By “mutual agreement”, earlier today Lord Oakeshott stopped being a Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman in the Lords. In a lively alternative to the usually banal exchange of letters on such occasions, Oakeshott and Danny Alexander instead exchanged waspish soundbites.
Matthew Oakeshott criticised today’s deal with the banks on bonuses, lending and other matters saying, “If this is robust action on bank bonuses, my name’s Bob Diamond and I’m going to claim my £9m bonus next week”.
Danny Alexander responded on Channel 4 that his “name clearly isn’t Bob Diamond”.
Lord Oakeshott was not “the” Liberal Democrat spokesman in the Lords, a role which falls to Dick Newby. However, he was “a” spokesman. Aside from those in government, the Liberal Democrat peers in the Lords have since the election had a team of lead spokespeople on issues (Dick Newby in this case) along with a varying number of supporting spokespeople (one in the Treasury case, Matthew Oakeshott). There has been a range of views expressed in the last few days as to the exact formal role of the supporting spokespeople which, along with the lead versus supporting spokesperson distinction, helps explain the different comments made at different times.
Channel 4’s Cathy Newman reported, “Lord Oakeshott texted me saying: ‘I’ve decided I wd be more comfortable as a backbencher because I’m v unhappy with banking agreement.'”
Note: post updated to make clearer the situation with spokespeople in the Lords.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
How the war impacted on Ravensworth
The Englishman in the High Castle
Slow consulting
ALS, MND - is this another disease where biohacking has potential?
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Care homes under threat after Labour policy change
David Le Grice
Geoffrey Payne
Simon McGrath
48 Comments
What is interesting here is that the LIbDem response is being fronted up by Alexander rather than Cable, especially given that Cable has been the one involved in discussions with the banks. One could speculate as to why that is……………
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he, our Danny?
Isn’t it interesting that a Lib Dem spokesman said Oakeshott couldn’t remain a spokesman because he didn’t support the “party’s policy”?
That would be the Coalition Party, I assume.
Will Lord Oakeshott remain the head of Cables business advisor group. If he does then this will tell us much. Note how Cable has left it to Alexander to promote this policy. Is Oakeshott acting as his mouthpiece?
Just watched Danny A on the news and thought he sounded really unconvincing & ineffectual. I expect Vince C feels the same way as Lord Oakshott but doubt he will put his head above the parapet.(though I really wish he would)
Alexander was well rattled on telly tonight – the only time he gets away a bit with his hard-man line is in the Commons when no one can answer back. He’s easy meat even to fairly weak TV presenters.
One of these days someone will really take him apart on TV and I can’t wait to see it.
Elbowing a non-government-post-holding non-Commons Lib Dem from their post because they’re not staying on-message by the standards of the Coalition is worrying.
Still not just Alexander who’s coming apart. Cameron totally got it wrong or lied at PMQ or tried to be clever and failed over Sure Start budget,
You really have got to take a microscope to every word that slides out his mouth.
Still it was nice to hear him make it clear that Trident was going ahead despite Tim Farron claiming a victory on the issue. Looks like that’s another LibDem commitment broken.
This agreement is unacceptable it will allow the Banks to continue down the road to ruin. The Government has chosen to appease the billionaires presumbly convinced by their threats, although the fact that the Conservatives received half their funding from the City may have something to do with it. Do the politician just not get it, the electorate regard these bonuses as obscene.
Cable seems to have turned to guerilla wafare, after the Telegraph sting. It’s as if he has sent Oakeshott out as a suicide bomber against Osborne’s pitiful bank agreement.
Clearly Lord Oakeshott was de facto a spokesman, even if de jure he wasn’t. Whoever it is who has been suggesting on behalf of the party that this doesn’t really signify anything because he wasn’t “really” a Treasury spokesman in the first place, could they please stop it. It just makes the party look stupid.
The substance of the disagreement is being reported in different ways. Some are saying that Oakeshott disagreed with party policy. That is clearly wrong. (Or rather he may, but what is at issue here isn’t party policy.) Some are framing it in terms of him attempting to hold the Government to the coalition agreement (and, I guess, giving up). Some that he disagrees with the substance of the policy that has been agreed.
Quite apart from the feebleness of the merlin “deal”, I find this rather disappointing. Oakeshott was one of the few Lib Dems with a public profile who was willing to show a bit of independence and not just trot out the Government’s standard line like a Tory poodle. He gave you hope that there was still a bit of independence of thought and perspective in there somewhere. Clearly, we can’t be allowing that!
Olly, I have never been impressed with Danny Alexander. God knows how he’s got where he has.
Well done to Oakshott for saying what he did.At least we know there is at least one lib dem peer who will speak up and defend the hard working taxpayers who bailed out the banks for their reckless behaviour.
In fairness, Alexander has done a pretty good job of defending the indefensible since last May – he’s certainly handled an impossible burden far better than the rest of his fellow Lib Dem honchos, Clegg, Laws and Cable. But if he’s genuinely said his “name clearly isn’t Bob Diamond”, he’s just lost all that credibility. That was exactly the point of the accusation, you buffoon!
Danny Alexander – Diamond geezer!
Sky News reports…
“The peer, who used to be a City financier, told Sky News: “I’m afraid the banks have taken the Treasury for a ride.
“So I have decided I should say that from the backbenches, not the front.”
Earlier, he branded the long-awaited deal with the UK’s biggest banks as “pitiful” and the Treasury negotiators were “incompetent”.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is said to be “furious” at Lord Oakeshott’s comments.”
Are we seeing lines being drawn inside Liberal Democrats, maybe who knows…
But to be honest after the revelations of Conservative contributions from the city I expected any deal to be in favour of the banks no matter what spin is said about the deal…
I think it’s you that have that one wrong LabourLiberal, the point Alexander was making, in a not very original way, was that it WAS robust action. Matthew Oakeshott’s decibel level has been going up over the last few days, I noticed, and I am not really surprised it has ended like this. Good on him.
@Tim
I may have had a few drinks tonight, but…:
“If this is robust action on bank bonuses, my name’s Bob Diamond “, followed by:
his “name clearly isn’t Bob Diamond”.
Means that it isn’t robust action, surely? Or am I missing something?
I actually took Alexander’s ‘His name clearly isn’t Bob Diamond’ to be a subtle and humorous reference to the fact that even he thinks it isn’t ‘robust action’.
Well done Lord Oakeshott. At Last! A senior Lib Dem who is prepared to tell the truth and seems not one jot afraid of Clegg, Cameron, Osborne and the rest of the “Coallitiion”. The bankers had nothing to fear from their friends in the Tory Party, and now they have got a white flag from the Lib Dem “leadership” as well. Just watch those bonuses now. As for Clegg and Cameron, you are really are in it together; and as for Alexander, I have just seen the most awful performance imaginable from him on the BBC news channel. The word “pitiful” keeps springing up this week.
I wonder if this is just a higher profile sign of a growing divide. The LD ministers are increasingly falling into two camps – the human shields who support Conservative policies irrespective of how extreme and a much less partisan group. I watched a bit of Vince’s performance in the BIS session in Parlt yesterday and he kept a very close focus on a policy supported across the House and avoided partisan jibes. I also notice how Chris Huhne has been staying clear and concentrating on the detail of his brief. Meanwhile Clegg , Alexander and Stunnell blunder on and Laws schemes away. Presumably Oakeshott will not be alone for long. Month by month the list of disaffected peers and MPs will grow.
Laws is the answer
Clearly Cameron and Clegg where lying last month when they said they would allow “disagreements” and “differences” between parties to be more public.
The first person who expresses his disagreement publicly and he ends up getting the boot.
@ matt, I suspect the “mutual consent” business is about avoiding a resignation following the deal rather than a sacking.
(I suspect Oakshott said “I’m quitting” and the response was “that’s fine”)
Oh, I don’t know. How about this from the BBC?
“More than 90 prominent Liberal Democrat councillors, including the leaders of 18 local authorities, have criticised the scale and pace of government cuts.
In a letter to the Times, they say cuts will have “an undoubted impact on all front-line council services, including care services to the vulnerable”.
They also accuse ministers of “denigrating” councils in the media.”
@Grammar Police
That’s not the impression that Danny Alexander gave last night on the BBC.
I think it came across quite clearly that Lord Oakeshott was pushed pretty hard, No doubt the truth will out 😉 and when it does, Cameron and Clegg’s promise to allow differences between the parties will be shown up for what they are, just like all the other promises they have made, Worthless
I think Lord Oakshott may be the most popular politician in the country right now.
Despite the best efforts of the Party to spin + diminish Oakeshott’s role, this is clearly yet another sign that the Coalition is simply tearing the Lib Dems apart.
Seeing the hateful Danny Alexander trying to appear macho on the news last night was disturbing.
This, on top of the letter to the Times today from 92 angry + disenfranchised Lib Dem councillors, is just the beginning. Clegg has thus far protected himself by surrounding his position with sycophants like Cable, Alexander, Teather etc. It will not be too long before the Lib Dem Ministers begin to depart, leaving Clegg and his love-in with the Tory Party in tatters.
The Mail has this:
(I think the source was referring to Oakeshott rather than Clegg, though it’s not entirely clear.)
I think this proves what slippery customers the banks are and that with the Tories being only half-hearted (if that) in their efforts to bring them to heel, the Lib Dems on their own faced a massive challenge when set against powerful and wealthy vested interests.
However, while in office, Labour didn’t even try to restrain the banks. Look at the poor deal they negotiated under the terms of the bailout. That was a sham as well. So I don’t think the Labour supporters here have much to crow about, given their party’s record of caving in to the banksters.
Why is it that when Lib Dems disagree with each other their “party is being torn apart” and when Labour and Conservative figures disagree with each other (as they often do, and equally as vigorously) there is nothing like the hyperbole. Dissent is healthy. Which makes Andrew Stunnell’s dismissal of the councillors’ statement as “pointless debate” all the more depressing.
All in all, three cheers for Lord Oakeshott. “Project Merlin”, as well as being stupidly named, was ridiculous. The “increase” in lending is not even an increase, in real terms. Back to the worst of New Labour.
In what universe does Clegg get “furious” at Oakeshotte instead of a Treasury that had shown “an awful combination of arrogance and incompetence” in negotiations and got lending commitments which were “weak and waffly” while “viable” firms were being starved of funds ?
Danny Alexander was a punchline last night while Clegg continues to look more out of touch by the day.
12 weeks to the May elections. Cameron proves the Trident pledge was another worthless one, the Big Society car crash keeps rolling on over the top of the CAB and other vital services and to top it all the AV Vote was hit by a body-blow wrecking amendment which Clegg cannot bear to speak about.
The Osborne clique in the Treasury and around Cameron (including Clegg) simply have no conception of how despised the bankers are and after yesterdays Conservative Party City funding revelations the Bankers ‘problem’ isn’t going anywhere and is going to get worse and worse as the months and years go by.
I think that we are forgetting that Vince was the one having the discussions with the banks – what happened to accountability, getting Beaker to provide cover clearly isn’t the answer..
At last, a LibDem parliamentarian with some balls. Well done, Lord Oakeshott. And a message from the grass roots on the same day. Perhaps the party is beginning to find its voice
It makes me almost wish I was going to Conference next month
@Nick (not Clegg)
Methinks anyone going to the conference needs a tin hat and flak jacket – I’ve still got mine from my Labour Party days – Oh happy memories 🙂
Another day another disaster. With the big cash splash for the banks due
Osborne has cobbled together a shambolic deal most of which is unenforceable.
Not surprising after it was revealed that the City is picking 50% of the tab for running
the Tory Party. Yes I know the Unions underwrite Labour but does that make it ok then?
Danny Boy is obviously trying to outperform Slasher Osborne.
@ EcoJon,
Perhaps, like Walter Wolfgang, you needed protection from your stewards? I used to be a steward at LibDem conferences, but I did not manhandle people nor physicaly eject them from the auditorium.
Good on Lord Oakeshott.
The must-read post on this comes from naked capitalism’s Richard Smith who describes the Treasury press release as “mendacious”.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/george-osborne-channels-bob-diamond-that-wont-end-well.html
It’s well worth the click through.
Lord Oakeshott’s remarks might have been better framed but I have to agree with the sentiment. I do think what the ConDem government could have gone a lot further on this…….after all the banks got us into this mess and there are jolly well going to get us out it. The banks would not leave from one of the pre-eminent stock markets in the world. There is too much toing and frowing betwix central government and the boards of these banks. Nick Clegg can be furious but if the truth hurts then this is it. This government could have done so much more!
It’s a great shame that this had to happen. I’ve always admired Lord Oakeshott. But I think that the leadership is right on this. I know some colleagues hate it when I say this, but, in politics, there is such a thing as collective responsibility. There is such a thing as team spirit. And there is such a thing as party discipline. Especially when the party is in government. So I think that it was exactly the right decision for Lord Oakeshott not to be a Treasury spokesperson for the party if he fundamentally disagrees with our own Lib Dem Government Ministers’ actions on Treasury matters.
“there is such a thing as collective responsibility”
Unfortunately, in this aspect of government, there appears to be collective irresponsibilty. Oakshott wants some ‘beef’. On offer is really cheap salami.
“there is such a thing as collective responsibility”
I thought that only applied to Ministers, and since Lord oakeshott is a member of the Lords and not a Cabinet Minister, He should have been able to express his views freely.
After all, it was only a few weeks ago, that Cameron and Clegg said they where going to allow there members to have more disagreements in public.
This coalition and the party leaders are fast becoming the most immoral, unprincipled, dishonest government to date.
First they increase tuition fee’s to 9k, before even voting on legislation with regards to access for poorer students, e.t.c.
Then they “reform” the NHS through privatization, when they have no mandate to do so.
We where promised a tough approach on the Banks and bankers bonuses, which has been a farce, we have since learned that 50% of Tory Funding comes from the city.
Unemployment is rising, Inflation is Rising, fuel prices soaring, The Economy has stalled {All this is happening under the coalitions policies, Not Labours} And at the same time when the banks are still underwritten by the tax payers and the BOE is still pumping in Millions to keep them afloat, we are about to witness the banks awarding themselves 6 Billion in Bonuses.
Our deficit would not be nearly as bad without the money that’s been lent to the banks to prop up their balance sheets,
It is a disgrace when the rest of the economy has stalled, and everyone is feeling the pinch, due to the cuts, Bankers will still get these obscene bonuses,
But I guess the Conservatives are not that bothered, because the party donations that they get from them, will go towards helping to destroy the Liberal Democrats, “when the time is right of course”
What should worry us all is the fact that the writ of the leader runs to party as well as to coalation spokespeople.
Oakeshott’s departure shows that we must have a separation of powers between the leader of the coalition and that of the party.
Otherwise it will be impossible for the party to develop the kind of independent thinking or discussion that we need to reassert truly Liberal Democrat principles and values into formulating the radical and very different policy platform on which we fight the next election.
If Clegg and his sycophant cronies are in command of the party and can police all independent thought, we are doomed to having to defend the coalition at the next election. And, worse, thinking in coalition terms of diluted Toryism.
It is time we let the leader and his ministers get on with running the country for another four awful years. And let us devote our time unfettered to putting the party first
@Jonathan Hunt
It’s too late the public know that the Party is toothless and that Clegg’s the Main Man so they’ll take their revenge at the next GE.
I fundamentally disagree with Jonathan Hunt on this point. Of course the Party Leader must be able to remove frontbench spokespeople – that’s completely normal in any properly functional political party. Collective responsibility does apply to front bench spokespeople, even if they are not ministers. Are they required to agree slavishly with every detail of Government policy? No, of course not. But how can someone remain a Lib Dem Treasury spokesman if he disagrees with the policies being enacted by Lib Dem Ministers on Treasury affairs? It is perfectly possible for us to remain a democratic party, with elected committees, a sovereign conference, etc, while also being disciplined and allowing the (elected) Leader to lead. In his autobiography, David Steel recounts Jo Grimond telling him that the problem with the Liberal Party was that every time you tried to use the party as a political weapon, it falls apart in your hands. Surely we have improved since those days?
Just noticed Mark’s reference to Dick Newby in his piece. All I can say is that we have heard a lot more in the media over the months from Oakeshott than we ever have from Newby. Or are we not supposed to hear from our Lords’ Treasury spokesman? My impression has been that Oakeshott has been doing exactly what he should over the months, and has had to fall on his sword for trying to campaign publicly for what was always supposed to be LD policy!
Matthew Harris should realise that we are in entirely new territory where many of the traditional conventions no longer exist.
We must learn to differentiate between ministers in the coalition, who as in any government are bound by collective responsibility, and party spokesmen who, if responsible to anything or anyone, owe their allegience to the party and its manifesto,
That is why there may have to be a separation of powers, where Nick Clegg commands the parliamentary party in government and another form of leadership controls spokespersons and other whose first loyalty is to the party.
While I argue that we as party members should ignore the coalition and let it get on with governing the country, we should be working on radical new policies aimed at securing victory for the party and our beliefs and values in 2015. We ain’t going to achieve that by by relying on the succes of the coalition.
Voters look forward, never backwards.
So our spokespeople are rather large piggies in the middle, not involved in making government policy, but expected to blindly support it. As we grow closer to an election, we must expect them to be championing the party’s policies rather than those of the coalition.
If the leader and deputy prime minister can sack them at will for doing so, we will find ourselves in unnesssary conflict.
Thanks to Jonathan Hunt for his comments.
Jonathan, I agree with you that we are in “entirely new territory where many of the traditional conventions no longer exist”. We are not only in government, but also in a coalition government, after 65 years in opposition, so we need to adjust to the disciplines of government. It is obviously true that party spokespeople owe an allegiance to the party, and that includes owing an allegiance to the elected leadership – otherwise why elect the leadership in the first place, if they are not to be allowed to lead?
Nobody can have Jonathan’s suggested allegiance to the 2010 General Election Manifesto, a document which set out what we would do in the next five years if we won the General Election and formed a Lib Dem Government – neither of which happened. It is a document from the past. It is wonderful, and important, that the Coalition is implementing so very many of the policies from our manifesto, but, by 2015, many of the 2010 manifesto items will be irrelevant, there will be a whole new set of challenges, and we are now in a different situation from the one in which we wrote the 2010 manifesto.
I take strong exception to Jonathan’s saying: “That is why there may have to be a separation of powers, where Nick Clegg commands the parliamentary party in government and another form of leadership controls spokespersons and other whose first loyalty is to the party. ” Read that sentence carefully and think about what it means. Is Jonathan suggesting that Nick Clegg’s first loyalty is not to the party? I first joined the Liberal Party at the age of 15 in 1986. I am a loyal supporter of Nick Clegg and of the Coalition Government – that does not mean that my first loyalty is not to the party, since – hello! – Nick Clegg has been elected to LEAD the party.
I am a Liberal Democrat party member because I agree with the broad thrust of party policy, admire the party’s leaders and agree with most of what the party is doing in government. Why would anyone bother to join any political party (including the Liberal Democrats) if they did not basically agree with what the party is doing? There is a worrying tendency in the Labour and Lib Dem parties to believe that those who most disagree with the leadership, and who most disagree with national party policy, are somehow most authentically true to the spirit of the party. It is nonsense. We certainly cannot have a “separation of powers” in the party leadership. This is a political party. It is not a debating society. Its role is to win power so that it can implement its policies for the good of the country.
Jonathan argues that “we as party members should ignore the coalition and let it get on with governing the country”. No thank you! I am pleased and proud that my party is in government and I will continue to serve all party colleagues in any way that I see fit, if you’ll forgive me for sounding so pompous. Across the democratic world. when a party is in power, its members have a role – surely, as liberals, we would strongly encourage that? I shall continue to feed my views, etc, into the process – it was great doing that in opposition, but it is a thousand times better doing it now that the party is in government.
Jonathan suggests that “the party” – i.e. a bunch of activists – should be getting on with making party policy, while the MPs get on with governing in the Coalition. So this would mean that we activists sit in an ivory tower, planning for the glorious day when we have a Liberal Government, while the MPs and Ministers – those who would actually have to implement the policies concerned if we won an election – are off governing the country in the here and now? So they, the Lib Dem ministers slogging their guts out in the Coalition, would be associated with the Coalition’s successes and failures, but we – “the party”, i.e. a bunch of activists of whom the general public has mostly never heard – remain pristine and blameless? Millions of TV viewers would see Lib Dem leaders acting in government, but “the party” would say that such leaders, and their actions, are nothing to do with us really? I cannot think of any more reprehensible or disloyal suggestion.
I agree with Jonathan that “we should be working on radical new policies aimed at securing victory for the party and our beliefs and values in 2015”. But that is not what caused Lord Oakeshott to leave the front bench. He was not, on this occasion, articulating an exciting policy for the next General Election – he was attacking the day-to-day actions of Lib Dem colleagues in government, and doing it in vivid language on television. You can’t do that AND be a frontbencher.
Jonathan argues that: “We ain’t going to (do well in 2015) by by relying on the succes of the coalition. Voters look forward, never backwards.” How does Jonathan know this? I’ve just been reading a work of political science called “The British General Election of 2010”. Its authors demonstrate pretty convincingly that a lot the voters who abandoned Labour did so because of Labour’s poor record in government, which I would have thought was a statement of the obvious. Are we now saying that the performance of a government does not influence how people vote at an election?! Come on. Surely when we get re-elected to control particular local councils, it is in large part because we have run them well? “A record of action, a promise of more” – I think I’ve heard that somewhere before?
We are now being seen as a party of national government and there is some polling evidence (beyond the voting intention figures) that shows that people rather like it. We are now increasingly seen as a party that is prepared to take tough decisions even if it means making ourselves unpopular – that is a very good way to be seen. Nobody at the next election will be able to say that we have no experience of government. Nobody will be able to say that it’s impossible to have a stable government in a hung parliament. And nobody will be able to say that Liberal Democrats are a bunch of nice people who who wouldn’t have the guts to take unpopular decisions in governmnent. Those three things can benefit us enormously at the next General Election, along with our own great policies.
Jonathan says that “our spokespeople are rather large piggies in the middle, not involved in making government policy, but expected to blindly support it.” They are involved in making government policy – you think Lib Dem and Tory government ministers are not talking policy with Lib Dem spokespeople and other Lib Dems? They most certainly are, and rightly so.
“As we grow closer to an election, we must expect (spokespeople) to be championing the party’s policies rather than those of the coalition,” says Jonathan. No, we need a synthesis, saying: “Look what we Lib Dems have achieved in the coalition. The more power you give us, the more we can go on achieving, based on our policies and building on the Coalition’s achievements. Vote for us so that we either win the election, or can again be a powerful partner in a coalition.” You think we’ll get anywhere at the next election presenting the coalition as if it is our dirty little secret? If the economy recovers, then people will see that this happened because two political parties were prepared to put aside their differences and govern together in the national interest – and they will reward the Liberal Democrats for having been willing to do this.
“If the leader and deputy prime minister can sack (spokespeople) at will for doing so, we will find ourselves in unnesssary conflict” – no, we won’t find ourselves in unnecessary conflict. We’ll find ourselves in a grown-up political party that is in government and which accepts that there is one party leadership and not several.
What worries me is that some colleagues actually don’t like national government at all. They are suspicious of central government, and of people in power, so they don’t want the Liberal Democrats to be involved with such things. That is an extremely silly and depressing attitude. I am excited and delighted that the Lib Dems are in government. I believe that our ministers are influencing the country for the better. If colleagues would allow themselves to feel the same, they’d realise what a great time this is for our party.
Of course, the Coalition came to power in an economic crisis and is having to make big cuts to public spending – however necessary that is, it is deeply regrettable. But it is necessary. The cuts are being made to Labour’s projected forward spending plans. Labour were planning to borrow the money for this increased spending. It was fantasy economics – the money did not exist, except in the ledgers of the people who were going to lend it to us. It is precisely that fantasy economics, based on debt, that led to my being made redundant in 2009, an experience which was obviously deeply unpleasant. This new government – including our party – is working to consign such fantasy economics to the past, so that we can have a sustainable economy that is not built on debt. Nothing could make me prouder as a Liberal Democrat. Let’s shout this message from the rooftops and support what our party colleagues are doing in government.