The papers have been full of Nick Clegg, recently. Various papers, including the Guardian, got pretty exercised about him receiving £22,500 for a speech and 2 hours’ work at an event for Goldman Sachs:
The former deputy prime minister, who condemned the global investment bank in 2010 for alleged “recklessness and greed”, listed the payment in the latest entry for the Commons register of members’ interests.
The entry said that his agent, News Presenters Ltd, arranged for him to be paid £22,500 for delivering a keynote speech and moderating a question and answer session over dinner for Goldman Sachs in London on 2 December 2015. The speech examined Britain’s place in the EU.
Sure, it’s a massive amount of money, even if you factor in the time it takes to actually write the speech. It’s eye-watering, even, that someone can get not far off the national average wage for a couple of hours’ work.
Let’s get it slightly in perspective, though. I guess his agents will get a fair cut of that, and he’ll pay 40% in tax. That will still leave him a sum north of £10k. Sources confirm a substantial donation to his local party for their local election campaign.
Questioned about the payment, Nick’s office said:
Nick Clegg is regularly invited to speak to business audiences about Britain’s place in Europe, given his knowledge and expertise, and openly declares when he has been paid for doing so.
That’s fair enough. However, another recent Telegraph report highlighted that he had one of the worst Commons voting record since May, only voting in 10% of divisions.
Confronted about the low attendance, a spokesman for Mr Clegg said he had voted every time he thought it was possible to “make a difference” but promised to “improve” next year.
I get that it would be better if he turned up and voted more often, and I hope he does, but let’s not be too hasty to condemn. For five years, he’s had to vote pretty much all the time as a member of the Government. He’s now part of a small opposition party facing a single party majority government. There haven’t been many votes when a government defeat in the Commons has been likely. All that action is taking place in the Lords when Labour can be bothered turning up. That said, we do need to see more of him contributing in the Commons because he talks a lot of sense. I suspect that many of the Liberal Democrats I’ve seen criticising him over this would not be happy with that because they seem to want him never to open his mouth in public ever again, but I think we do need to hear him talk more about social mobility, Europe and education, international relations and human rights because he has a lot of good things to say. Just this week, his speech launching his commission on social mobility shows that he has the same commitment that he’s always had to ensure that people are not held back by their backgrounds.
It’s also important to remember that there’s more to being an MP than just voting. It’s not like he’s just accepting huge sums of money and then sitting back in an easy chair watching Arsenal and eating Curly Wurlies. He’s spending a lot of time in Sheffield in his constituency in a way that he wasn’t able to do as Deputy Prime Minister. This week he visited a hospice as the Sheffield Telegraph reported:
Saki Roussos and Courtney Allen chatted with the MP during a visit to the hospice he organised to learn about its work, how many people it supports and how money is raised to keep its doors open.
He also spoke to staff and volunteers about their work.
Claire Rintoul, Chief Executive at Bluebell Wood, said: “It was great to welcome Nick and talk to him about our work.
So he’s up there doing surgeries, meeting people, working with the local party, campaigning for the local elections this May and generally being a good constituency MP. People were saying that he might have preferred not to have been re-elected, but he seems to be putting a lot of effort into his work.
Yes, he could vote more often, and he should, but if Goldman Sachs want to pay him a ridiculous sum of money for an event, let them. It’s early days to expect someone who’s spent five years as Deputy PM to have found another public role, but he’s getting out there again and that has to be a good thing.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Doing my bit at Whickham Church Green
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
Kira Collins
Ian Patterson
Daniel Walker
Richard Flowers
Mick Taylor
21 Comments
I must be alone in finding the voting record inexcusable. And in a tiny minority at finding the £22,500 for two hours’ work obscene.
If Clegg can’t be bothered to do the job of an MP he should quit. The problem is and has been that the people in charge of election strategy are scared of elections which probably explains their dismal performance.
…………………So to excuse his voting record we have “He’s now part of a small opposition party facing a single party majority government” and “There haven’t been many votes when a government defeat in the Commons has been likely.”….
Just as well those unpaid volunteers “at the coalface” don’t think like that otherwise the “small opposition party” might find itself consigned to history…
“I get that it would be better if he turned up and voted more often, and I hope he does, but let’s not be too hasty to condemn. For five years, he’s had to vote pretty much all the time as a member of the Government.”
That might be a justification if it were close to being true. He actually voted in less than one in four divisions when he was DPM. As an opposition MP pre-2010 he voted 42% of the time. During both those periods he still (presumably) did all the constituency stuff.
As his voting record is worse now than when he was DPM is it fair to say that he now has more stuff taking him away from Commons votes than when he was second in command of the government.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Nick_Clegg&mpc=Sheffield%2C_Hallam&house=commons
Cannot understand those who criticize…I wish my local Tory MP was doing local things and being an MP as I would expect. Thought they were supposed to represent their constituents not just be party hacks. I must have got it wrong
the real question is why large companies actually pay politicians for these speeches. They are usually dire, out of date and do not contribute anything to the company. Nick Clegg is now a yesterday man. He leads 8 MPs out of 650 so unlikely to influence much in this parliament.
On the Andrew Marr show this morning, he did seem to admit that his voting record wasn’t good enough. He may have felt it was better for the party, and for the new leader, if he kept a low profile, focusing on his constituency. But as the party only has eight MPs, it really is essential that each of them plays an active role in Parliament.
Bruce’s comment above, suggesting that Nick Clegg “leads eight MPs” is an example of the fact that quite a large number of the public seem to be under the impression that Nick Clegg is still the leader. I know it isn’t Tim Farron’s fault if the media overlook him, but perhaps this does illustrate that he needs to raise his profile
If a private company evaluates Mr Clegg’s knowledge concerning the EU referendum at £ 22.500, good for him. After tax it will indeed not amount to this and it is his choice to decide what to do with it. In any case unless by some miraculous fit ‘his’ loss of the elections also obliterated his perspicacity, his advice on any matter should always be considered and due respect given to him as befits a former elected party leader who has implicated himself as best he could – even if this did not suffice (and we know that the faults of the loss are shared in many ways). As to his faults, fear not, history will judge as it always does, but there are clearly many others who far more deserve ‘judgment’ as it is quite clear that at heart he is a good man.
I suggest more people look at the register of MPs’ interests and perhaps made sure this information is more widely spread in their constituency?
All across the UK there are examples of MPs who are doing rather well to put it mildly – on top of claiming to serve their constituents. For some, if you count up the hours allocated to their commercial work, it suddenly becomes rather hard to believe the claims that many MPs typically do a 60 hour plus week serving their constituents.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/160111/160111.pdf
As for Nick Clegg his voting record is indeed poor – no excuses I am afraid.
However, my biggest complaint against him is his Evening Standard columns, which seem to do the party no favour. His very first column was even praising the Garden Bridge. I hope today he is reflecting on such an ill informed article following the Observer’s latest revelations:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jan/16/garden-bridge-george-osborne-avoided-official-channels-mayor
@Bruce “the real question is why large companies actually pay politicians for these speeches. They are usually dire, out of date and do not contribute anything to the company. ”
To be fair, Clegg’s speech is probably just part of the celebrity circuit of presenting at corporate events and the fees he can command are probably higher now than they ever will be in the future. It does seem an exorbitant amount of money, but looking at this website (http://www.speakerscorner.co.uk/) there are quite a few alternatives at Clegg’s price point.
I don’t care how much Clegg was paid for delivering a speech – that is between his sponsors and himself. What I do care about is his voting record, which is abysmal. There is no excuse – not even that of keeping a low profile. Indeed, whilst I would much rather he DID keep a low profile rather than give speeches, write articles and hold interviews it should be in the way of keeping his head down and doing his job in the Commons and helping his constituents.
Let Farron get airtime, Clegg should stick to the usual work of an MP.
Todays Com Res poll of more interest. UKIP at 16%, we still at 7%. But local by elections beginning to suggest it is more the other way round.
@Peter Watson my point is why do companies bother. even if you are making millions spending £22,500 on a politician is a waste of money. What insight could he give about the future. He does seem to be an expert on downsizing of political parties.
@Catherine Jane Crosland my apologies I had forgotten that the Liberal Democrat leader had changed with seeing Nick Clegg in the media so much.
Why the surprise? It’s-all-of-a-piece.
@Bruce “my point is why do companies bother.”
I really don’t know. But celebrities do get paid to turn up at corporate functions and entertain, so they might not have been seeking Nick Clegg’s political and economic insight. I am not entirely comfortable with it but I accept that the lucrative celebrity after-dinner speaker’s circuit is just one of those things, a highbrow version of a naff reality TV star making a personal appearance at a nightclub. However, I suspect that Caron’s article might have taken a different approach if it were about Alex Salmond.
I have more concerns about paid consultancies and directorships for politicians and ex-politicians, e.g. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-gravy-train-scandal-7153710, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3394745/Lib-Dem-gravy-train-ex-MPs-land-plum-jobs-String-former-ministers-secure-roles-linked-government-departments-ran.html, etc.
@Bruce “my point is why do companies bother.”
I really don’t know.
Maybe because it’s an offset tax ruse?
We need equality between industries, or near equality, when it comes to earning potential. Some industries have hardly any regulation and it is not very hard to earn a lot of money, whilst others are tightly regulated and it is very hard to earn a lot of money. It is why I coined a phrase (which hasn’t caught on) of “Supply, demand and lobbying”.
It is not out of envy that we should worry about people like footballer’s earning extreme amounts of money, or a few politicians, but because of human resource asset-allocation.
I don’t think this fee is that obscene, but it needs to be easier for others to earn such money and that might require taxing and regulating some a bit more and others a bit less.
Eddie, I think that is the most leftwing thing I’ve ever seen you post 🙂
Thanks Matt. I was actually going to make it a bit more left wing by suggesting some people need a lot more tax, but I decided against it.
The founders of WhatsApp only started their company in 2009 and by 2014 sold it for $19 billion. It’s insane. We will be producing a generation of people obsessing with apps and not enough with things like science and healthcare.
People wouldn’t mind if everyone had the opportunity to earn money like this, but they don’t and it partly seems to me to be the result of good lobbying, which I don’t think should be banned, but I do think everyone needs to get involved and argue their case.