Today Tom Baldwin in The Times reports on its exciting persistent investigative journalism into the party’s “triple lock” rule for deals with other parties:
The exact wording of this rule, disclosed only after repeated inquiries to Liberal Democrats headquarters this week, sets a high bar for clearing “any substantial proposal which could affect the party’s independence of political action”.
A pedant would point out that it was “disclosed” here back in November. Then it was Steve Richards I took to task (for calling the rule – which was debated in public at party conference – “secret”).
Perhaps you should add us …
Well, no, it’s probably not. But it must at least qualify for the laziest piece of journalism this decade. I refer to today’s Independent article, ‘Clegg faces party backlash over Tory alliance’, by Nigel Morris and Michael Savage. Oh, go on, then, here’s a link if you must; though I begrudge handing them the traffic. The opening para gives a flavour of the kite-flying, unsourced speculation:
Nick Clegg faces a backlash from grassroots Liberal Democrats if he moves his party too close to the Conservatives in a hung parliament.
Well, yes, he probably would. Which is why he won’t. Unless the …
We now know the UK will see its first ever televised debates between the leaders of the three major UK-wide parties in the run-up to the 2010 general election. The consenus is there have been two winners: Sky News, which, with brilliant audacity, put the issue front and centre, and by so doing ensured that (i) the debates will happen, and (ii) it muscled in on the act, instead of being excluded by the BBC and ITV. (There’s a lesson there for Channel 4, which had been comprehensively outmanoeuvred).
The second winner, according to the commentariat, is Nick Clegg. Here’s Andrew …
That’s the question the Indy’s Steve Richards asks in a persuasively argued column today:
David Cameron’s leadership of his party is often compared with Tony Blair’s during the period up to the 1997 election. … The comparison is one of the most misleading in British politics. … [Cameron is heading] for the election leading a party that proposes tax cuts for the well-off and married couples, massive spending cuts whether or not Britain is out of recession, withdrawal from the social chapter and a renegotiation of the Lisbon Treaty. … The trajectory of Cameron’s leadership is much closer to another former leader. He might have tried to learn from the New Labour guidebooks on how to win elections, but inadvertently he has followed more closely the course adopted by one of his own recent predecessors. …
Both Hague and Cameron are outstanding parliamentary performers, witty and quick to exploit the weaknesses of political opponents. Both are calm under fire. Both started to shift their positions when they appointed press secretaries to advise them on the media. Amanda Platell urged Hague to adopt more right-wing and populist policies. Andy Coulson has sometimes advised Cameron to do the same on issues such as immigration, crime and tax cuts.
Since yesterday, in fact. Because in an otherwise thoughtful piece on hung Parliaments in The Independent, Steve Richards made this comment:
If there is a hung parliament there will almost certainly be no formal coalition government, even if Nick Clegg and Vince Cable would like to join one. Clegg is trapped by what is known as his party’s “triple lock”, a hidden rule that might become of vital relevance. Before entering a coalition he is bound to secure the agreement of his MPs, other national representatives and the membership.
Credit to Steve Richards for knowing about this rule. But “hidden”? It …
A week ago, Damian McBride was still the Prime Minister’s chief media advisor, and LabourList’s Derek Draper was attempting to laugh off as blokeish banter the emails which implicated Number 10 in smears against senior Tories. But, then, we know what they say about a week in politics.
Paul Staines, sole author of the Guido Fawkes’ blog, has had a good week, given ample, respectable print space to repeat a central point he’s been making for years: that those political journalists who are part of the ‘lobby’ system have failed democracy:
Though the fourth estate may not have a formal
…
There’s an interesting article by The Independent’s Steve Richards today, focusing – as the media does every three months or so – on the prospect of a ‘Hung Parliament’, and what the Lib Dems would do in such an eventuality.
Actually the article’s a bit broader than that, and I can’t let the opportunity pass without briefly digressing to agree wholeheartedly with his snipe at the Tories’ two key initiatives of the past week: David Cameron’s ‘apology’ for failing to anticipate the economic crisis until way too late (Steve accuses the Tories of “still playing student-like games”); and yesterday’s …
Why, they all feature in the same sentence in the excellent piece from Steve Richards on the Labour leadership rumblings of course.
I went to the one-day Lib Dem policy conference at the London School of Economics at the weekend. As a fairly new member of the Lib Dems (I joined a few months ago) I was curious to see what happens at these sort of events and was also looking forward to it. I attended with Darren, a fellow member of my local constituency branch in Bracknell, who has been a member for a while longer than myself.
The first thing that struck me was how open everything was. The 300 or so people who were there, who included councillors, …
A year ago, Lib Dem Voice posed 10 questions, the answers to which we believed might shape the Lib Dem year – time to revisit them, wethinks.
1. Will Nick Clegg become as well-known and respected/liked as Paddy and Charles became?
Well, not in his first year, he hasn’t – as Nick himself fully acknowleged yesterday, commenting: “This is my first year in the leadership, I have enjoyed it immensely. I also know that I am in the early stages of my leadership. If you look back in history it takes a while for all Liberal Democrat leaders to get …
Lib Dem Voice has devoted some space this week to our Media Moron Watch – so let’s redress the balance and highlight a handful of articles which have attempted fair analyses of Nick Clegg’s speech and the Liberal Democrat conference. A couple are pretty positive, a couple less so: but they’re all thoughtful:
First up, the Indy’s Steve Richards, who concurs with yesterday’s LDV view that Bournemouth 2008 was a sucessful conference:
Against the odds, the Liberal Democrats have held a successful conference. Tumultuous events elsewhere meant media attention was limited, but they managed still to convey, with some success, a new message. They wish to be seen as Britain’s new radical tax-cutting party, one that is still committed to social justice. The fact that the message got anywhere at all was remarkable, as they have yet to offer any precise details about how they will cut the overall amount paid in tax. Nonetheless, they have conveyed the same message to themselves as well, the equivalent of conjurors falling for their own trick. … [The party] needs to send out signals in what for them is a highly complex and changed political situation, needing to defend themselves against a more popular Conservative party while seeking to make the most of a decline in support for Labour. At the broadest strategic level, they have pulled it off, with an offer of tax cuts while retaining a commitment to social justice.
They have done it in such a way to make nonsense of claims that the party is moving rightwards. There were two challenges for Nick Clegg as he delivered his first address to the party conference. One related to a question of style. Could he pull off the daunting task of delivering a big speech at his annual conference? The answer was an unequivocal “Yes”. He looked at ease as he wandered around the stage aided by the invisible autocue.
In terms of substance, he more or less pulled it off as well, stressing that he was as committed to social justice as previous leaders and yet outlining a distinctive pitch far removed from the Conservatives and Labour in its current plight. On the stage, although not in all the interviews he has given this week, he looked entirely comfortable, much more so than his immediate predecessors.
These generally warm words are echoed by the Indy’s editorial:
Nick Clegg has been interviewed by Steve Richards for this Sunday’s GMTV, as Chris Huhne was last week.
I’ve been sent the full transcript, and it looks, on first reading, like the first real stumble by Nick in his campaign so far. Judge for yourselves below, as I’ve filleted some of the key passages. Of course, what won’t come across when you read it is Nick’s emphasis or body language – which might make his meaning clearer, and his performance more impressive. After all, politicians are judged not just by what they say, but also how they say it.
The real question, as James Graham has already noted in his preview, is why Nick didn’t have a much clearer answer ready for the obvious question, ‘How do you pay for your pupil premium?’ Because ‘Er, yes, there’s a black hole’ just ain’t good enough.
Other issues covered below include:
- whether he was attacking Chris Huhne by saying the party needed to communicate better its ‘green tax switch’ proposals;
- whether the campaign has got nasty; and
- is he going to win the contest?
Also covered in the full interview – this Sunday, 9 am – are questions to Nick about the Government’s proposals for increasing the number of days suspects can be detained without charge, and on a referendum for the European Reform Treaty.
Interview transcript extracts follow:
An email from GMTV’s Sunday Programme pings into my inbox with the transcript of Steve Richards’ interview with Lib Dem leadership contender, Chris Huhne. Here’s a few snippets to whet your appetites. (The full interview will be broadcast this Sunday morning).
On Chris’s comment that the Lib Dems mustn’t become a third Tory party:
CH: What I see in British politics, which I think is very disappointing to a lot of people, is a sudden Gaderene rush towards the same solutions being offered by all of the different political parties, and there will not be a future for the Liberal Democrats unless we’re prepared to stand outside that consensus and say where it’s failing and why the political process is held in such disrespect and disillusion, frankly, by so many people, and I think we’ve got to re-inject into our message that sense of being the anti-establishment party that actually wants to change the whole system, not just change the ministerial faces on the back seat of the limousine, and if we are there as just seen as another potential participant in another consensus government of blancmange, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, we’re not going to make any progress.
On what distinguishes his candidacy from Nick Clegg’s:
CH: Well, I just think that from that point of view we’re both energetic, we’ve both got a lot of verve and vigour, and I think that if you look at the track record, and I think that many, many people have said that the party could do well with either of us, and I certainly think that Nick would make an excellent leader. My position is simply, not this time. So I think that we’ve got great opportunities, but I think that we need to have clear dividing lines from the Tories, clear dividing lines from Labour, and not get sucked into a cosy consensus on things for example like use of market solutions, where they don’t work in public services.
On whether he’s the ‘left-wing’ leadership candidate:
Tory leader David Cameron found himself on slippery terrain today when giving his monthly press conference to journalists. The question repeatedly asked was straightforward enough: the Tories have committed to holding a referendum on the EU reform treaty – will that commitment hold true if the treaty is ratified, and they should find themselves in government?
Mr Cameron’s answer? He had none, pleading the politician’s equivalent of the Fifth Amendment – that he won’t answer hypothetical questions. Here’s how the BBC’s Nick Robinson described Dave’s defence:
What do we want? Power to the people. When do we want it? Now
…
Stephen and I have been around conference and – armed with his camera and my brazen cheek – managed to put four quick questions to top Lib Dem MPs, Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg.
At last night’s Independent fringe, Steve Richards chaired a meeting at which the pair were the only speakers. While they have spoken from the same fringe platform before, the crafty Indy hacks had asked only the two of them. (Something they seem to have forgotten to mention to either Nick or Chris when inviting them.) This was therefore billed by the paper as the first-ever live …
Election Day -47: almost Marathon time
Michael Connarty Reponse on Digital Economy Bill
Oi, SNP, leave Scotland's saltire alone - it isn't your's!
Postal voting: police to get tough over Code of Conduct
Better battery recycling in Haringey
In which I know more about something in Sally Bercow's council ward than she does...
The Chocolate Cat Caper: a light and pleasant treat
Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe - "I'll be voting Lib Dem"
Pollwatch - State of the Parties: Lib Dems 18%, Labour 31%, Tories 38% (Mar. 2010 so far)
Anna was porn for the job
