There’s an in-depth, wide-ranging and pretty frank interview with Nick Clegg in The Guardian today, in which he defends the coalition, assures those Lib Dem activists worried by the budget cuts that they are “not driven by some ideological zeal”, and attacks Labour for its failure to recognise that coalitions are here to stay: “Something very, very big is happening in politics.”
Here are some of the juiciest Clegg-bites:
On the coalition:
[it] is not an aberration, but a natural consequence of what has been happening for years, which is a loosening of the old tribal ties between the old parties and their supporters. Something very, very big is happening in politics. I think what we are entering into is a permanent move to greater pluralism, diversity, and fluidity in politics that does not settle down to one associated pattern between parties”
On Labour’s tribal knee-jerk to the coalition:
There is a Labour assumption that this coalition is an unnatural act, and all we have to do is put it back in a box, and carry on as before. I really think they are missing something much more profound. That is why people out there, as opposed to the Westminster village, are warming as much as they are to the coalition. That is a deep change in the way people regard politics psychologically. … Collective bile is not a political strategy. Labour has been enveloped by a synthetic rage about spending cuts.”
On the spending cuts announced in the coalition budget:
We will have to explain to the public over and over again that this is not driven by some ideological zeal. The idea that this is some libertarian drive to destroy the state is completely absurd. … You have a choice at the end of the day: do you want your government to try and sort out this mess or do you want faceless people in the bond market to force it upon you?… [it would have been an] act of cowardice, socially deeply unjust and an abdication of political and moral responsibility not to have gripped the crisis.”
On the Alternative Vote referendum campaign:
I will not be the lead proponent or figurehead in the referendum. I hope it is something that will excite people from beyond politics – academics and celebrities, but also people from all different parties.”
There are further quotes in Patrick Wintour’s blog account of the interview for the paper …
On the coalition government’s liberal-progressive direction:
Civil liberties, political renewal, devolution of power, green sustainability: all are being achieved at a pace, and with a radicalism, that Labour did not manage in 13 years.”
On the Labour leadership contest:
A leadership contest for any political party, especially a political party that has just lost an election, should be a time of great creativity, asking very difficult questions, reconciling a party to why it has failed, thinking the unthinkable.
“Instead what has happened, it seems to me, is that all the leadership candidates have rushed to a comfort zone of collective bile and vitriol. Collective bile is not a strategy, collective vitriol is not a means to political renewal. I know they want to vilify me and the Liberal Democrats, but they have got to understand something very, very big is happening: a very big shift in politics is going on.
“I know it is a comforting thing to yell at your opponents, but the Labour party needs to ask itself some searching questions about what has hapened to itself, and why it is appearing as a backstop to progress in so many issues of progress. I hope the Labour Party realises that it is at a fork in the road.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Tristan Ward
cim
Tim Boura
Jenny Barnes
31 Comments
We’re doing this again? Yeeeeeeeha!
This appears however to be a tory not a coalition govt.
I’m not sold on the notion that big changes are happening – so far it just looks like putting right all the things Labour did wrong, and getting back to business as usual – but I’d be quite happy to see him deliver on that one.
He’s right about Labour though.
what surprises me is the lack of bile you (mr clegg) have done a deal with the devil.
there does seem to be some distaste and hatred growing towards you (mr Clegg) and the section of the party responsable for this thatcherite government.
that said some of the bile you attribute to labour is coming from other quarters
I have a certain amount of bile towards this government and it is born of the belief that it is in a sense unconstitutional or at least bad for the constitution .
The recent u turn on dissolution holds a clue here, it is the supremacy of parliament that was asserted here parliament did not allow for a right it had to be taken away, it did this through forcing the coalition to back down, the argument won the day.
The route of power here is that the government in formulating policy, legislation, and implementing it is accountable to the electorate and that power is held on behalf of these people by representatives. Now it is difficult with parties that have leaders and this is made harder when you have a queasy presidential system, does that make nick Clegg vice president, never mind the difficulty is that a broad party is represented by one person. That this one person has been allowed to drag the partyin a direction not reflective of the entire membership.
So we move on to a coalition more importantly this one, looking at it it represents a large amount of the electorate and is legitimized by that, yet it can only be if the above is done that is a government in line with the wishes of the electorate, with policies reflective of the wishes of the electorate. Now there is no doubt that there are policies being followed that are broadly in line with one section of thew Lib Dem party and governance in line with that, however I would say that as is emerging these policies are not inline with large sections of the lib dem party.
Now when I stand back and look at the Tory party I actually see non Thatchrite Tories who remain silent on the cuts and whom may not of been elected to behave like the current thatcherite gov we have, I see a large left of centre block of Lib dem voters who are being non represented by this gov and a small sized but significant Tory minority that are not being represented fully by this gov. It is a bad postion it is one that is not reflective of the people and is bad for the constitution of the country in the same way as all non representative governments are, in the same way as thatcher was.
Sure more representative gov can get things wrong have done will do again but this is bad for our constitution
Now it may be argued and yes there is merit, that you can not please all thepeople, that the party is a broad church, however what is emerging I put to you is a possition where sections of both the LD and Tory party are being rode roughshod over, are being ignored and are not being reflected in the Governance, the currant example being Education policy.
@tony – I’m surprised you’ve made the mistake on dissolution. Previously, parliament never had the right or ability to dissolve itself (if you disagree, please give just one example any time in history where MPs have voted to dissolve parliament). The original and current, modified, proposals give Paliament that right for the first time.
Nick Clegg’s article in the Guardian is highly revealing. It is a case of, ‘Goodbye Lib Dems!’ Members will be interested that – it would appear – there are no big differences between the party and the Tories; or, to be fair, no difference that cannot be bridged over a cup of tea with your chums.
There is a history to formal Coalitions and the lessons are always there: the Tories have no difficulty in assimilating the views of Liberals when they feel a need to broaden their appeal but when the need passes it is a case of ‘Goodbye chums except for those who know us best. Do feel free to join the Liberal Conservatives.’ This i a title that lasts for a Parliament. Nick is very, very ambitious. Why should he not lead a Liberal Conservative Party? Can you imagine him the leader of a Coalition Government?
In the House of Commons Nick is treated with a degree of contempt. Members know where he has come from and where he hopes to be. Move over David?
Labour deserve to be out of power for a generation. They show no remorse for what they have caused, they actually have the audacity to blame others for what is happening. For so many Liberals the idea of any deal with these people was absolutely unthinkable, and will remain so for many years until the current generation is passed.
Except there was no u-turn. The original proposal was actually strengthened by (rightly) raising the dissolution threshold from 55% to 66%. It was never the intention to change the threshold for votes of confidence and although timeouts weren’t explicity mentioned in the coalition agreement they were certainly implied. I don’t think much of the media or many MPs really understood this. Despite the fact that this is the way fixed term parliaments work the world over – including in Scotland.
@ Iain Roberts
in an unwritten constitution it is not the fact that there is a written right, but the fact thaty as an intended consequance a de facto disolving of parliment is obtained by a clear application of the constition ie 1979 no confidance vote leading to the queen disolving parliment in line with the constitution as was at that trime.
…unless an alternative government could be formed from the current parliament, as was the case in 1924 after confidence in Baldwin’s government was withdrawn. Only the Prime Minister can advise the Queen to dissolve parliament and the Queen should not act without his advice. Parliament has never had the power to dissolve itself.
It will be interesting to see the constitutional mechanism by which this is implemented. It’s not clear that this will be a new power for parliament to dissolve itself, or whether it will simply be a restraint on the prime minister. I.E will the prime minister have to seek the permission of parliament to dissolve or can parliament initiate a dissolution vote and bind the Queen? I think it’s most likely to be the former as it requires the least constitutional upheaval.
@johnr
firstly it is an aquired power and is aqured post over time with the present formation and convention being post War.
secondly the point in response to you was that there was a u turn
thirdly the point re this u turn is that it was forced in order to protect the aqured power of parlimant
fourthly it was an example to the main point that the dillution of repesentation to a narrow segment of the peeple represented by the LD and to a lesser extent the Tory party is bad for democracy and bad for the constitution, that this is due to the adoption of policies that are thatchrite in nature when clearly people (or not enough of them) actually wanted this.
It is in my view a p’ll to the 80’s and will be equally devisive, during that period the constition asserted itself via the people reverting to democracy by riot, what response this time round I do not know but just sitting and takeing it I think not.
@tony – “Now it is difficult with parties that have leaders and this is made harder when you have a queasy presidential system.”
I think you try to sound queasy intellectual, but are let down by being seamy literate.
The combined vote of the two big Parties has been in steady decline for 60 years. Unless that trend goes into reverse then the chance of getting a one-Party majority goes down with every Election. If Labour really want to be in Goverment they need a two-track strategy, winning the most seats & making themselves an attractive partner to the Libdems, more attractive than the Tories.The longer that Labour keep up their present strop the harder their task will be.
@paul I admit my bile towards this Gov umm your bile is to who?
now apart from being the spelling and grammer police (yawn) your point is that the gov can be viewed as being representative of the two broad church parties it is made up of is it?
that would be the opposite of what I am saying (however clumsely)
I’m still waiting for an example of bilious and unbridled hatred from the leadership contenders. Nearly 300 replies in that thread and not one example.
And I really don’t think Clegg should be lecturing the Labour party. He’s flying high from being allowed to sit at the big boy’s table for a change but his arrogance now will look like a bad joke in two years time.
@paul
dream on.
The shift in your party leadership means that the centre left has been given to Labour wrapped up in a nice red bow.
the idea that labour has to do anything in the way of deal making with the Thatcher party mark two is unreal, they are not going to change in to the thatcher party mark three New labour was as far to the right as they will go and that was still a long way to the left of where LD party is, any movement will I think have to come from the Ld party not labour.
Labour most be confidant of doing better (signifacantly) next time, also why are the leadrers of the LD party spining this Hate line coming from Lab when the hate is coming from LD voters and Floating voters.
Of course he is right that as a long term strategy it will be a disaster for Labour (my party) but in the short term it appears to be working well: byelection results are good, there must be a good chance of outright Labour majorities in both Scotland and Wales next year and your party’s electoral base in the North of England is seriously under threat.
The fact that you keep remarking on it here suggests it is hurting.
That said, the danger for Labour is that they see this not as a tactic but as a strategy.
Pots and Kettles!
Nick Clegg said at the Yorkshire Post question Time event (19 March 2010):
“The decision on how we govern this country and how people vote shouldn’t be driven by fear of what the markets might do. Let’s say there was a concervative government, right, and let’s say the conservative government announced in that sort of macho that they like ‘We’re going to slash public spending by a third, we”re going to slash this, we’re going to slash that, we’re going to do it tomorrow’ because it has to take early, tough action. Just imagine the reaction of my constituents in South West Sheffield. I represnt a constituency that has more people working on public services as a proportion of the workforce than any other constituency in the country. Lots of people work in the universities, the hospitals and so on. They have no conservative councillors, they have no conservative MPs. There are no conservative MPs or conservative councillors for as far as the eye can see in South Yorkshire. People like that are going to say ‘Who are these people telling us that they’re suddenly going to take out jobs away? Who are these people suddenly… What mandate do they have? I didn’t vote for them and no one around here votes for them.’ I think, you know if we want to go the direction of Greece where you get real social and industrial unrest, that’s the guaranteed way of doing it, the thinking that the old tub-thumping way of conducting politics is the way that you bring people along with you…”
http://www.twitvid.com/ERX9W
Has he forgotten? The web will be there when ever he needs reminding.
What anyone with a shred of morality would do is take every single one of the financial market guys and take every penny, any asset from them to pay for this mess. What the spineless do is thump the have-nots.
Labour stopped being a labour party a long time ago.
The conservatives have been what they’ve always been during my lifetime
The Liberal Democrats remained an unknown quantity.
The Liberal Democrats joined the club, so Clegg has failed already.
The failed club of Neoliberalism, and like any party following failed ideologies, really shouldn’t be in power.
the above post is interesting,
@paul and some others
I do kind of think you guys are missing the point or rather points here
1) There is no real bile coming from labour.
2) The criticism from labour is reasoned (flawed or not)
3) The gov is unrepresentative of a small section of the tory party and a large section of the LD
4) This is bad for democracy.
Now if your answer is to say “You are illiterate” or whatever then I really must ask how does that refute a single thing I say, it is a bit like saying to a physicist your wrong about the universe because you are in a motorised wheelchair.
That is it does not address one single point made, it only addresses a superficial characteristic, notice that I said a bit in fairness, and I see no reason why I should be the example given has two things that are totally unrelated and this scenario involves issues that are closer.
The reason I see that I have no reason to coceade this is thay you know full well what I am saying and merly chose to abuse rather than answer, because you have no answer
@tony
“That is it does not address one single point made,”
But, tony, people actually have answered your point about the dissolution of parliament, and you’ve not bothered to acknowledge their argument. Instead, you’ve withdrawn your argument into sweeping statements which people will either agree with, or not. So I can see why people might be inclined to give up trying to talk to you.
@ Alix have they where
the debate on this on another thread innitially I put up that it should not be exlusive that parliment should be able to force a de facto dissolution, that this had become part of our constitution (assuming post war royal authgority was effective rubber stasmp on this), now I was shouted down, now the U turn.
in addition to this there was a U turn all you have to do is look at the statements at the time, the way it was presented etc, this was a fundamental change in the policy and along with the others was a U turn
Nowv I see no bile from labour would suggest that this is becouse they actually do not see the LD as relevant.
the most important point I have made is
3) The gov is unrepresentative of a small section of the tory party and a large section of the LD.
read it and think before you try your slap down. yawn
the point is that government should be representative or at least pretend, this lot is not it is representative of a part of the Tory party, it is deep blue with little yellow spots where as it should be light blue all over, Ok this is a sweeping statement but it is how I see the broad picture.
One thing I know is that you have not reffuted me on the U turn of the 55% now 66% parliment which as it is now is good and as it was first was cӣ$
It would appear that bile is Labour’s only strategy: long may it continue. The rest can get on with governing.
but where is it give us an example please I really think they are just ignoring you, that this is working as they are getting votes whilst the LD loss them.
@paul
“The rest can get on with governing.”
that is the problem isn’t it the governing is being done in such a way as to makle it unrepresentative of the voters this will be either thedeath of your party or socially devisive.
in either case it will be bad for the country, the only way this government can be representative is to be light blue in all things and not dark blue with a few yellow or orange spots as is emerging to be the case.
So:
The budget changes were fair and progressive – and didn’t unduly penalise the less well off, especially the rise in VAT
It is now appropriate to start cutting spending before the recovery is entrenched, and to cut the entire deficit over one parliment.
The proportion of expenditure cuts to tax rises should be 4:1
The above weren’t any different from what the LibDems said in their manifesto
The proposals re free schools are well thought out and not being introduced too quckly.
Ditto the proposals re transferring budgets and responsibilties to GPs
The oriignal proposals re the 55% rule didn’t reduce the power of parliment to force elections in a deadlock situation (well they did so after receiving a bit of bile we changed our minds).
Having 5 year fixed parliments rather than the 4 years previously proposed makes no difference.
Of course if you wish to take a differing view on any of the above it is just because you are full of bile and because you don’t understand that there is no alternative (copyright Saint Margaret)
Oh and the meaning of the Big Society is clear to everyone!
@labourtrollshavenoargument
If those are the arguments you are going to put to the electors, please feel free!
Paul
I think you will find they are your own arguments – and if you can rise above you usual poodle like behaviour you will find that they are being opposed in detail. The fact that you and your master wish to typify any counter arguments to your own position as bile and with other such abuse says more about you than your opponents I’m afraid. For example you really think that proper arrangements for governance and accountability can be established for free schools in the space of 2 months so that they are ready to commence operations in September?? If GPs are going to be made responsible for purchasing decisions within the NHS how do maintain the purchasing power and discounts that go with bulk buying, how do you prevent the corruption of individual GPs by the pharmaceutical companies, what controls do you put in place to prevent idiosyncratic GPs.
You have noticeably failed to address the Keynesian arguments as to why the UK economy may not go the way of Ireland and Japan by cutting before growth is established. Happy to engage in arguments any time – I’ll leave the yapping and the bile to others.
@ paul
I found it at school that when peeps have no argument that is when they resort to name calling as if it is relevant, I pulled peeps up on here for that and guess what they have no argument so its more name calling.
Yawn
no if you have a point other than that you are like a little child would you please hurry up and make it