From The Observer:
Cabinet ministers have agreed a far-reaching, legally binding “green deal” that will commit the UK to two decades of drastic cuts in carbon emissions…
The deal was hammered out after tense arguments between ministers who had disagreed over whether the ambitious plans to switch to more green energy were affordable. The row had pitted the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, who strongly backed the plans, against the chancellor, George Osborne, and the business secretary, Vince Cable, who were concerned about the cost and potential impact on the economy…
Green groups had feared that ministers would refuse to back the committee and were accusing them of reneging on Cameron’s promise to lead the “greenest government ever”. But with Clegg and the Liberal Democrats desperate to boast a success on one of their key policies, supporters of a deal won the day. A government source told the Observer: “This is a victory for the cause of enlightenment over the dark forces at the Treasury.”
And from the Independent on Sunday:
George Osborne is to become an unlikely ally of Nick Clegg in the battle to reform the House of Lords … In meetings with peers to persuade them to support their own abolition, Mr Clegg has made it clear that he is prepared to use the Parliament Act to force the Bill through the Lords…
Lib Dem party managers are also preparing to turn the issue into a major test of Ed Miliband’s leadership of the Labour Party. An internal briefing for staff at the Lib Dem HQ suggests that Mr Miliband is seen as weak and unable to unite his party in favour of reform.
The Sunday papers also have several stories about Chris Huhne and allegations that he pressurised someone to take driving points for him. The gaps and inconsistencies in the stories – along with several factual errors that I’ve spotted – suggest none of the newspapers really has the solid evidence their headlines suggest. Why, for example, if they have solid evidence has none of the newspapers named the other person who, if the claims were true, would have broken the law? However, the police have announced they are investigating, so more may become clear shortly.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
The Joy of Six 1529
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Jason Connor
Mick Taylor
Chloe
theakes
Kira Collins
39 Comments
It’s good news about the ‘Green deal’ but the danger is that Chris Huhne will resign and the deal will be lost or watered down by his successor.
The Observer reports: ‘ . . Huhne has taken on the services of a leading media lawyer, Charlotte Harris, a partner at London law firm Mishcon de Reya . . a media specialist who focuses on pre- and post-publication advice, injunctions, defamation, privacy, harassment and unlawful interceptions of telephone use and correspondence of those in the public eye. Her clients have included MPs, celebrities, sports agents and others who have found themselves at the centre of media scrutiny . .
[His wife’s] decision to go public with her claims appears to have been made in response to speculation in Westminster that Huhne was manoeuvring himself into a position to be a potential leader of the Lib Dems . . ‘
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/15/huhne-lawyer-driving-points-allegations
She will be running up a big bill for Huhne to pay. ‘O what a tangled web . . ’ etc. etc.. I think we can expect that there’s quite a bit more to come out about this affair and that Huhne will not survive long. So who would we like to replace him?
We are all human. We all make mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes which we make disappear forever and sometimes their ugly heads pop up again.
When I hear someone (including myself) say: “Someone who has done/said XXXX cannot possibly be fit for office”, I remind myself that many of the people who we see retire with accolades from senior jobs probably did equally bad things as some who hit the headlines and lost out – the former group just never got caught or exposed.
The Mail story looks clearly defamatory if Chris has not done what they are implying he has done. So someone is set for a big loss. I cannot see any good reason for indulgence in conjecture as to which party twill be.
@Tony Dawson
We are all human. We all make mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes which we make disappear forever and sometimes their ugly heads pop up again.
Of course. But not all of us commit a crime then try and cover it up by insisting that someone else take the blame, itself also a criminal offence. Then stand for public office for a role that involves approving criminal legislation. It’s a resigning matter if true.
I hope it’s not true though. The Lib Dem talent pool is shallow, it’s hard to see where a replacement could come from, and Huhne was a decent counterweight to Clegg. However, this coalition may just become a little more Conservative led and any Lib Dems thinking of challenging Cameron or Osborne at cabinet meetings will be shown the bloody corpse of Chris Huhne’s ministerial career to keep them in line.
I don’t think they care – the Mail has lots of money to pay for this sort of thing. Like all the right-wing media, their primary objective here was to find something to print on the front page that was not a story about a Lib Dem success.
Goodness knows whether it’s actually true or not. I hope it isn’t; Huhne used to be my MP before I moved to London, and he’s one of the best in the country – from any party. It would be a shame to lose him. But whatever happened in 2003 is an unchangeable fact and there’s nothing we can do now except wait for the full story to come out.
It was mentioned on the Politics Show that the Police have a tape which allegedly has Huhne admits to the offence. All the police are saying is they have a tape and are investigating.
if mr huhne had NOT done what is suggested in the reports the airwaves would surely be full of him denying it unequivocally. the fact that he has gone to ground, and refused all comment even through his very expensive lawyer is almost certainly indication of the facts. unless he has invented an entirely new media strategy that is – build your reputation by pretending highly damaging stories aren’t really there………
I doubt if the allegations have any truth to them, but if they do, what of it?
Chris Huhne is not being accused of starting an illegal war, murdering a scientist, allowing banks to throw customers’ savings away, or embarking on the stealth privatisation of the Health Service.
It’s amazing, isn’t it? Politicians are crucified by newspapers for trivial pecadillos of this kind while the really serious stuff gets them non-jobs on company boards, free holidays on yachts and millions in consultancy fees.
If Chris Huhne can get this party out of the coalition, then I will forgive him almost anything.
On Huhne, Innocent until Proven Guilt – abit b oring & Liberal but has everyone forgotten about the Bristol case already ?
The Green Pact is great News, I look forward to Porritts apology.
I hope the allegations are not true and see no point in speculating until the facts are established. We need a strong, credible politician to lead on energy and climate change. Particularly now as the shift in the economic climate has
moved environmental issues down the agenda for a lot of people. I have never been convinced by David ‘Dances with Huskies’ Cameron commitment to green issues and we know there is substantial anti-science lobby in the Tory party
that would happily block any action on the environment. I think it is fair to say that the green lobby is disappointed in the record of the coalition so far. Losing Huhne is probably not going to help.
On Huhne I hope there is no truth in this story or the party will lose one of it’s best from the front bench, and if a significant criminal act has taken place, possibly from parliament.
As for the IOS story, “Lib Dem party managers are also preparing to turn the issue into a major test of Ed Miliband’s leadership of the Labour Party.” If the party managers are planning this then it will be their second own goal in as many months. Support those who support change rather than attack those who do not. If we go down the insulting and undermining process Labour will descend into Tribal opposition (as they will see that as being responding in kind) and the reforms will fail…
Guido Fawkes and the Telegraph suspect the person who took the points is actually his soon to be ex-wife, and that the Mail agreed to hide her identity because she is the only source of information on the incident. She obviously wants Huhne to loose his cabinet post (as she had to quit her Whitehall job) and she’s using the threat of mutually assured destruction to get her way.
I’m rather pleased. Huhne is a rather nasty individual, so its poetic justice for his jilted wife to bring him down with his own criminal behaviour. The fact it now looks like she’ll have to admit to being the willing accomplice in order to accomplish this is even better. The bad guys loose and the public wins.
@Chris Squire
If it is true that Chris Huhne has won the deal reported in the Observer, it would take a lot more than his resignation for it to be gone back on. The Climate Change Act requires the budget to be set in law by the end of June, and from then on it becomes subject to the checks and balances of that Act.
We at Friends of the Earth have welcomed the news, I’m just back from the Sky studios where I was doing just that. It is a cautious welcome so far because it remains a newspaper report rather than a formal annoucement – but I’m afraid it doesn’t mean an apology for commissioning Porritt’s report. That looked at 77 commitments the coalition had made, of which three quarters had seen little or no progress. This is one new decision – a very important one it is true – but we need to see other key recommendations of the Climate Change Committee accepted and progress across a wide range of policies if the Government is to live up to the title of the greenest ever.
You’ve never had any kind of contact with him or read anything about him, I take it. Huhne has said on many occasions that the best way to keep a story out of the papers is to avoid talking to journalists.
His lawyers are currently preparing a response. If the story is lies and he wants to sue the paper, then he is not supposed to make any public statements on it before filing the suit.
“If the story is lies and he wants to sue the paper, then he is not supposed to make any public statements on it before filing the suit.”
You’re really trying to tell us that if someone denies the truth of a libellous statement, then that prevents them from subsequently suing its author? What a bizarre idea!
I’m not sure what this ‘green deal’ is. There already is a law defining the emission targets for 2050 and I thought that Labour were the ones that put forward strategies and action plans, then did nothing. Chris Huhne has enough to be getting on with at DECC rather than being deflected by long term goals.
If you just want a flat denial, he’s given it. If you want a statement longer than “No”, such as him explaining what actually happened, then yes, actually, making statements about what happened can be prejudicial to the case and your lawyers will always tell you to keep your mouth shut.
“Innocent until proven guilty” does mean the allegations cannot be discussed. It’s a fairly elementary concept which does the Police and prosecuting teams fairly well.
I would have thought that, if true, the danger was that a fairly unambiguous criminal is in place. Driving offences are civil matters… but falsifying evidence in this manner would be perjury. Think Tommy Sheridan.
The LibDem PP was not an especially virtuous lot. It’s just, until now, there wasn’t much reason to investigate their actions.
Oh, someone give Sensenco a hug!
~alec
Out of interest, how many of those coming to Huhne’s defence were scornful of Harriet Harman’s repeated traffic offences, or of Eric Joyce’s DUI?
~alec
“If you just want a flat denial, he’s given it.”
A flat denial was what the previous commenter suggested, and in response to that you said he was “not supposed to make any public statements”!
The Telegraph’s story for tomorrow’s paper is at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8515425/Chris-Huhne-faces-police-investigation-over-allegations-wife-Vicky-Pryce-agreed-to-take-speeding-points.html
‘ . . Essex police have assigned an officer to investigate the claims that would almost certainly result in the end of Mr Huhne’s ministerial career and a jail sentence if proven. The suggestion that the former Liberal Democrat leadership contender persuaded someone else to accept his speeding points, so he could avoid a driving ban, was first raised publicly by his estranged wife Vicky Pryce last week. The Daily Telegraph has learnt that the person alleged to have taken the points is Miss Pryce herself . .
The Daily Telegraph understands that a police officer was assigned to the case yesterday to discover whether any speeding ticket was issued against Mr Huhne’s car on the day of the alleged offence. If it was, a full investigation is likely to be launched into whether Mr Huhne and his wife conspired to pervert the course of justice, an offence which carries a maximum life sentence. A police source said this would involve interviewing Mr Huhne and Miss Pryce. A decision will be made on the evidence whether to launch an investigation . .
No 10 sources said Mr Huhne could remain in the Cabinet even if an investigation were launched. The source added: “He is innocent until proven guilty.”’
@Sesenco
“Chris Huhne is not being accused of starting an illegal war, murdering a scientist, allowing banks to throw customers’ savings away, or embarking on the stealth privatisation of the Health Service.”
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Criminal offences are criminal offences, even if one is relatively greater than another. If there is evidence of criminal activity then the perpetrator should be charged. Politicians should be held to the same standard as everyone else but they should only be charged if there is appropriate evidence.
By the way, for those Lib Dems interested in Chris Huhne and opposed to the surveillance society Political Scrapbook might interest you. http://politicalscrapbook.net
No matter what party, we need to get the word “mistake” out of the political discourse.
A mistake is putting pepper on your chips rather than salt.
Whatever the case, Laws, jailed labour MPs, Aitken………………none are mistakes. They all have their own motivation and their own volition, and usually over a sunstantial period.
All this huff & puff & comment over what, even if true, is a very common and trivial offence on any reasonable scale of things, just goes to show what the Liberal Democrats are up against. Today [16th May] two daily publications [ they call themselves Newspapers – I couldn’t possibly comment ] devote their front pages to the Huhne alleged offence committed in 2003!! Is there nothing else happening in the world? LibDem leadership, very sadly for the country, have, from day one last May, underestimated the power & venom of the second coalition of the rightwing of the Tories, most of the Press, big money, and hanging on to the coattails, a Labour Party that for 13yrs followed Tory policies.
“All this huff & puff & comment over what, even if true, is a very common and trivial offence on any reasonable scale of things …”
Evidently you didn’t read the last comment, which points out that it’s an offence which can carry a life sentence!
Vicky Pryce: the woman behind Chris Huhne’s downfall [Telegraph May 16] is at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8515434/Vicky-Pryce-the-woman-behind-Chris-Huhnes-downfall.htmlThe rise of Huhne was facilitated by her money, connections and ambition . .
@coldcomfort speeding is possibly trivial (or an unacceptable risk depending on perspective) but getting someone else to admit guilt for your offence is a very serious criminal act as it is a deliberate attempt to undermine justice. As was pointed out by Alec Macph, Tommy Sheridan was imprisoned for the coverup, not the wrongdoing (not that he did anything legally wrong, but you know what I mean). You simply cannot have politicians who act as if they are above the law.
>> Two wrongs don’t make a right.
It goes beyond that. TWDMaR refers to breaking the law/rules to effect a desirous outcome, e.g. privatizing the NHS hopefully to solve the admitted problem with tax revenue not coming close to the public perceptions of what it should deliver. Sensenco’s position simply was objecting to a politician he likes being held to the same standards as one he doesn’t like.
Anti-democratic and morally bankrupt.
Furthermore, his citing the invasion of Iraq was particularly opportunistic. Despite the best efforts from him and the bien pesant MSM, it has not been found to be illegal. So, in an attempt to take the heat off Huhne for certain as-yet unexamined allegations, he cites allegations which time and time again have not be substantiated.
Then there was his referring to David Kelly. This is less amusing than it is downright contemptable. Kelly supported the invasion which Sensenco feels compelled to call illegal at every opportunity, and believed in Saddam’s continued CBN plans. After being used as cannon fodder by moral pygmies in the press who imagined themselves as being on a Watergate-style scoop – up to an including recording telephone conversations with him, in defiance of both the law and journalistic ethics – one them outed him to save his own neck.
Royally screwed by this side, Kelly then found himself thrown to the lions of Whitehall. And this was a man in very poor health, whose coronary arteries were, according to the examaing pathologist – who knew him – , that of someone several decades older.
Small wonder he was at his wits end.
Everything and anything about his post mortem which was relevant was already in the public domain when the presiding judge slapped a secrecy order on the rest. Not to protect the Government, but as a sign of respect to the man’s poor wife who had seen her beloved husband and father hung out to dry by everyone.
Dr. David Kelly CMG, 14 May 1944 – 17 July 2003. RIP. You had more intregrity in your little finger than all of the goons who used you.
>> to the man’s poor wife who had seen her beloved husband and father hung out to dry by everyone.
Erm. That should have been “poor family”. He wasn’t David Bob Kelly from rural Lousiana.
The Vicky Price link should be:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8515434/Vicky-Pryce-the-woman-behind-Chris-Huhnes-downfall.html
Apparently it can be proved that Vicky Price was at an LSE seminar in Central London at around the time of the speeding offence in Essex. So if what’s been alleged is true things could be very difficult indeed for Chris Huhne.
http://order-order.com/2011/05/16/exclusive-proof-vicky-pryce-was-not-in-essex-that-day/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/
A quick reminder about our moderation policy and also steering clear of comments that get into hot water on the libel front. Thanks.
Gary Gibbon (C4 News) blogs: ‘ . . Chris Huhne may yet survive this and may even be spared a police investigation if there’s no worthwhile evidence to scrutinise for a speeding offence in 2003. But his longer term political ratings look severely dented. He has always played hard in politics. That’s why so many Lib Dems nearly went for him rather than Nick Clegg in the leadership contest. They thought he had sharper elbows and today, wandering around the Commons checking out his colleagues’ views, you get a feeling for how many people have been hurt by those sharper elbows over the years.’
http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/huhne-in-a-hurry/15261
I voted for him twice; if the Christmas post hadn’t been delayed he’d be our leader today, some say.
Would it not be highly illiberal for a Liberal Democrat MP to sue a Liberal Democrat Party recognized blog for someone non Party members said?
~alec
A lot more information in the papers tomorrow, together with statements that Vicky Pryce is prepared to testify against Chris Huhne in court.
I know very little about the lives of the rich and famous, but do men like Chris Huhne really rely on two-hour-round-trip lifts from their wives to get back home from the airport?
Re Chris, ‘carries a life sentence’ absolutely we are far too soft on crime. I suggest the next person who is accused of stealing a paperclip from their office & denies it is banged up for at least 5yrs even if there is no proof. Get a sense of proportion. The reality is that the two daily print media outlets who are gunning for Chris Huhne have devoted their front pages for a second day to this issue which, unlike Libya, Syria, ongoing deaths on either side of the Israel/Palestine conflict, more global financial crises, and so on and so on, is clearly of world shattering importance. The timing is no accident. Chris’s success in getting a carbon emissions policy past the Tory Right & the power of money has successfully been overshadowed by this campaign. Having demonised Nick Clegg the next target is Chris Huhne, the ultimate goal being the destruction of the Liberal Democrats. If ‘Chris’ is from the Tory Right then his/her comments are to be expected. If Labour be very very careful what you wish for.
The Telegraph reports today: ‘ . . Mr Huhne cancelled a statement he was scheduled to make in the House of Commons today in which he was due to set out the Government’s climate change strategy. It will instead be delivered in the form of a written statement . . ‘ .
“If ‘Chris’ is from the Tory Right then his/her comments are to be expected.”
Ah – a trip down memory lane! Before May 2010 I used to be called a “Tory Troll” all the time. Since then I’ve nearly always been accused of being a “Labour Troll.” Perhaps this is a sign that something is changing – though I’m not sure what …
As for your silly comments about pinching paper-clips, if you think about it for a while, I’m sure you’ll be able to work out why lying to the police about a criminal offence _has_ to be considered a serious matter. And even if you still don’t get it for the population at large, surely you can see why a conviction for perverting the course of justice isn’t something that an MP can simply shrug off.
Yeah, Chris, it’s been the same for me. Some people just cannot adapt to the responsibilities of power. David Blunkett had their number, 118.
This excuse could be used for pretty much any question of individual MPs’ conduct, and – as with Sensenco – boils down to your not wanting politicians you do like to be held accountable to the same standards as everyone else. I raised a question above which has not been addressed… would you have sympathized with Harriet Harman or Eric Joyce, or even Baroness Scotland when others were ‘gunning’ for them over their peccadilloes?
Maybe, but I doubt it very much. And I would have agreed with you.
Oh poor diddums. So Huhne wanted to be a boxer? This is what happens. There are people out there with sharp elbows, just as Party members thought approvingly of Huhne.
Hang-on, I think I have <a href="https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-for-those-about-to-defect-we-dont-salute-you-19512.html"<this graceless piece which managed to appal US Congressional candidates who now think the British LibDems are a spiteful lot contemptuous of mere voters.
Bet you wish you still had them.
I’m sure there are other pieces on LDV crowing over the expenses scandal, and pointing to the LibDems’ supposed probity.
The issue here is not, I repeat NOT about a simple traffic offence. It is of allegations of perverting the course of justice. If mere oiks like me did that, we’d expect the full force of the law. Why not the same for politicians you like?
Likewise, if mere oiks like me overclaimed on our benefits – maybe to put an extra beer on the table or be able to heat our homes, rather than conceal our relationship status with money we had many times over – we’d be hammered, possibly with community service. We’d also have to repay every penny of what would represent a significant chunk of our meagre incomes, not a small bit of a multi-million wealth.
t was said then that
Huhne’s statement on the Fourth Carbon Budget [the topic of this thread!] is at: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-05-17a.176.0&s=speaker%3A11565+section%3Adebate#g176.1
A good response for Labour by Meg Hillier, I thought; I hadn’t seen her in action before.
Clegg on the House of Lords is at: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-05-17a.155.0&s=speaker%3A11812+section%3Adebate#g155.1