Nick Clegg’s Letter from the Leader, No. 5: Leveson – “the Prime Minister and I disagreed”

Here’s Nick Clegg’s latest missive to Lib Dem members and supporters — and no prizes for guessing which topic is the subject this week: Lord Justice Leveson’s report into media standards…

On Thursday afternoon I made a statement in Parliament on the Liberal Democrat response to the Leveson Inquiry. I spoke after the Prime Minister, to outline my view that we must implement Leveson’s plans for an effective new press watchdog, underpinned by legal guarantees.

As you may have picked up, the Prime Minister and I disagreed; there is not yet an agreed “government line”. That’s in part why we had to make separate statements – a major departure from Parliamentary protocol, apparently.

I’m often non-plussed by the arcane rules of the House of Commons, most of which make no sense to ordinary human beings. To me it felt like the most natural thing in the world: two opinions, two statements.

Rather than repeat here what I said in the Commons do watch for yourself here.




Best wishes,
Nick

Ps I’m keen to here your views on this extremely important issue, do get in touch with me here.

Do you know someone who would like to get Nick’s weekly email? Forward this message and they can sign up here:
http://www.libdememails.co.uk/nick

A much shorter letter this week, with greater use made instead of a link to a video of Nick Clegg’s 8-minute speech to the House of Commons on Thursday. And — let’s rejoice! — there is at last a link in the letter enabling anyone, whether party supporter or not, to sign up to receive Nick’s emails.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and editor of the 2013 publication, The Coalition and Beyond: Liberal Reforms for the Decade Ahead. He is also a Research Associate for the liberal think-tank CentreForum and writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/31909 for Twitter and emails.

6 Comments

  • Two opinions, two statements… About time too..

    The problem is that too often there have only been two opinions in private. If the chance for coalition comes again an absolute requirement must be a change in how collective responsibility is exercised. There needs to be the agreed right for Ministers to state openly they / their party disagree with a policy but are voting for it or abstaining as a price of coalition. This would allow people to know what the views of those they are asked to vote for are..

  • Daniel Henry 2nd Dec '12 - 4:58pm

    Strongly agreed with Steve.
    Ideally there should be two “collective responsibilities”, one for each party involved which will allow them to put their own position towards the electorate and preserve their identity. Ministers from both parties would still have to vote for government policies they disagree with, but at least they’d be able to be more honest and transparent over their position on it.

  • Tony Dawson 2nd Dec '12 - 5:46pm

    @Steve Way

    “The problem is that too often there have only been two opinions in private. If the chance for coalition comes again an absolute requirement must be a change in how collective responsibility is exercised. ”

    This appears to be so glaringly obvious that many of us assumed it was the unspoken ‘given’ of the coalition when we voted to accept it.

  • Richard Harris 4th Dec '12 - 9:48pm

    Quite frankly I don’t think it would matter if Lib Dem ministers stood up and vocalised their disagreement to 90% of what the government were doing because it will always come down to the fact that it is only because of their compliance that any of it is happening. Worse still it would start to look like straight forward hypocrisy (intellectual disagreement whilst grabbing power for power’s sake).

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User Avatarstuart moran 23rd Sep - 5:50am
    jedi If there are regional Parliaments/assemblies then they run the risk of becoming one party fortresses, this is exacerbated by FPTP - there would not...
  • User AvatarJJ 23rd Sep - 2:50am
    That's a good question Stuart, and the electoral college does prevent the bulling of rural areas by the urban centers, or as you put it...
  • User AvatarGeorge Potter 23rd Sep - 1:12am
    Also, on the topic of boundary determination, my personal view is that there should be an independent commission established to construct units for devolution out...
  • User AvatarGeorge Potter 23rd Sep - 1:08am
    @Michael Kilpatrick I agree - we need a simple three tier government structure: federal, devolved assembly, unitary authority. Possibly some areas could introduce parish councils...
  • User AvatarGeorge Potter 23rd Sep - 1:01am
    Also, for reference, the median size of Germany's states is 3 million people - this should give some guide as to what size is needed...
  • User AvatarGeorge Potter 23rd Sep - 12:58am
    @sesenco I come from Surrey and neither it, nor Kent, nor Sussex are naturally Tory. If you look at the last county election results, while...