to strike down Acts of Parliament. The bill had been introduced shortly after the publication on 18 December 1996 by the shadow Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw of a consultation paper headed “Bringing Rights Home” which put forward the case for incorporation of the ECHR into domestic law. The rationale for introducing the Human Rights Act is clearly set out there:
The United Kingdom is bound in international law to observe the Convention, which it ratified in 1951, and is answerable for any violation. In some limited circumstances, the United Kingdom courts can already take the Convention into account in domestic proceedings. But public authorities in the United Kingdom are not required as a matter of domestic law to comply with the Convention and, generally speaking, there is no means of having the application of the Convention rights tested in the United Kingdom courts. The Government believes that these arrangements are no longer adequate, given the importance which it attaches to the maintenance of basic human rights in this country, and that the time has come to “bring rights home”.
The election of Tony Blair’s Labour Party in May 1997 led to the publication of a white paper on the bill – “Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill”. The Bill received its second reading on 3 November 1997. The Liberal Democrats supported the bill, as did several cross benchers including Lord Bingham. The bill was opposed by the Conservative Party. Historically, the Liberal Democrats had been very supportive of the Human Rights Act; for example, here is Nick Clegg pledging to protect the Act last year.
“So let me say something really clear about the Human Rights Act. In fact I’ll do it in words of one syllable: It is here to stay!” (Nick Clegg)
If the Human Rights Act were abolished, citizens would be able to free to try to take a case to Strasbourg, unless the UK left the European Convention of Human Rights (some say that we would have to leave Europe virtually to achieve this). This argument has been explained at length previously on this blog (in this article). A further complication is added by the changing nature of the Strasbourg Court, as described in a recent article by Noreen O’Meara on the ‘Brighton Declaration’ (on the Human Rights Blog):
A second reform which strays into the territory of affecting the role and function of the Court involves a new mechanism entirely. The proposed ‘advisory opinion’ mechanism (para 19(d)) would allow highest national courts to refer questions to Strasbourg, and allow national courts to apply the opinions provided to the facts of cases. Once the national judge does so, this would (in all but exceptional circumstances) prevent a further application to the Strasbourg court.
Too much is left to chance. This human rights version of the ‘preliminary reference’ model in EU law is couched in language which could harm comity and access to justice. Its current loose drafting should itself be a warning bell to the negotiators. Every proposed element of the procedure is optional (the mechanism is opt-in, highest national courts would have discretion on whether to use it, advisory opinions delivered by Strasbourg would be non-binding; and above all, litigants would “not ordinarily” have recourse to the ECtHR in the same proceedings following a national court’s application of an opinion to the facts. The extent to which this initiative would impact the Strasbourg court’s docket would depend on its approach to delivering advisory opinions—the ECtHR may have considerable latitude here.
While this proposed mechanism may achieve aims of developing a more co-operative dialogue between national judges and the Strasbourg court, its strict approach against applications to Strasbourg where the mechanism is used seems to be a further attempt to relegating the EctHR’s function as the ultimate arbiter in human rights disputes concerning the Convention. Nevertheless, it’s possible that this measure may have more continental appeal and that a more robustly drafted version may prove workable. The ECtHR plans to issue a ‘reflection paper’ on this proposal in the near future.
The bill successfully negotiated the Commons and the Lords as the Human Rights Act [1998], and entered into force on 2 October 2000.
Why Nick Clegg's implementation of the NHS reforms worked (in his own party)
To give Nick Clegg credit, his implementation of the support for the NHS Bill in his own party succeeded. Aside from the numerous articles written elsewhere about the substantive issues of the Bill now as amended, I should like to explain why selling the Bill to his own party worked. I will also briefly discuss the consequences.
Nick Clegg is an odd type of leader – fundamentally he is charismatic (his popularity figures always remain surprisingly high), and he is indeed transformative (in that he has achieved some noteworthy successes such as ‘the Pupil Premium’). He has been able to ‘sell’ some very difficult policies to the Liberal Democrat Party, but an unfortunate characteristic is that people tend to give him no credit and all the blame (the opposite pattern to Steve Jobs, whose failure over Apple TV is rarely remembered.)
‘Strategic change’ is a key issue studied in great detail in many MBAs, the one at BPP Business School included. Books have been written about complex strategic change, and there is no doubt that the implementation of the actual NHS reforms (already started) will result in failure. This is primarily because it has failed to take into account the current structures and culture of the NHS, including the views of the key personnel within it (including the majority of doctors and nurses).
However, Nick Clegg got the support of a key follower, in this case, Baroness Shirley Williams. She is a good choice as she is a former member of Labour, and the assumption is that she would be fiercely defensive of the NHS as an organ of the welfare state. Nick Clegg was therefore very shrewd to get her support, and, with the help of trying to communicate effectively why he felt the amendments were sufficient, was able to get support from his party members. The support of the ‘lead follower’ is an important factor in follower support, and, is for example very important if you are seeking adoption of an innovative problem or service.
Unfortunately, the issue now is what Nick Clegg will have achieved by all this. Left-wing voters are likely to desert the Liberal Democrat Party in droves, meaning that Lab-Lib marginals will almost certainly go Labour. The thorny issue is what happens in Tory-Lib margins; it is very likely that the Tories will win these seats, particularly if Liberal Democrats lose some of their core support. In Tory-Lab marginals, the issue is equally complex, but this could be impacted by a number of factors, including the perceived performance of the economy in 2015; currently it is felt that the deficit will not be paid off until 2017/8 at the earliest because of the very poor level of growth in the UK economy. Conversely, the US economy is now doing very well, as a result of the fact it embraced the importance of fiscal stimulus, and did not reject textbook Keynesian economic theory. Whichever way you look it, it is still possible that the Tories might win with an enhanced majority. However, also, whichever way you look at, while Nick Clegg will have finished a term as Deputy PM by 7 May 2015, the Liberal Democrats are likely to be obliterated electorally in 2015. This presumably does not matter much to Nick Clegg, as his proposals for a reformed House of Lords are likely to fail too.
@legalaware
A grassroots perspective from Labour: Nick Clegg could finish the LibDems off for good this time
Nick Clegg could in fact finish the Liberal Democrats (‘LibDems’) for good this time. Reports of the death of the LibDems have been greatly exaggerated, but this time it could be for real.
Many now appreciate that Ed Miliband has a very good chance now of becoming the next Prime Minister, if Nick Clegg fails to oppose the NHS and Social Care Bill. This will have been an incredible achievement when one term oppositions are far from the norm. Most experts, including the BMA and the Medical Royal Colleges, agree that the Bill is not fit-for-purpose. The views of Tim Montgomerie, Clare Gerada and Andy Burnham MP have now gained considerable traction, and most expert commentators felt that Ed Miliband’s performance last Wednesday in Prime Ministers Questions was his best yet.
It is increasingly likely that the Conservatives will still retain their core support at the next election, but Nick Clegg will be certain to lead his Party to oblivion if he does not oppose the Bill. Recent reports in the FT of his reaction to the dissent over the Bill indicate that he is putting himself over the interests of his Party, nor indeed the wider views of the public.
The failing of Nick Clegg, along with his embrace of policies which have directly led to a slump in consumer confidence and demand and a catastrophic rate of growth, will have only marginally contributed. It is a pity that the legacy of brilliant liberals such as John Maynard Keynes and William Beveridge will have been disregarded in such an arrogant and dangerous manner.
