This week’s Call Clegg saw Nick being questioned on everything from Rolf Harris to Iraq and Israel to PMQs. Twice he talked about wanting to reform Westmisnter from top to toe. He also said that he didn’t mind Prince Charles speaking his mind on policy issues, saying that politicians shouldn’t feel pressured to do what he says.
He also had warm words about Susan Gaszczak, who resigned from the party the other day.
Here’s the video of the whole thing, also available here on You Tube)
If you don’t have the whole half hour to spare, you can read my Storify thingy here.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Sausage company launches free rural bus service
Friends of Balgay event on Saturday! #dundeewestend
The "Just War" tradition
Our kids need a lorra, lorra, larffs!!
Joseph Bourke
Matthew Radmore
Roland
Mick Taylor
Katharine Pindar
38 Comments
Well, quite regardless of what happens in the independence referendum in September, Scotland will be gone from the Union within ten years. Next in line will be Wales. I expect Northern Ireland to stay, but obviously Plaid Cymru will be studying very carefully how SNP built their large minority of independence support.
What’s important is what is going to happen in England, and here I think politicians will just plod on until events overtake them. I mean, it’s not like the LibDems are in a position to make any changes.
If you wanted to make changes, your best bet would be to dissolve the party, send the current leadership into political retirement, and hope that the new brand wouldn’t be so toxic to most of the voters. But I don’t see that happening, so the events here in England will go on until we reach the breaking point.
I’m not sure what will happen then. England will turn into an angry, nasty, xenophobic and isolationist enclave in the middle of the Atlantic? Possibly. But it would bring changes.
“Well, quite regardless of what happens in the independence referendum in September, Scotland will be gone from the Union within ten years.”
Why so?
Because Salmond has a 40 % or so minority for independence because of the status of Holyrod.
The main parties have promised a sort of devo-max for Holyrod if there’s a no vote in September.
If they go back on their word, SNP will convince the Scottish that they were right all along and that the reneging of that promise is a dagger in the heart of Scotland. Cue new clamour for independence, and this time with a majority of the Scots behind them.
If the main parties don’t go back on their word, SNP will do what it has been doing all along. The devolution normalised that Scotland is a separate country removed from England’s direct control. Devo max will entrench that, and it will be trivial to argue that after devo-max the last bits of English influence can safely be removed. This might take five or ten years. But it’s going to happen.
So, yeah, unless there’s a federalisation of all of the UK, including breaking up England into regions like Wessex or Northumbria or something, Scotland is gone. Now, in September, or a little bit after that.
I think the step between ‘Devo max’ and becoming an independent country is rather larger than you think.
For example, independent countries have to run their own foreign policy. They have to establish embassies, negotiate treaties, set interest rates (or come up with some other way to insure their financial sector if they don’t have a central bank) and so on.
They have to have their own armies and navies.
All that is not something where you just ‘remove the last bits of English influence’: it’s a massive undertaking (which is why the Scots are now deciding whether they want to go ahead with it).
You can’t set up a whole new country as a ‘minor cleaning-up exercise’.
This illustrates the problems of liberals. 😀 They think that people will sit down and think about things like that. “Oh, we better account for the number of variables in the body of the published proposals presented”. SNP has done a bloody good job of separating out Scotland from England over the last few decades.
Where Scotland used to be a Tory heartland, they have now turned it into a place where the nats are singing the praises of nordic style social democracy. You’ve got to give them credit for that. You don’t have to agree with anything they say or think, but you have to give them credit for that.
They’ve built a minority of at around 40 per cent for that. It is delusional to think that in September 19th they’re going to throw up their hands and think “Oh well, we gave it our best shot. We’ll dismantle ourselves now”. Of course they’ll wait an appropriate amount of time after a no, and then find a pretext to why they should give it another vote. And they’ll continue to build on their minority. And in a few years time that minority is likely to be a majority of the Scots.
And none in that minority will have sat down to think: “Oooh, we’re going to have to sit down and do a detailed study of the cost analysis of independence.” Their feeling is far more likely to be a “Scotland, yeah! Sod the UK. What have they ever done for us anyway? It’s all London!”
I agree with Colin, although he might be over-emphasising the inevitability of the process.
So, would this ‘top yo toe’ re-organisation of Westminster include the cutting of SPAds as promised by the Lib Dems – or the dramatic increase in them as practiced by the Deputy Prime Minister?
Well, the point of me bringing up Scotland was about this posts talk about redoing Westminster. I don’t think that’s going to be done by Westminster. I think that change is going to be forced on Westminster by events; the biggest of which is the independence movement in Scotland.
You’re right that it’s not absolutely inevitable. I think it can be reversed by federalising the UK. I think that if England is broken up into several regions to account for the massive population advantage of London, and each region is given a devolved Parliament – then that might keep Scotland and Wales in over time.
But I don’t see that happening without the massive spanner in the constitutional works that Scotland leaving would bring. The LibDems certainly won’t be leading such a development. I think this is one of the last elections where the LibDems are a national part of the political conversation. After 2015 I think the LibDems will have been wiped out in Scotland and most of England, and will only have some local strongholds left that might yield a ward or a council or the occassional MP.
The constitutional changes will be worked on by the Conservatives and Labour, both of which will have been savaged and weakened. I just hope that the populists won’t drag the country down a path toward isolation and irrelevance.
@ Colin
“I think this is one of the last elections where the LibDems are a national part of the political conversation.”
Well you can kiss goodbye to constitutional change, then. As if the Tories and Labour are going to pursue it for one second.
I think you are totally wrong about the future of the Lib Dems. There is a very clear Liberal Democrat agenda of change and loads of people are going to keep on backing it, despite what you say.
@RC
Well, yeah. Constitutional change won’t come out of Westminster. It will be imposed by events. Labour and the Tories certainly won’t do anything, if they can get away with it. And as for the fate of the LibDems – you only need to look at the local and euro elections to see this party’s likely fate.
You don’t believe that? Okay, that’s your prerogative and right. But every indication – polls, recent elections, etc – show the likely outcome. LibDems will be a regional party with some councils and wards and a drastically reduced number of MPs after the next election. LibDems won’t be a part of any development for change.
And in a few years time that minority is likely to be a majority of the Scots.
No, it isn’t. There’s nothing inevitable about that at all.
The SNP’s electoral success is no indicator of support for independence: rather, it’s that (due to the toxicity of the Conservative brand north of the border) they have become the de facto opposition to Labour in Scotland.
Lots of people who vote SNP would never in a million years want independence (as will become clear in September, when the ‘Yes’ vote will be less than the proportion that the SNP got at the last election).
And there is no evidence that the number of people who want independence is increasing over time, especially as polls of the 16- and 17-year-olds who can vote for the first time in September are against it by quite a large margin (bit of an own goal there by Mr Salmond).
Its worth pointing out that the Inevitability argument has been used lots of times before. Quebec is a good example, a place where seperatists have formed Governments for decades & captured a lot more than half the vote.
The union in Britain is on its last legs. Anyone living north of the border without their Whitehall-issue rose tinted spectacles on can see it.
It is not inevitable, but it requires a rather complete overhaul of the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom to save the union.
Without full fiscal autonomy and a devolution settlement for England that sees Scotland as a member of a partnership of equals, there will be a growing sense in Scotland of a missed opportunity if No wins in September. If the UK is voted out of Europe on the back of a mainly English distaste for the EU, the problem becomes even more difficult. Not even the most rabid Europhobe believes that disconnecting from the EU will come without short-term costs, even if they are sufficiently blinded by fantasy that they think long term benefits will somehow materialise down the line.
So, the worst case scenario is that in ten years time, Scotland will be a member of a UK that is hurting from the immediate impacts of higher tariffs on trade with Europe, casting about with only limited success for replacement markets abroad. It will be going through a rebalancing of its social settlement away from the progressive left ideas more popular in Scotland than elsewhere towards the rightist free market ideas necessary to cut the costs of business in Britain to the levels they need to be at to undercut our new competitors. And it will be run either by Tories or by a Labour party so badly in hock to the few vital swing constituencies in the South East that it might as well be Tory.
The Canada/Quebec comparison is interesting, because it arises from similar driving factors. It is very important to realise though that the No movement in Quebec won on the back of winning support for confederation from people who were neither Quebecois nor Anglo-Canadians, and with the positive feeling generated by economic recovery from recession in 1994. (There’s also some allegations of overspend and corruption, but I’ll look over that for the sake of not having an argument).
Does Scotland have this economic backdrop, does the UK appeal significantly to people who are resident in Scotland but originate elsewhere, and over the coming decade do we foresee the UK and Scotland performing better in terms of economic benefits flowing to the fringe, or do we instead expect to see rocky times of geopolitical realignment and rethinking ahead?
I think you are being a trifle melodramatic.
Jedi — I question your use of “a trifle”.
People keep saying that Scottish people are somehow fundamentally different in outlook to English people, but I don’t see it: in social surveys the English and the Scots give similar answers, and out of Scotland’s six MEPs one is Conservative and one is UKIP.
The Conservative brand may be toxic in Scotland, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t the same number of people with right-wing views as in England.
So yes. Melodramatic is the word.
The UK has survived for centuries by using its constitutional flexibility to overcome challenges by making adjustments as needed, without ever requiring a ‘full constitutional realignment’. There’s no reason why it should not be able to continue dong that for centuries more.
After all, we have a system that we know works, because it has for those centuries. Why would we throw that away and start again with a system that might have unknown consequences?
If your boat springs a leak you patch the leak: you don’t scuttle the ship and start trying to build a new vessel out of the wreckage.
extremely….?
Well NC might get his chance sooner than he had hoped:
Child abuse files lost at Home Office spark fears of cover-up
Calls for ‘overarching, Hillsborough-style’ inquiry as it emerges that a total of 114 documents are missing from official records
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/05/lost-child-abuse-files-home-office
An interesting article from the Independent from Feb 2013:
Tory MP warned of powerful paedophile ring 30 years ago
New evidence supports claim former backbencher’s life was threatened
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tory-mp-warned-of-powerful-paedophile-ring-30-years-ago-8507780.html
I have no doubt NC will be demanding an ‘overarching, Hillsborough-style’ inquiry during his many media appearances – that should really cause Westminster reforms from ‘top to toe’ !
Seems to be a deathly silence on what seems to be a major conspiracy at the heart of government that could shake the very foundations of the Establishment.
No interest from the ‘reforming’ party?
No, very interested, John. I am particularly interested in the area link at the NW end. Why has Rochdale and surrounding area become so pivotal in the sex abuse map? (I suppose I could ask the same question of North Wales). Not only Cyril Smith and more recent Councillor allegations, but the recent multiple trial and convictions of sex abusers in the town. And Geoffrey Dickens, MP for the neighbouring seat and his dossier.
I do not know why these areas have become pivotal. However, I suspect that the children who are abused and brought into this ‘business’ are likely to come from poorer working class backgrounds – as it is these families that are most likely be unable to look after their children and be taken into care.
This is in contrast to the abusers who, I suspect, are more likely to come from public schools whose natural sexual development is more likely to be warped by being cooped up with members of their own sex during puberty and will have had less opportunity to mix with females of their own age than those using the state system.
It does sound an even greater alarm for secret courts that take children away from their natural mothers – it is the kind of set up that could be used to supply more victims.
“This is in contrast to the abusers who, I suspect, are more likely to come from public schools whose natural sexual development is more likely to be warped by being cooped up with members of their own sex during puberty”
Lol.
There are a number of Police investigations into organised Child-Abuse already going on, involving Politicians among others. The big problem with launching some Grand Inquiry is that those Investigations would have to be put on hold, delaying Justice for the victims & making it more likely the Abusers will escape prosecution.
The time for a Major Inquiry will be after the current investigations either come to Trial or are abandoned. Delaying an inquiry by 6 months isnt going to make much difference at this point.
@ John,
Don’t fall into the trap of stereotyping which groups are more likely to be the victims or perpetrators of child abuse. The child abuser comes from a background where they have power and authority over the child and they know that the child’s word will not be accepted over theirs. They will be drawn to occupations where there are children over whom they will be able to exercise this power and authority. It also happens in the family home. By directing our attention to one group, one might fail to note that this abuse might be perpetrated by another group. For example, abusers are not always men. It is one of the last taboos we are confronting that women can be actively engaged in such vile behaviour or collude with it.
I an not an expert in child protection but worked as a volunteer in a children’s home starting as a teen and amongst other things, continued as a volunteer as I moved around the country as as adult. My husband and I also opened our home to children whose biological parents could not parent them. It is as you say, an incredibly serious matter and I hope that at last, more people will accept that this happens. There should be no time limit on prosecutions, children must know that they will be heard and taken seriously.
Someone must have read those files ( even if only out of curiosity), and there must be pressure on government to ensure that the truth comes out.
Seems to be overtaken by child abuse now but when I saw this topic on “On the desire to reform Westminster from “top to toe” I thought ‘ interesting ‘
And when I read in the comment thread “including breaking up England into regions” I thought ‘ very interesting, maybe NC and the Lib Dems are at last back to radical policies that might just help win the next election ‘
To promote a change from the current four state UK, with it’s uneven and eventually unhelpful influence by England and England it’s turn by London and London by Westminster, to a union of more equally devolved regions, would get my vote. Especially if historical England and all it’s legacy could begin to separated from today’s real world.
So, I thought, ‘ maybe some radical policies at last:
• Westminster reform.
• Policies to balance the economy in a way that’s fair to all.
• Policies to tackle immigration that satisfy both Nigel F and Jean-Claude J.
The Lib-Dems can’t loose!’ and I read on with eager anticipation
Alas it wasn’t to be. Instead all I found out was that in the next reformed Westminster Nick Clegg would like to call Nigel Farage “Nige” instead of the “The right honourable . . . ” Quite understandable – but not enough to get my vote. And maybe not enough to get Nick Clegg to call anyone anything
Some interesting stuff about Scottish independence, but there seems to be no consideration of ‘better together’ regarding the UK and the EU. Setting up more boundaries just makes things worse, not better. There will be a parliamentary election in 2016 and there is no indication that the SNP will win again. Scotland is certainly more left wing than England as can be seen by the number of Labour MPs representing Scottish seats at Westminster. Is that an argument for independence?
Being in government and losing every issue isn’t good is it? The man who is to be no more says stuff we should listen to and think about. My opinion which challenges his is [because it’s always the opposite of what he says]: I don’t expect parliamentary structure to change in our lifetimes, voting will remain FPTP, everything will stay as the Tory/Labour duopoly wishes, the English regions will not get regional parliaments, the LibDems will divide into neo-Tories and true LibDems, the Greens will replace the LibDems as 4th in elections both locally and nationally, many of us will join the Greens for a while then form the new True Liberal Democrat Party, Mr Clegg will become a Tory MP or disappear into history.
These are merely guesses but at least they are more likely than what is being fed to us from the leadership. Wait and see!
Dav, Jedi, Malcolm
With complacency like that, Colin’s sense of inevitability starts to look more credible.
The simple fact is that the boat has been leaking for decades, but nothing has been done. Constitutional tories like you lot keep insisting that everything’s fine, that the system will somehow just magically deliver exactly the minimum amount of change and no more, and that anyone who argues for said change is either melodramatic or some sort of closet foreigner who ought to move to Germany, as Dav suggested in another thread.
The real record of British rule for the past century is of fringe populations drifting away as a result of the unwillingness of the metropole to reform and represent those areas equally. What we’re seeing now is a second act to the drama surrounding the Statute of Westminster, seen at the time and in retrospect as a failure to build a more confederal union out of the old empire.
@ Jedibeeftrix & Jayne Mansfield
‘lol’ & ‘Don’t fall into the trap of stereotyping which groups are more likely to be the victims or perpetrators of child abuse. The child abuser comes from a background where they have power and authority over the child and they know that the child’s word will not be accepted over theirs.’
‘I suspect’ I think indicates that I have not a closed mind on the issue. However, from what we know so far, it does appear that this issue is one that impacts mostly on the Tories – those most likely to have gone to public school of the three main parties.
Desire for warped sexual activity invariable stems from unnatural childhood experiences – these will often ingrain an individuals sexual desires for the rest of their lives.
Cooping boys together, without regular interaction with girls of the same age, seems an unnatural childhood experience to me. However, I do acknowledge that public school is not the only way such unnatural experiences can take place.
@paul barker
‘There are a number of Police investigations into organised Child-Abuse already going on, involving Politicians among others. The big problem with launching some Grand Inquiry is that those Investigations would have to be put on hold, delaying Justice for the victims & making it more likely the Abusers will escape prosecution.’
I don’t see why the two should not run concurrently and since there is already some evidence that the police might have aided in the cover ups to date – transparency is now a vital component to any investigations. I suspect the reason that 130 MPs have backed calls for an overarching inquiry into the matter is that without such openness these powerful individuals will be able to sweep the matter under the carpet again!
From NC’s point of view, it seems to me that it would be wise if he also backed these calls with the Party already under pressure to name those who knew of Cyril Smith’s activities – but remained silent. Backing an overarching inquiry would also help him to avoid suggestions of guilt by association as appeared in a recent article in the Daily Mirror.
‘And shadow crime minister Diana Johnson insisted: “A proper investigation is needed into these allegations.”
Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, has written to the Home Office demanding answers.
But Deputy Prime Minister Mr Clegg, who once worked for Lord Brittan in Brussels, ignored talk of an inquiry, saying said: “I just want the truth to come out and justice to be done.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nick-clegg-dismisses-calls-inquiry-3806172
T-J
“With complacency like that, Colin’s sense of inevitability starts to look more credible. ”
Yes, because the only alternative view to “The union in Britain is on its last legs. Anyone living north of the border without their Whitehall-issue rose tinted spectacles on can see it.” must be “complacency” of “Constitutional tories”. Isn’t it complacent to assume that the only people who don’t share your apparent belief that we are living in the End Times of the UK must be “Constitutional Tories”? For what it’s worth, I’m not any sort of Tory; I’m just not any sort of nationalist.
As for “complacent” — well, that word is only applicable to those who are comfortably assuming that their side will win. Certainly, I believe that Scotland will vote No, and that the only question is the margin (which I think will be quite high, but perhaps not high enough to kill the issue as dead as AV). But I don’t actually have a side in the argument — it’s 30 years since I left Scotland and I doubt I shall ever live there again; and whilst I care what happens to the country, I don’t think whether or not it is independent from the UK will make a huge heap of difference, at least for the next 50–100 years.
As for the UK — there’s plenty I’d like to see changed; but that doesn’t mean I think it’s likely or that it will be a catastrophe if it doesn’t happen. A little historical perspective is in order, I think.
I don’t see you calling out our europhobe commentators on melodramatic predictions of the end of the beginning of the beginning of the end for Europe, Malcolm. But, you want a little historical perspective? We’re in early July, how’s this: That silly little colonial revolt over in Boston will never amount to anything.
If you’ve been away for 30 years, you’ve missed a whole lot of subtle and careful construction of a nationalist conversation that owes very little to the sort of blood and soil flagwaving of past nationalistic movements and that only vaguely resembles the modern jingoism in its most fringe members. It is a movement that is as popular if not more so with newly-settled residents and that has been so very careful to avoid race or any such baggage. Unlike certain other separatist movements we could talk about.
My view is that preventing independence in Scotland, either in September or in second referendum within the next three political cycles or so,requires a rethink of Britain’s constitutional settlement with significant autonomy for sub-union governments. I also think that if left to the status quo, the union here is on its last legs and facing obsolescence in a changing world.
September is likely to deliver a No vote, but without real change delivering real opportunity for devolved governments to tailor policy to fit the needs of their areas, there’ll be another vote and the union will lose it. And if we end up seeing England voting the union out of Europe, we will get an economic downturn in the short-term, followed by controversial mid to long-term effects that I believe will be almost exclusively negative. People will not judge the UK kindly for this.
If you want to dismiss myconcerns as melodrama and argue that business as usual is just what we’re going to get whether I like it or not, well, that’s not really much of an offer, is it?
Although this thread is not directly linked to the alleged Westminster paedophile ring, in practical terms – proof that such a ring existed and perhaps even still exists today – is the most likely way that a ‘top to toe’ reform of Westminster will take place.
Only in NC’s fanciful world where he, continuing as leader, and the Party remains part of the government after the next GE and that his coalition partners take any notice of what he says – are such changes possible.
Included in NC’s imaginary world is that it is better that the police are allowed to complete their investigations into any such paedophile ring rather than an overarching inquiry set up to ensure transparency.
This article from the Independent helps to prove that an inquiry is needed as it has emerged that a copy of the Dickens’ file was also passed to the DPP!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/westminster-child-abuse-exclusive-geoffrey-dickens-also-gave-copy-of-file-to-top-prosecutor-sir-thomas-hetherington–so-why-did-dpp-also-fail-to-act-on-evidence-of-paedophile-ring-9588112.html
No doubt a number of LDV articles will start appearing here shortly, on this important issue, where developments can be discussed without interrupting debate on NC’s fantasies!
@ John Roffey
It seems that the Chancellor is saying (from China) that Mrs May will have to announce an overarching inquiry in the HoC later.
If so, NC has backed the wrong horse yet again.
@John Roffey
Although I’m no expert, I would say the Jayne Mansfield comment about making (or even suspecting) that these are the causes is quite dangerous. There have been ongoing issues within the political sphere for a very long time, it’s just that they don’t seem to make the headlines in large media outlets (papers, BBC etc). Although written by someone who obviously has no love for the Labour Party (so he only concentrates on them), you can see from reports at http://labour25.com/ that it also happens at all levels of Government.
It should also be remembered that it is unlikely that senior ministers could gain access to (for instance) childrens homes without a corrupt gate keeper. A paedophile gate keeper probably wouldn’t care if a senior minister wore a red/blue/yellow rossette, but may care that such a person could provide some top level protection.
@Chris_sh
I did acknowledge that it was not just public schools that created an unnatural environment – those that were likely to create a lifelong warped approach to sexual activity. I also recognize that Jayne is someone who has been prepared to take a practical approach and in so doing make a real difference in the young people’s lives who have suffered as a result – so I see that we are on the same side.
As you may have seen, there is now serious concerns over young boys [in particular] viewing hardcore pornography on the internet and then performing similar acts on younger girls – often family members.
Why I made the point about these ‘preferences’ becoming ingrained during childhood is that children’s minds are blank canvasses – which is excellent if those who are their guardians paint decent values – but is likely to be disastrous if warped values are inscribed.
Lets be honest – there must be hundreds of thousands of boys [if not millions] whose first introduction to matters sexual have been through hardcore sex on the internet. Each will have great difficulty revising their attitude to sex if they are not given long-term and dedicated help – if affection is to be part of their sexual desires.
@ John Roffey,
I’m sorry if you thought that I was being critical of you, that wasn’t my intention at all. I was jsut sharing what I know from experience.
One poster made a ‘snotty’ comment about the thread being taken over by the subject of child abuse, but we were directed to the video where the first question related to the current allegations about child abuse and the possibility of a cover up to protect the establishment, and the second question was about the late Cyril Smith. If Nick Clegg wants to reform Westminster from top to toe, in my opinion, he should start by ensuring that there is a judge- led public enquiry, anything less will be seen as a whitewash and a sign of ‘business as usual’..
I hope that for all those children who have suffered in silence, this will be a watershed moment.
including breaking up England into regions like Wessex or Northumbria or something
You do realise that English people don’t want to be broken up into regions, right? They only time it was actually put to a vote it was roundly rejected, and that was with the government of the day pushing it.
And it’s no hard to see why: where I live in England, there is a parish council and above that a district council and above that a county council… I, and I suspect every other resident who doesn’t have political ambitions (for whom more level of government mean more chances to get elected, of course) would sooner see at least one of those levels of bureaucracy and ego-stroking abolished than add yet another (which we of course would have to pay for, probably in a new ‘regional income tax’).