Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has just emailed all Lib Dem supporters to offer his take on yesterday’s Queen’s Speech, and the many ways in which it includes Liberal Democrat priorities at its heart:
Yesterday’s Queen’s Speech was unlike any we have seen for years. It was not simply another list of bills from a government determined to rule from the centre. It was not simply a speech from another one-party Government able to push through measures without the support of a majority of the country.
Instead, the speech marked the beginning of a radical move to rebalance the relationship between people and their government, making life better for everyone.
It was the first time the Queen has ever delivered a speech listing the Bills to be introduced by a coalition government.
It is a testament to the hard work of Liberal Democrat campaigners and supporters across the country that crucial policies we fought the election on will now be enacted in Government. It is these policies that, although times are tough and savings will have to be made, will ensure that our country is made a fairer place.
I am looking forward to overseeing a radical programme of political reform that will result in an House of Lords elected on a proportional basis, the right to sack corrupt MPs and a referendum to finally change our outdated voting system.
A Great Repeal Bill will roll back Labour’s surveillance state, scrapping ID cards, the children’s database and restoring civil liberties.
In areas like education, health and policing people are going to get much greater powers over the services in their area. And we are going to hand more powers to communities and councils.
This will have a real impact for people, not just giving them control, but also making Britain a better place to live with good schools, a stronger economy, support for businesses and real action on the environment.
For too long the Queen’s Speech has been used by the government to explain how it is going to hoard more power in Whitehall. We have now explained how we will start giving that power back.
Best wishes,
Nick Clegg
Leader of the Liberal DemocratsPS. You can find out more about the Liberal Democrat policies in the Queen’s Speech here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Anthony Acton
Kira Collins
Tom Bailey
Simon Robinson
Tom Arms
20 Comments
It was an historic Queens Speech and we can all look forward to the greater freedoms and liberal ideals presented.
However I do worry that the Government has not yet addressed to issues of vulnerable people sufficiently – see my blog Fairness, Freedom and Responsibility in Social Care: http://wp.me/pRHY4-1C
“A Great Repeal Bill will roll back Labour’s surveillance state, scrapping ID cards, the children’s database and restoring civil liberties.”
Meanwhile, back in the real world – Clegg says the government doesnt have the power to halt the extradition of Gary McKinnon, despite having claimed the opposite when Labour was in power:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7766339/Gary-McKinnon-Nick-Clegg-raises-doubts-over-powers-to-halt-hackers-extradition.html
@Anthony – Clegg merely stated that “he, the Home Secretary Theresa May nor even David Cameron might not have the power to halt an earlier court decision allowing him to be extradited.”
He didn’t say he was against it, merely that they may not be able to act against it. He does not have the authority to make such decisions on his own, so you can’t blame him for not committing the government to any decisions it may not be able to act on.
PS: I am sure this is not the first thing that Clegg and others may have mentioned in opposition that turn out not to necessarily be as easy to implement without legislative change, as it may have looked from the opposition benches.
That’s not quite what he said, and I think I know what he’s referring to here.
The government does have the power to intervene in certain judicial affairs, including extradition of its own citizens, while they are taking place. But it has far less power to overrule a decision which has already been made by the courts. It is not immediately apparent whether retroactive intervention is possible in this case,.
If the process has progressed far enough, Parliament itself might be the only body with the necessary authority.
Andrea
The point is that Clegg criticised the Labour government roundly for failing to prevent the extradition. Now he is in government himself, he is saying that it’s all very complicated and ministers may not have the power to do anything about it.
Have a look at this little video. “It is simply a question of doing the right thing”:
Andrew
“The government does have the power to intervene in certain judicial affairs, including extradition of its own citizens, while they are taking place. But it has far less power to overrule a decision which has already been made by the courts. It is not immediately apparent whether retroactive intervention is possible in this case,.
If the process has progressed far enough, Parliament itself might be the only body with the necessary authority.”
But – as far as I can see – the process has not progressed one iota since January, when Clegg was still saying:
“Even now the Prime Minister and Home Secretary could step in to spare Gary McKinnon from this ordeal by ensuring that he is instead tried in a British court.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6983448/Gary-McKinnon-might-not-be-extradited-after-judge-orders-review-of-Alan-Johnson-decision.html
@Anthony – Just look at how quickly Labour flipped in their attitude on so many things after just a few days in opposition…
I do hope that they can manage to get him tried here, but there is probably a lot of background info that we don’t have access to, and a single Telegraph article is perhaps not enough to base this argument on.
Andrea
Are you actually reading what I’m writing?
The point is that Clegg criticised the last government in no uncertain terms for failing to stop the extradition. He was happy to campaign for votes by saying not only that it should be stopped, but also that ministers _did_ have the power to stop it.
Now he is a minister, and – surprise, surprise! – it’s all very complicated and he doesn’t think ministers have the power to stop it.
Meet the new politics. Same as the old politics …
I for one am pleased.
The politicization of a very straightforward judicial matter has been attrocious on all sides over the last year.
Change the law, fine. Don’t meddle in it on an ad-hoc basis like people seem to suggest should happen.
I somehow knew that Nick Cleg would take this position even before the announcement was made. The idea that Nick Clegg’s package of reform respresents the greatest overhaul of poltics since 1832 is not only meaningless rhetoric but dangerous too because Nick Clegg cannot see himself as others do. His ever increasing pomposity is there for all to witness. Liberal Democrats need to recognise that their share of the vote as well as number of seats went down. This hardly represents a growing endoirsement of hte Lib Dems. I am not entirely convinced that the public whooly endorsed Nick Clegg playing double dares behind closed doors. If it is the case that the Labour Party was not serious about entering into a coallition with the Lib Dems, then publish the evidence.!! Poor Gary Mackinnon, he does not stand a chance with Nick Clegg fighting his corner
@maxy
“Liberal Democrats need to recognise that their share of the vote as well as number of seats went down.”
What election were you watching where the Lib Dem vote share went down?
Lib Dem vote share went up, not down. Seats went down, but vote share went up.
There it is again, “we are going to hand more powers to communities and councils”, like there’s some automatic equation of the two. There isn’t – not if your local council can barely deliver the functions it’s already burdened with and your community hasn’t the resources to take up the slack. It’s more two-tier Britain, with the worst-off left to sink while the most favoured sort out any local problems with an annual garden party.
Nor do I want education and health provision broken up still further. They’re national priorities that need to be held to a national standard of provison for all, not made subject to local whim or the self-interest of privileged stakeholders. Why should local quangos or shadowy boards of trustees determine that one area should have better or worse provision than another? Can anyone actually explain this to me?
Ryan
“Change the law, fine. Don’t meddle in it on an ad-hoc basis like people seem to suggest should happen.”
When you say “like people seem to suggest”, I think you mean “as Nick Clegg demanded (when he was in opposition)”.
Having a consistent position (whatever that position was) would be one thing. Running a populist campaign demanding government action when you’re in opposition, and then when you’re in government turning round and saying it can’t be done is quite another.
Completely agree Anthony.
You won’t find me defending Clegg’s posturing on this pre-election.
Anthony, trying to look at it in a balanced way. In January, Clegg said, effectively, “even now, the law could be changed to prevent this”. Many months later, has that “even now” moment passed? He said he’s not sure the power exists to stop it, but he wants to be able to.
Saying it could have been stopped in January may, at the time, have been a statement of fact, or he may not have been in full posession of the facts that ministers are briefed with (I’ve long thought that if a minister can get legal advice on an issue, MPs should be able to see it, but it’s not how we work).
If it can’t be stopped, legally, it can’t be stopped. He hasn’t said that, he’s said he doesn’t know. Hopefully, it can still be stopped, it’s not just LDs that want it sorted out after all.
But pretty much agree with Ryan; this extradition treaty should never have been allowed to come into force without mutual ratification, the law should be changed to sort that specifically out, it shouldn’t be an ad hoc case by case issue.
Mat: I think your first paragraph is the key point. The case has moved further through the system since some (and I think all) of the pre-election comments along the lines “this can and should be stopped”. So it’s no great surprise if what was possible then isn’t necessarily possible now.
The Gary McKinnon fiasco highlights two of my favourite contradictions amongst certain elements of the human rights lobby.
1) They often tell us (rightly) how crucial it is for our freedom that the courts should have primacy over meddling politicians. Yet when the courts make a decision they don’t like, they demand that government uses Hitlerian powers to tell the courts where to get off – even when such powers do not actually exist.
2) As I said on this site (on day 1 of the new government if memory serves), politicians of all types talk big on civil liberties when in opposition then act very differently once in government. Labour did it. I predicted the Lib Dems/Tories would do it, and we are starting to see it happen. (Observe how Lib Dems are already rehearsing their excuses for letting the Tories dilute the HRA.)
I live in Stanley Co Durham, we have a town council that was imposed on the area by John Prescot’s dept. even though the majority of residents in the catchment area voted against the formation of the council. (this was done prior to the formation of the new county Durham unitary authority) who are responsible for all council services in County Durham. We now have to pay an extra levy on our rates to Stanley town council in total the sum raised is £800and 80 thousand pounds, we have 22 new councilor’s to support and of course extra staff and offices, an example of our new layer of official’s, is planning permission that used to take 8 weeks now it takes 5 months plus and a town clerk on a inflated salary. (so much for democracy.)