Nick Clegg has hit back at attacks on the coalition and media suggestions that he ‘gaffed’ by terming the Iraq war illegal during Prime Minister’s Questions this week.
In an interview for Channel 4 News following his ‘Nick Clegg meets’ session in Oxfordshire this afternoon, Nick comments on the coalition:
… when you do something new, in politics as much as in any other walk of life, of course people are going to react against it and say: ‘I prefer the old way, I think this isn’t going to work’. And of course you get that in both parties, Conservative and Liberal Democrat. I think it would be more suprising if there was not a ripple of anxiety across both parties. People will always come up with interesting ways to describe the coalition – some flattering and some not so. Of course it’s important in any colaiton that the people at the top know how to work together, but it’s a partnership government.”
And has this to say about his labelling of the Iraq war as illegal:
It was quite obvious to anyone outside the slightly odd world of Westminster that what I was doing was repeating something about which I have strong personal views in a way that wasn’t binding on the government as a whole.
You can watch the interview here:
The Channel 4 News report and partial transcript is available here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"The old savage England": D.H. Lawrence visits the Stiperstones
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Nonconformistradical
Henry
Daniel Walker
David Raw
16 Comments
I like it. Is this the start of Nick’s attempts to ensure we remain a distinctive voice amidst the coalition morass?
He is getting better at combative explaining – more please!
We were reminded of the unpalatable alternative during the televised ‘meet Nick’, Sky News interviewed Labour MP Denis MacShane who regurgitated a diatribe of scorn, presumably in the hope that now one listening had a brain and threw up the comment that Nick had destroyed Sheffield Forgemasters. He was out electioneering for a Rotherham MBC byelection for Sitwell Ward at the time and presumably rolled that cherry out to electors there – again hoping they were brain dead too!
Nick has been consistent and done the Country a service in leading an articulated,distinctive and combative voice in opposition to Iraq and now as the indispensable part of the `Coalition Government’ he has demonstrated what that part believes .
The more the Liberal Democrats are seen as a distinct voice within the coalition — even when it’s a losing fight — the better it is for the party and the nation. And while it’s not to be expected that the Deputy Prime Minister should spend his time tearing down the Prime Minister, this Coalition — being a Coalition — should not be expected to work by the same lockstepped methods of previous one-party governments.
It’s going to take a lot to convince me that he did anything different from what he generally does – speaking without thinking.
Labour are milking the Sheffield Forgemasters thing to death all over South Yorkshire. Personally I think Nicks explanation stands up, and I understand the loan was for developing steel for new nuclear power stations, which we don’t want to build anyway!
Some of us on this site having been arguing for a shift in the way the party presents itself. Notably Ben Johnson in https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-the-lib-dems-need-a-better-communications-strategy-20322.html
I think this interview is an encouraging early sign that there is a shift.
The so-called gaffe over Iraq is, in my opinion, anything but.
Having read the reaction on Conservative Home, I’m pretty sure the Tories were no more worried about it than George Osborne – so it looks like it’s causing no problem for the coalition. Jack Straw and Labour didn’t like it, but that’s hardly a problem. The press have been jumping up and down, but selling newspapers and boosting viewing figures is their job, so fair enough.
Among the general public, it’ll have little impact, except as a useful reminder that Lib Dems and Tories have strongly held different opinions on some issues.
But mainly, I think, Nick Clegg was laying down a marker. That while he will defend the coalition, he will promote different values to the Conservatives.
Just as significant is the recent suggestion that Lib Dem and Conservative ministers are openly discussing how the different parties can communicate their different values –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/22/tory-lib-dem-coalition-cabinet .
These are only early steps in a recalibration of the way the Lib Dems present different values, but I think they are in the right direction.
Anthony Aloysius St is right. This wasn’t premeditated. On the other hand, speaking off the cuff this way is part of Nick’s appeal, and it’s encouraging that he doesn’t feel the need to retract the remark.
@Paul Griffiths
In my opinion, watching it again, Nick is very precise. He sets it up well with the preceding thought about being held to account, and then delivers the punch line. It is slow, executed well, and therefore feels a little planned. He certainly doesn’t look flustered or under pressure. He looks like he had been waiting for the final question all along so he could say it with no come backs.
In reality though, it doesn’t matter whether he thought it up days before, whether he thought it up while sitting in the hotseat to give him a good note to finish on, or just rattled off a stream of consciousness in the heat of the argument. It’s turned out well, and sticking by it rather than toadying away like Cabinet ministers who speak their mind usually have to do is very refreshing, and will only help us as a party if we can have a handful of similar incidents in the future.
And, by the way, William Hague and George Osborne’s instant facial reactions are priceless and suggests at least they didn’t know it was coming. Hague looks like he’s saying, “Shit!” in his head, while Osborne is calculating what the right response is and ends up looking rather amused. Sadly, we don’t see why he starts pointing at the other side…
http://beta.bbc.co.uk/i/t67wg/?t=17m45s
He is expressing and sticking to a “long held view”.
Well at least there is one long held view he is sticking with, funny how it is the one that is essentially over and he can do nothing about. When there is something he can do something about (eg VAT etc) he doesn’t seem to apply the same rules.
I wonder why?
One of the very few cogent arguments against voting reform, and hence more representative parliaments, and hence a greater propensity for coalition governments, is that it risks giving the minority coalition partner disproportionate influence on the legislative agenda; colloquially: “the tail wagging the dog”.
I think it is understandable, therefore, that Nick should be wary of giving credence to accusations of dogwaggery by not attempting to overplay his hand, especially in the first few months. Bluntly, we may have the opportunity to bugger the Tories’ policies, but we don’t have the mandate.
If (and I concede it is not certain) confidence grows in the viability and effectiveness of the coalition, my hope is that Lib Dem influence will increase organically.
Personally I think Nicks explanation stands up
Which one?
I didn’t find Clegg’s remarks unusual. The party of appeasement has always held the view that the Iraq war was illegal. What I do find much more extraordinary is that the Lib Dems who are so anti-American and anti-Israeli are in a coalition with the Tories who are such strong supporters of those two countries.
Clegg: I’m not apologising for calling the Iraq war illegal
But his boss Number 10 has, on his behalf.
@Paul Griffiths. “The tail wagging the dog” argument only makes sense to politicians of Labour and Tory who want total power regardless of how many votes they have. The truth is that if you have more MPs than your junior partner then you have more influence. Whether you use it depends on how good your leadership is.
@MacK It amazes me that there are still people around who think invading Iraq was a good idea!
I do not think that Nick is an International lawyer neither will the Chilcott enquiry pronounce on the legality of the Iraq War. It might state that there are grounds for disputing its legality BUT if so that is nothing new. There will always be people who conclude one way or another. The question for Nick is, what does the British Government do when confrionted with a country that threatens the peace and which rejects its authority, when one or more countries acting in their own national interest veto action. Is it all down to the USA? Do we wish NATO to act or do we supinely mutter and do nothing. Let us hope he is not around when the issue comes up. Say Iran? Do we do nothing when all diplomatic means are exhausted ? We might ask him to growup and throw his toys in another direction.