As usual, questions to the Deputy Prime Minister this week covered a large variety of subjects. Nick Clegg was on passionate form on several issues.
Harriet Harman asked if he would “admit that he urgently needs to take further action to help the young unemployed?”. Refreshingly, Nick Clegg did admit this, adding:
…it would be a real dereliction of duty if we did not do more to try to make sure that young people are given a real pathway into training, further and higher education or the labour market. As the right hon. and learned Lady will know, youth unemployment has increased pretty remorselessly since 2004, so it increased during the second part of the Labour Government’s time in office. Indeed, it increased by about 40% under Labour. There are some very big structural problems in the labour market that we need to address. I am leading some work on that in government, and we hope to make announcements on it very shortly, before the autumn statement.
In response to a question from Karl McCartney (Con), the DPM said that he was not expecting the European Commission staff based in London to engineer a coup to depose the UK’s Prime Minister and government. Well, that’s a relief then….
A question which repeatedly came up was whether or not to introduce an offence not to register to vote. Liberals will be pleased that Nick Clegg replied with increasing scepticism to such calls from the Labour party, culminating passionately with this response to Kevin Brennan (Lab):
Only the hon. Gentleman thinks that you are a democrat by criminalising lots of people. Only the Labour party thinks that the solution to everything is to put more crimes on to the statute book. As I explained to him, the civic duty remains. It is not an offence at the moment not to register; it is an offence not to provide information where requested to do so…That offence will remain on the statute book.
Further passion came in his answer to Philip Hollobone (Con) on the repatriation of powers from Brussels:
No Front Bencher in the coalition is talking about the unilateral repatriation of powers from the European Union. Why? Because it simply is not possible—it does not work like that. We have to seek agreement with 26 other countries to get that repatriation. The idea that one could simply get on to the Eurostar, go over to Brussels and come back with a bag load of powers simply is not feasible. Yes, let us examine the balance of powers, as we committed to do in the coalition agreement. I am a pro-European, but I believe in reforming the European Union. I do not believe the status quo is right, but I also believe that we need to act smart and move sensibly.
Lisa Nandy (Lab) implied that Nick Clegg has not kept his promise on ending child detention. That elicited this emphatic response:
Compared with the previous Government’s record of thousands of young people being detained—yes, immorally—behind bars when they were entirely innocent, the new arrangements are a complete, humane, liberal revolution, of which I am very proud indeed.
Anorakwatch: Mark Durkan’s (SDLP) voice is brilliant. His accent is so strong, his voice so basso profundo that you could carve it up and serve it with gravy and horseradish sauce. Wonderful. But it was even more wonderful to hear him this week saying this:
Has the Deputy Prime Minister appraised the impact of that on the distribution of seats to the territorial boundary commissions under the Sainte-Laguë formula?
I have a very low Poli-anorak tog rating, so I was then sent careering towards Google to find out what the Sam Hill the Sainte-Laguë formula is. Answer from Wikipedia: The Sainte-Laguë method is one way of allocating seats approximately proportional to the number of votes of a party to a party list used in many voting systems.
Paul Walter blogs at Liberal Burblings
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
26 Comments
good performance
Passion????? Hardly! Just the same old “Mom and apple pie” statements….”We need to act smart and move sensibly” Duh!.
Ref ‘Child Detention’…Last December Nick Clegg announced in an impassioned speech that child detention would be ended this May, promising that the government would end the “shameful practice that last year alone saw more than 1,000 children – 1,000 innocent children – imprisoned”.
Reality check… The Children’s Society revealed, in October 2011, that almost 700 children were held in detention between May and August this year. The real change being that detention centres are now called
“pre-departure accommodation centres”.
Like promises on student fees, the devil is in the detail.
This was a commendably-robust performance from Nick Clegg. But ‘PASSION’? Paul, where IS your dictionary?
@Tony Dawson
Passion – dictionary.com – “any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling,”
Seems to fit the bill to me.
@Jason
” the devil is in the detail.”
In actual fact, in both cases, if you take the trouble to actually read the detail, the situations are not as you imply:
There is a very balanced article on The Cedars here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/17/child-detention-government-broken-promise
And Student funding has to be a classic case of when you read the detail, the situation is not as per the huff and puff, as explained here by the Money Saving Expert:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes
Clegg is wrong: it is an offence to fail to register to vote at present, although only indirectly. Every householder is obliged to return the annual canvass (s. 23, Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001), and it is an offence to provide false information on the form (s. 13D, Representation of the People Act 1983). Falsity includes incompleteness.
@Paul Walter:
“Passion – dictionary.com – “any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling,”
We are obviously looking at two different speeches. I saw good knockabout stuff. But passion? No.
Paul Walter Posted 17th November 2011 at 4:48 pm
Paul, thanks for your response and the ‘Cedars’ link; it is, as you say, balanced. However, as far as “the situations are not as you imply” goes we must disagree. Refurbishments of £1M merely turn a ‘cage’ into a ‘gilded cage’.
The verbal gymnastics by ‘Carrie’ to avoid answering straightforward questions were worthy of any politician: Detention, by any other name, still goes on.
@jason There is somewhat of a difference between up to 72 hours in a comfortable and sympathetic place, overseen by Barnardoes, compared to long periods in a horrid place. By yes, if you want to keep kicking Nick Clegg as he continues to honestly make a liberal difference then, yes, go ahead. Keep kicking.
Paul W… Posted 17th November 2011 at 8:36 pm…
A sycophantic reponse.is unworthy of you.
“Child detention will be ended by May 2011” …. Great soundbite for Nick.
“Child detention will continue but in better conditions”…Hmmm? Doesn’t have the same ‘ring’ somehow.
“And Student funding has to be a classic case of when you read the detail, the situation is not as per the huff and puff, as explained here by the Money Saving Expert:”
Who says, among other things, “You WILL owe money for longer and MAY pay a LOT more.”
No matter how party apologists try to dress it up, the truth is that having made a manifesto commitment to abolish tuition fees, and having signed personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees, most Lib Dem MPs supported the new system, which involved a massive shift away from funding through general taxation to funding through fees. Overall, graduates will be paying much more, and you’re not fooling anyone by trying to confuse the issue. The electors aren’t as stupid as you seem to assume.
@jason Not sycophantic thank you. Clegg’s Pitch on the subject was totally in order.
@Chris and the Money Saving Expert also says “Repayments will be £540 a year lower than now” and “…some students won’t ever need to repay at all, others will pay far less than the fees…” We can all quote selectively from it.
@Chris “most Lib Dem MPs supported the new system” Actually most voted against (21) or abstained or were absent.(8) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11964669
@jason “In 2009 under Labour, more than a thousand children were held in pre-departure detention. In August 2011, there were just three children detained under immigration powers.”
https://www.libdemvoice.org/tom-brake-mp-writes-child-detention-work-in-progress-25645.html
Paul W
“@Chris and the Money Saving Expert also says “Repayments will be £540 a year lower than now” and “…some students won’t ever need to repay at all, others will pay far less than the fees…” We can all quote selectively from it.
So what? In fact, you yourself have provided the perfect example of trying to confuse the issue by selective quoting.
The “bottom line” is that overall graduates will be repaying far more in total, just as I said.
“@Chris “most Lib Dem MPs supported the new system” Actually most voted against (21) or abstained or were absent.”
Most Lib Dem MPs supported the new system, just as I said. Chris Huhne, who was absent on the day of the vote, obviously did so, as a cabinet minister. Check your sums.
Paul W… Posted 18th November 2011 at 8:08 am…@jason “In 2009 under Labour, more than a thousand children were held in pre-departure detention. In August 2011, there were just three children detained under immigration powers.”…
I, in common with some who posted on that link, would like to know where/how that figure was arrived at. The ‘Guardian’ link you referred me to earlier quoted the Children’s Society as reporting “700 children were held in various detention sites between May and August 2011”. Where did they all go; on holiday?
@Chris I was trying to avoid “bottom lines” which is why I linked to the Martin Lewis piece, rather than quoting from it, until you did. My bottom line would be that the weight of repayment is on graduates who earn higher salaries. On the MPs I linked to the BBC site specifically so the list was visible. 28 voted for. 21 voted against. 8 were absent or abstained. So 28 voted for. That is not “most Liberal Democrat MPs”. I just happen to believe that the parliamentary vote is the important thing. But fine. Ignore that if you want.
@jason Numbers tapered down? There was no doubt a phasing down after all.
Paul Walter… Posted 18th November 2011 at 10:22 am….@jason Numbers tapered down? There was no doubt a phasing down after all….
Well if your ‘tapering down’ to only 3 children in August is correct there will be no children held at the moment… Well done!
However,…..Guardian Sept 2010….Two months after Nick Clegg told MPs the coalition would deliver on its pledge to end the controversial practice, Damian Green, the immigration minister, has revealed that the government only intended to “minimise” the number of child detainees…..Hmmmm?
23rd October….According to The Children’s Society, 697 children were held at all Greater London and South East ports between May and the end of August 2011. Almost one third were unaccompanied children. This could mean as many as 2,000 children could be detained each year…..
…”This could mean as many as 2,000 children could be detained each year.”….?????? Ongoing detention…They don’t seem at all as satisfied as you
“They don’t seem at all as satisfied as you”
What does that mean?
Ignore that last comment. I didn’t read your sentence properly. I am quite happy to align myself with the Tom Brake article that I linked to – that there is still work in progress to be done. But I am still quite satisfied with what Nick Clegg said. Yes, you can take issue with it if you like and you have done. Super.
I also associate myself with this updated article from Tom Brake on Left Foot Forward:
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/11/liberal-democrats-end-child-detention-pledge/
Paul…let us agree to differ. We can await the figures for Aug-Nov and see.
Regards
Ok. Best wishes
“On the MPs I linked to the BBC site specifically so the list was visible. 28 voted for. 21 voted against. 8 were absent or abstained. So 28 voted for. That is not “most Liberal Democrat MPs”. I just happen to believe that the parliamentary vote is the important thing. But fine. Ignore that if you want.”
Are you seriously trying to suggest that Chris Huhne, as a Cabinet Minister, did not support this measure?
Don’t make me laugh.
@Chris I am simply going on the number of MPs who went into the ‘aye’ lobby on this.