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 was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from May 2007 to Jan 2015, and writes at 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.
Advert

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 ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarPaul Walter 21st Apr - 7:25am
    Er. I think we need to take the lead from the centre on targeting, gents. Please don't confuse the membership. We have to be pretty...
  • User AvatarPhilip Thomas 21st Apr - 7:09am
    OK. On that argument, we need STV as soon as possible so as to confine the anti-human rights wing of the Tory party to its...
  • User AvatarTCO 21st Apr - 7:03am
    @Philip you make the common mistake of assuming that post STV Tories will be the same as pre STV. FPTP encourages very broad coalitions between...
  • User AvatarBill le Breton 21st Apr - 6:58am
    This is sentimental nonsense. Mobile resources MUST go to the most marginal seats. Of course the Centre has the canvas returns from its target seats...
  • User AvatarPhilip Thomas 21st Apr - 6:00am
    About 33% of the electorate votes for the Tories. Even under STV, that is a lot of seats. It needs to be at least plausible...
  • User AvatarPhilip Thomas 21st Apr - 5:08am
    @Michael BG Well, if support for giving the vote to more and more people is a mark of a Liberal, my belief in extending the...
Sat 25th Apr 2015