Happy Monday morning, everyone. Let’s plunge straight in …
2 Must-Read Blog Posts
What are other Liberal Democrat bloggers saying? Here’s are two posts that have caught the eye from the Liberal Democrat Blogs aggregator:
- Blah blah who would you do a deal with blah blah blah.. on Steph Asley’s Dib Lemming blog.
- Why don’t the Conservatives trust local democracy? on Nich Starling’s Norfolk Blogger.
Really, really, REALLY tired of every time a Lib Dem has any airtime, the only thing the interviewer keeps asking is what the party would do in the event of a hung parliament.
Why should an MP for Surrey East be allowed to make planning decisions about things in Norwich?
Spotted any other great posts in the last day from blogs that aren’t on the aggregator? Do post up a comment sharing them with us all.
2 Lib Dem Stories
Lib Dems reveal £63bn PFI bill for the NHS
Figures released by the Lib Dems have revealed that the NHS is facing a £63bn bill for PFI hospitals which are only worth £11bn. The figures also reveal that:
-
· The first payments for hospital PFIs began in 1999 and the NHS still owes £58bn on 106 PFI contracts over the next three decades
· The NHS will have to pay back £7.3bn in PFI payments over the next Parliament alone (2010-2015)
· The most expensive PFI contract was for Wythenshawe Hospital where the NHS will pay back 16 times the original capital value
Lib Dem shadow health secretary, Norman Lamb, had this to say:
“These figures reveal the disastrous reality of Labour’s stewardship of the NHS. We’re entering into one of the most difficult financial periods in the NHS’s history and this Government’s legacy will be a mountain of debt.
“Despite the enormous amounts of money we owe for these hospitals, many of them will never end up in public ownership. Hospitals all over the country are mortgaged to the hilt and there are serious concerns that these repayments will lead to cuts in vital services. We need a new approach to public services in this country. By setting up an infrastructure bank the Liberal Democrats will ensure that key projects get access to the funding they need to revitalise our economy.
“The Liberal Democrats will change the way the NHS works so that money goes further and patients come first.”
Kirsty to probe ‘abusive’ Lib Dem Welsh AM claim
WELSH Liberal Democrat leader Kirsty Williams yesterday pledged to uncover the facts behind allegations Montgomeryshire AM Mick Bates verbally abused staff at the University Hospital of Wales. She said that Mr Bates had no memory of such an incident and was continuing to suffer problems from a severe head injury he sustained when he fell over in the street.
Ms Williams, speaking on the last day of her party’s spring conference in Swansea, said: “We don’t know the facts – we need to get to the bottom of this. My understanding is that Mick was knocked unconscious and suffered a severe head injury – which he’s continuing to have problems with.” …
The former science teacher plans to stand down from the Assembly at next year’s elections but the outcome of the investigation is likely to determine whether he can remain chairman of the sustainability committee. It is understood he met early with his Welsh party leader yesterday before leaving the Swansea conference. He was unavailable for comment last night.
Update: Paramedic claims Lib Dem AM Mick Bates assaulted him (BBC News)
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Free digital skills training
Reform civil war
I appear to be banned from Belfast Pride
GCSE in Natural History to go ahead after all
Roland
Roger Billins
Steve Trevethan
17 Comments
“Really, really, REALLY tired of every time a Lib Dem has any airtime, the only thing the interviewer keeps asking is what the party would do in the event of a hung parliament. …
It’s simple enough to understand, media goons!!
The trouble is that it’s not that easy to understand, because Nick Clegg has presented two quite different answers to the question in the last few weeks.
First we had some cryptic comments about the party with the “strongest mandate” (whatever that means) having the right to try to govern. Granted that he didn’t say directly anything about what the Lib Dems would do, but it was widely presented as a statement that Lib Dems would support whichever party had more seats (or, occasionally, votes). How much of that was the the media jumping to a conclusion, and how much of it was behind-the-scenes spin from Cowley Street, I don’t know.
Now we have a new doctrine – that the Lib Dems won’t support either party unless it signs up to a shopping list of Lib Dem policies, including electoral reform. Taking that at face value, it appears to mean that unless either Labour or the Tories are prepared to adopt wholesale a large part of the Lib Dem manifesto, the party will try to vote down any prospective government and force a new election.
To complicate matters further, some other comments in the same interview are being interpreted as an indication that Nick Clegg will prefer to work with the Tories rather than Labour. Again, how much of this interpretation is spin originating from the party, we don’t know.
I don’t think this confusion is really the fault of the media.
Oh Anthony, how lovely of you to pop by to my blog and read, then quote, the first and last lines of the post, conveniently leaving out the middle of it! You’re just as bad as the goons themselves.
I have a book at home that I love. It’s called “More What If?: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been “. It’s great for whiling away a dull hour, it’s a nice mental exercise. But you know what? It’s not real history, because it’s all just conjecture and postulating. And you know what else? Trying to figure out what will happen after an election which is still three months away, based on a guessed result, isn’t real news either, for the same reason.
Thanks Stephen.. sheesh, don’t let me come back quietly, eh? 🙂
Steph
Well, of course one possible strategy would be for Nick Clegg to stonewall by saying “The future’s impossible to predict and I refuse to answer hypothetical questions about what might happen in a hung parliament.” He could do that, though I don’t think it would go down too well with the electorate.
But my point is that that’s not what he’s doing. In the past few weeks he’s come out with two quite different responses (I don’t think they can really be described as answers) to the question of “What would the Lib Dems do in a hung parliament?”
In those circumstances, I don’t think it’s fair to blame the media for the confusion – or to complain that they’re being unreasonable in trying to clarify the position.
Steph
By the way, I’m not sure why you’re complaining about the way I quoted from your blog. I presume you wouldn’t have wanted me to copy and paste the whole of it here. I think the bits I posted encapsulated your message pretty well.
Er, that is pretty much exactly what he was saying when I caught him on BBC2 at the weekend, in fact I believe I remember the words “I’m not getting into a game of ‘what if?’ politics” coming out of his mouth.
Can you tell me when and where your differing quotes occurred and what they were at some point so I can answer you, rather than just telling me repeatedly that Nick Clegg’s supposed to have given two different responses ‘in the past few weeks’ with only the woolliest description of what those responses were? And then kindly explain how it would not go down well with the electorate if he’s telling the media that what the Lib Dems will do after the election very much depends on the outcome of that election? Do you think it would go down better with the electorate if they were led to see the Liberal Democrats as some kind of tail on a Lab/Con dog?
And my problem with the way you chose to quote from my blog was that with your cunning use of that ellipsis, you have splattered the sense of the final exclamation. “It’s simple enough to understand” doesn’t follow on from the opening question, it follows on from a concise explanation of the matter. Which I will repeat here, since you obviously aren’t getting it: “Whether the Lib Dems are the third party, the second party, the outright winners or partners in a coalition, what they will do is the same as they do in those different positions at different levels all over the country – they will push for the reforms that make taxes fairer and greener, politics more accountable and less paternalistic and corrupt, and individuals freer to make their own choices over their own lives.” THAT is the paragraph which ‘encapsulates my message’.
Alright then Anthony. I give you the challenge of coming up with an acceptable, magic pixie dust formula of no more than 50 words that would:
(1) Not tie us to one party or the other;
(2) Not make us sound like we’re stonewalling or playing games with the electorate;
(3) Not make us sound like we’ll jettison all our policies and values to get into power.
You see, it’s all very well criticising Clegg, but unless you can come up with a viable alternative for dealing with this, then I suggest that you leave him alone.
Steph and Foregone Conclusion
I repeat, my point is that in the past few weeks he’s come out with two quite different responses (I don’t think they can really be described as answers) to the question of “What would the Lib Dems do in a hung parliament?” (Not that I’ve ever accepted the rather inane dictum about “not criticising unless you can do better yourself” – particularly where the leader of a political party is concerned!)
And I’m sorry if I assumed too much familiarity with recent history on Steph’s part. The new pronouncement was in a Daily Telegraph interview on Saturday – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/nick-clegg/7170466/Nick-Clegg-kingmaker-of-a-hung-parliament.html – which I actually assumed your blog post the following day was a response to. The previous one was in an interview with Andrew Marr on 22 November, which was very widely reported in the media and discussed here. You can find a transcript at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/8373015.stm
Thanks for the links, Anthony. I have had my mind on other things as I often do, and not spent my every waking moment immersed in political news and coverage. Shocking, I know 😉
I’m really not seeing two different responses there, though, so I still can’t understand your confusion.
What I’m seeing is Nick Clegg last November saying that in the event of no overall majority, the party with the biggest mandate will usually seek to govern in the first instance, either on its own with support on each individual debate from individuals in other parties, or by forming a coalition with another party. Which is true. He *didn’t* say anything about that meaning that the Lib Dems would naturally support the party with the largest vote share or number of seats (Andrew Marr said that and was told no, in fact), and I’m relieved but not at all surprised to find that’s the case despite your assurances to the contrary.
And then in the Telegraph interview, in much the same way, Nick refuses to predict the future or to say one way or the other what the party will do, because it is impossible TO say. The key quotes are: “It’s very important people know there have been no deals and understandings” and “[my] chance will not occur if I spend all my time playing what-if politics”.
Steph
“I’m relieved but not at all surprised to find that’s the case despite your assurances to the contrary.”
Kindly go back and look at what I wrote about this in my original comment. I took great care to describe accurately what happened.
But frankly, I don’t think it’s unreasonable, when a politician is asked a question – in this case, “Is your position that it would be the sort of morally right thing, if there was that condition, to back the party which got the biggest number of seats or votes, or what?” – to interpret what he says as an answer to the question, rather than a misleading evasion of it.
As for the Telegraph interview, I simply can’t believe you couldn’t see the part I was referring to:
Neither leader, he says now, will get his support without signing up to his “fairness” agenda, which includes raising the entry to income tax to £10,000, extra taxes on the rich, a “pupil premium” to help poorer children, breaking up the banking system and electoral reform.
Steph
By the way, where in the BBC interview do you see Andrew Marr being “told no” in answer to his question? I have looked at the transcript again, and I don’t see anything remotely resembling that. Quite the contrary.
Can you quote the part you were referring to, please?
suggestion for this week’s must read blog posts.
http://weekisalongtime.blogspot.com/2010/02/lib-dem-am-punches-nhs-paramedic.html
Ooh, is Anthony Aloysius St the new Herbert Brown? I wondered where he’d got to.
Alix
You might very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment.
Talking of comment, do you have any to make yourself on these pronouncements by Clegg? It’s always interesting to hear what Lib Dems of the non-cheerleader variety think about these things.
Anthony — by your assurances to the contrary, I am of course referring to your assertion that Nick Clegg has given very different responses to the same question. It is a matter of fact that the things he has said in both interviews you pointed me to are not mutually exclusive points of view, nor are they incompatible with one solid opinion ie the Lib Dems will not commit themselves to supporting either one of the other two main parties in the House of Commons unless what they are intending to deliver fits with our own philosophy and manifesto. I did pick up the part of the Telegraph interview you were referring to, but I couldn’t see where it didn’t chime with anything else that has been said, in fact if anything I thought it restated what was in my own post on the subject. If you’re really so confused by someone discussing in general terms what tends to happen in the event of a hung parliament (the party with the biggest mandate will normally seek to govern either on their own or with support), then some months later in the run up to an election stating that their own party won’t be seeking to make any deals with anyone until after the result, and then would only work with people who are genuinely prepared to form a coalition rather than using his party’s support for their own agenda without any kind of commitment to the ideals of their powersharing partner, then I’m at a loss as to how to explain to you.
“weggis” — oh kindly *do* go tout your sad sniping elsewhere. It’s not like you could seriously have intended that as a suggestion for the next one of these posts. Or maybe you do think tomorrow’s will read “What are other Liberal Democrat bloggers saying? Well we don’t know, but here’s a spectacularly weird and paranoid ex-lib dem with some bitching about us :)”
Steph
Frankly, I don’t have the time or the inclination to argue the toss over this. I’ve provided links to both interviews, and I’ve made it clear where I think the contradiction lies. People can make up their minds for themselves.
But please do quote the part of the interview in which you claim Andrew Marr was “told no” by Nick Clegg. As far as I can see, he was told no such thing.
What would David Cameron do in the event of a hung parliament?
What would Gordon Brown do in the event of a hung parliament?
Has anyone got a clue? Has anyone even asked them?
What they would do is at least as important as what Nick Clegg would do, and yet only Nick is ever asked. Curious.
“What they would do is at least as important as what Nick Clegg would do, and yet only Nick is ever asked. Curious.”
In a way that’s a fair point. But it doesn’t really change the fact that Nick Clegg _is_ being asked this question – and he will be asked this question many more times between now and polling day – and the answer he gives may play an important part in deciding how people will vote in marginal constituencies. As a matter of fact, I’m one of those people.