Nick Clegg is not normally reticent about commenting on the Middle East – see, for example, his public call for the international community to stop arming Israel 18 months ago.
So why did it take more than a day for the Lib Dem leader to speak out against the “unjustifiable and untenable” blockade of the Gaza Strip? Why do his words appear only on the Press Association website, rather than the party’s? It was at least tweeted by the official Lib Dem account, but that was the only communication via official party channels.
The answer is clear enough: the Lib Dems are now in coalition government, bound by collective responsibility. The government’s view is that expressed by William Hague, as foreign secretary.
Moreover the party’s press operation is in a state of flux, with some staff finding a new berth within government – but employed as civil servants, so unable to trade in party politics – and others unsure what will become of them as the party faces up to a future with much-reduced ‘Short money’ (or maybe none at all).
There seems currently to be much uncertainty within the party as to who can actually speak up, unabashed, for Lib Dem policies in those areas where we do not have a cabinet minister, let alone the four government departments where we have no minister at all.
This is certainly of great relevance to the current vacancy for deputy leader, often seen as little more than an honorific title, but which could turn out to be the most ubiquitous public face of the party if Nick Clegg and the other Lib Dems in government continue to feel constrained in what they can or cannot say, and their press officers even more circumspect.
We are still in early days of living with a coalition government. There is time for these things to be sorted out and settle down.
But it is crucial that they are, and soon.
The Lib Dems face many challenges as the junior partner in a coalition government. We absolutely cannot afford to lose our reputation for distinctiveness. That means ensuring we have credible politicians able to speak out on the key issues of the day with a 100% liberal viewpoint.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dem energy guarantee would cut prices for all households
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
paul barker
Peter Wrigley
Mick Taylor
expats
Matt (Bristol)
44 Comments
From what I heard he was in Paris with his wife when the David Laws story broke, I assumed he was going back there?
Furthermore, this is I would assume – in addition to being very busy – why Vince Cable stepped down as Deputy Leader, allowing someone not in the cabinet to follow him precisely in order to have such a spokesperson who is separate from the cabinet which is bound by the rules of the coalition.
I agree with your comments on the deputy leadership – it’s been said before but it becoming more and more obvious that we need someone who can be seen to speak for the party while Clegg is speaking for the government.
All the manuals for local campaigners say that where we are in control we must keep campaigning as if we were in opposition. I think this is going to turn out to be equally if not even more true now we are in government at a national level.
“We absolutely cannot afford to lose our reputation for distinctiveness”
You already have (that was clever Dave’s plan).
At least until Simon comes riding over the hilltop to keep you all honest and to the left of centre.
@ROB – Funnily enough it was Simon Hughes who ‘sold’ the coalition’s education policy, especially the Academies stuff, to me….
It is not just a question of the Liberal Democrats remaining distinctive. It is not just that the Liberal Democrats have a moral obligation to be internationalist (not that you would have noticed during a general election campaign in which domestic issues dominated). It is that our failure as a nation to back up words with deeds (such as our call to boycott arms sales to Israel after they invaded Gaza last year) may well continue under this government at a time when it is essential that we repair relations with countries in the middle east which poses the biggest security threat to the world today.
” Funnily enough it was Simon Hughes who ’sold’ the coalition’s education policy, especially the Academies stuff, to me….”
Yep- done in the right way…a good social democratic policy. Plus of course introduced by TB.
Unlike the ‘free’ schools for those pushy parents who can’t or refuse to cough up for private school which is now your administrations policy…..
Collective responsibility or not, some of us are wondering what the point of the party being in government is if we cannot influence policy on matters such as this.
I wondered about this. There’s very little new on the party’s website and there’s no Deputy Prime Minister website. I certainly want us to be able to continue to express our views. Otherwise, when we have elections, who will people turn to for our view? What happens in other countries with coalitions?
Look, you odd bunch, you’re in government now. That means your leadership is bound by collective responsibility to support the collective government position. You haven’t got any ‘distinctiveness’.
You’re all quite pleased to be part of the Government but you seem unable to accept the consequences when they don’t suit you, and instead attempt to ‘have your cake and eat it’. Trying to keep Short money, appoint shadow ministers, and now demanding a distinctive policy, they’re all incompatible with being in the Government. Grow up and accept it.
What worried me about the Israeli action was the response of the US. Having supported an independent, impartial enquiry voted for by the Security Council, the US Ambassador said that we could rely on the Israelis alone to carry it out impartially! Unbelievable Geoff!
@Stephen and David from Ealing: Er, Nick Clegg’s statement was prominent enough on the radio news. I take your point about it not being put up on the Lib Dem website, but it’s hardly a “non-statement” for that.
P.S. The link the Party twitter account tweeted no longer has any quote from Nick in it (apart from a picture caption). Where is the full text?
“I certainly want us to be able to continue to express our views. Otherwise, when we have elections, who will people turn to for our view? What happens in other countries with coalitions?”
I have extensive research experience of Vlaanderen the northern (largely decentralised in terms of competencies) region of Belgium: whose tongue is spoken by your glorious ‘grote Kaas’- though with what they would describe as a “horrible Netherlands accent”.
It is all culturally embedded and- important- inevitable. The d’hondt system of PR makes a ‘single largest party by a country mile’ impossible let alone a single party majority. All the main players (five separate parties) achieve between 15% and 29% of the vote and most coalitions are of three parties not unusually four. They have fixed terms and strict conditions for out of term elections……but they have full PR not FPTP where a fixed term/ 55% condition for removal really is gerrymandering (a lot of you will accept that once you are no longer in government and the AV referendum may have failed due to harsh Conservative- and rogue Labourite- polemics).
Each party maintains a clear-cut identity and the coalition construction phase takes between 40 and 60 days: thus allowing for a true blending of identities rather than the centre right takeover which you have arguably been a victim of over those 6 days (willingly of course in terms of your right flank coalesced around the Cleggites).
Hopefully the next election will be either a swing to the left or hung again in which case there will be a majority for a party/ parties who have full PR (STV) in their manifesto. Watch for either of the Miliband brothers (the only candidates with a realistic chance) to put that on the Labour platform within 12 months…
David has a point, up to a point.
We do have to come to terms with the consequences of being in government. That means we cannot expect a ‘Liberal Democrat line’ to be pronounced on every issue: our line is the government’s line. It would be nothing short of disastrous if the new deputy leadership took it upon himself (it appears it will be a him) to act as some sort of ‘leader of the opposition’ (in waiting).
The pay off for this is supposed to be that the government line is one that Lib Dem ministers are happy with. We can only hope that ministers assert this end of the bargain vigorously.
It is understandably difficult for the party to adjust after 90 years out of government but we do have to get out from under the mentality of permanent opposition.
It would be helpful if someone from the top of the party made this very clear.
Sorry, David Boothroyd, we may be in a coalition, and those who are in Govt may have to accept collective responsibility. It doesn’t mean, though, that the parties have merged, and therefore have to accept imposed policies. In fact you, as a Labour supporter, will know that party members regularly disagree with Labour Govt policy when it is imposed, and not substantively drawn from Labour Party policy.
“It would be nothing short of disastrous if the new deputy leadership took it upon himself (it appears it will be a him) to act as some sort of ‘leader of the opposition’ (in waiting).”
As far as I have read it Simon Hughes wants to shadow the key ministries in order to retain a distinctive Liberal Democrat voice and presumably so does Vince (as he set up this election by resigning).
If Hughes wins the deputy leadership I think that is what he will do because it appears that- for him and others like him- the life and vitality and distinctiveness of the LD’s AFTER this coalition ends (as it will do between now and 2015) is more important to him than compromising with Cameron and an increasingly vociferous- as the months and years pass- 1922 committee.
If so he will be spot on.
And how it has changed now he has the responsibility of power to deal with! Next you’ll be telling us that Jenny Tonge has resigned from the Board of a publication which peddled the old European antisemitic calumnies (although it remains to be seen if she stops speaking approvingly of Baathist autocrats).
I certainly wouldn’t support a blockade on arms sales to Israel and I’m sure that many of you would disagree with me. But if your party had not entered the coalition and the Tories were a minority government your front benchers and back benchers would not be hobbled and would be able to articulate an effective and authentic Lib Dem response. And this is nothing to what is going to come. Clever Dave indeed!
Why are people talking about distinctiveness..? I don’t want distinctiveness, I just want the core values to be maintained and pursued as actively as possible. Sure the message of what the Lib Dems stand for has to be clearly communicated, but it doens’t need to be distinguished from the others in any way, especially when policies align. A call to be distinctive runs the danger of just setting up an opposited and negative stance to any policy without considering whether it actually coincides with your values or not.
Being Lib Dem isn’t about having a cool and distinctive way to label yourself.
David Boothroyd, while you’re here, where has your website gone?
@Alex
“Why are people talking about distinctiveness..? I don’t want distinctiveness…the message…doens’t need to be distinguished from the others in any way, especially when policies align.”
A good argument for merger or at the least a significant defection a few months/ years down the line….that certainly would be the kind of ‘realignment that “clever Dave” would like and probably wakes up Simon and Vince in a cold sweat.
Over its bandwidth limit for the month. Back when it drops below 2.5GB in the month.
“We do have to come to terms with the consequences of being in government. That means we cannot expect a ‘Liberal Democrat line’ to be pronounced on every issue: our line is the government’s line. It would be nothing short of disastrous if the new deputy leadership took it upon himself (it appears it will be a him) to act as some sort of ‘leader of the opposition’”
I agree, you should never set yourself up as purely being in opposition, you should judge each issue and policy on its own merit, and decide whether it fits with what you believe is right based on your values. There is nothing wrong with opposing those you issues and policies you disagree with, but you shouldn’t do so without due cause.
Also I always understood that the Lib Dem line was that of it’s members. I don’t see why this should stop being the case just because they now form part of a coalition government. There is going to be some disagreement with the government line over certain negotiated issues, this is inevitable just as much for the Lib Dems as for the Conservatives.
The Party doesn’t need to agree with the government on everything, however it does have to agree that the Party is co-operating with another party, and neither has the remit to enact all policy as it wishes, that negotiation will be necessary, and should be a welcomed as being more democratically fair than having a single parties view represented, and that this is democratically fair, even if you personally disagree with a certain issue, that’s where democracy leads to… people you disagree with having a say in what happens, you either believe in it or not.
The Lib Dems have been campaigning for PR and coalition governments for a long time, I think other people now need to catch up to just what a coalition government means. Especially people who seem to think that you can’t have two independent entities co-operating (which is weird, as you accept and expect this in almost every other walk of life).
@ ROB SHEFFIELD
It was meant mroe as an argument for being grown up and responsible, rather than just trying to set yourself apart and oppose everything for no good reason. When all is said and done, every party wants to see the UK be as great as it can, they just all have very different priorities and ideas on how this should be achieved, I can’t honestly believe every party member disagrees with everything every other party says.
That was one of the most impressive things I found with David Laws. When (in parliament) people in opposition were attacking him over points he disagreed with, or that were just plain baseless attacks (amazing how many of these you still see from people you expect to act as adults) he woul;d be quite happy to respond against them, however when someone raised a valid and sincere concern, he invited them to meet and discuss the matter with him whenever they wished. I found this a refreshingly grown up attitude to take, which clearly benefits everyone in the country… It is this kind of attitude I’d like to see every politician adopt.
Anyone who thinks that their views and priorities are closely aligned to another party ought to think hard about where they cast their vote. I hardly think the Conservative and Lib Dem priorities and views will ever align closely enough for people to seriously consider a merger, or jumping ship.
I agree with one of those.
The position of Deputy Leader will have to become the standard bearer for ‘pure’ liberal democrat policy, I totally concur with the blogger on this.
@ MPG, I agree too.
I don’t think it would hurt the party, it would strengthen it so long as everyone realises that this pure policy is only the basis for Lib Dem co-operation within the government itself, and not the policy of the government as a whole.
The Lib Dem Government representatives (and without a distinct portfolio, especially Nick Clegg) are still very much in a negotiation role, and will be so during the entire government term (or however long it survives). Lib Dem policy still needs to form the basis for this negotiation and co-operation, and as such it is even more important than before that the Party is clear on what their own policy is, as it puts the ‘negotiators’ in a much stronger position .
am i missing something? there is no mention of Clegg in the press association article
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h3eyqv84b2_PiBDgedUJIkXjBKHw
“Your leadership is bound by collective responsibility to support the collective government position. You haven’t got any ‘distinctiveness’.”
The first is true, the second must not be. As well as a strong Deputy Leader, we need to develop organisations, both official and unofficial, which present us as distinctive. That means making it clear (a) when we win a debate inside the coalition, (b) when we lose and have to support something just for the sake of the coalition principle.
Nick made a well written statement supporting the freeing of the borders to Gaza,which was widely linked to other websites. This was then pulled by the government and replaced with diplomatic tosh. The statement was on this site and on Facebook (Lib Dems) for about an hour and received lots of ‘I agree’.
The PA statement is nothing to do with Nick.
All this is rather like something from ‘1984’ or Stalin rewriting history.
I was wondering what had happened to Nick’s original statement. If Keith is correct, that’s completely unacceptable. Even though deputy PM in a coalition, Nick’s perfectly entitled to restate his previously publicised views on any matter.
The Deputy Leader outside the government model is better than nothing but won’t work in the longer term. If who ever it is goes out too far ahead of formal coalition policy then we’ll end up with a spate of process stories about how x said y, but a said b and which is Lib Dem policy. What the party thinks or what it actually does in government. Orthodoxy versus Orthopraxis.
It also high lights the single great strenth and weakness of Clegg’s position as DPM. On the one hand he has carte blanche to comment on any area of government policy as he has titular superiority to all other cabinet ministers. On the other hand that scope is limited because anything he says at anytime ever is an Ex Cathedra statement of government policy.
I suspect things will settle down and some variable geomeatry will develop once coalition becomes less novel to the Westminister press core though it will be a bumpy ride.
However the bottom line is the party is in a coalition with a ratio of nearly 6 to 1 Con/LD MP’s and we’ll find ourselves perpetually signed up to things we don’t quite agree with. What ever processes are put in place to ameliorate the problem we should all get used to the words ” But its your government… “
Nick was ‘allowed’ to restate his views in a BBC interview. Its available on the BBC Politics page and states the blindingly obvious – that Israel cant carry on treating the inhabitants of Gaza the way they do.
Clearly there has been some behind the scenes negotiation after his statement yesterday was ‘deleted’ from the records.
I really think that George Orwell’s ‘1984’ should be compulsory reading before anyone is allowed to enter the ballot booth – if they are allowed that far by the election organisers !!!!
There is one important item missing from Nick’s statements; a call for an arms embargo by this country of Israel.
This was what he called for when Israel invaded Gaza last year.
This is what the coalition will not deliver on today.
So if he is asked about it, he will probably give a different answer.
If we have a deputy leader that repeats the same answer Nick gave last year, it will cause problems I would imagine.
Funny business politics. You have to pretend you believe in one thing when you actually believe in something else. And this is not a trivial matter. Lack of the right kind of leadership from the British government on this issue will have consequences that we will not like.
Can’t or shouldn’t? The concept of reciprocity will also have to be applied and if you consider Hamas to have been democratically elected by Gazans (and we’re being picky about international convention), the matter of tort can be applied. In short, “collective punishment” occurs only when the victim group is not deemed responsible for the illegitimate acts of the targets.
I would like to know how a comment can be expunged from all the Internet.
Orwell wasn’t satirizing the people you think he was.
“Funny business politics. You have to pretend you believe in one thing when you actually believe in something else. And this is not a trivial matter.”
I think people are still getting used to the fact that a Coalition government means that the government policy doesn’t quite match with any of the Party’s own policies in all areas.
Once people have accepted this they need to find and agree a method of each party expressing it’s individual views and policies that they use the basis for their co-operation within the government itself, and separate way of communicating the line which has been agreed by this co-operation, so that people can clearly see where everyoen stands and what they believed was the right direction to take.
I believe this is essential, as the general public will need to know who wanted to achieve what as a a basis for choosing where to cast their vote in any future elections, and they also need to know which party was influential in bringing about each specific policy, so they can see who’s priorities they agree with the most.
A coalition government is different in that the government policy does not necessarily reflect exactly what the different parties in government stand for (it is of course an amalgum of two parties policies). the reason to compromise is clear, it’s better to have some influence over policy than none at all, but people need to be clear which policies you are influencing, and which you would have liked to influence further had the general public given you more of a remit to do so.
@Alex
You seem to be saying that engagement in a coalition by definition inevitably involves a huge amount of dissembling. Yet the public have made it clear that the thing they find most unattractive about politicians is their dissembling. Me, I think you should be straight with people and give them what’s advertised on the tin.
So, here is something with distinction: Call for NGO’s like Unesco, or Save the Children, to hire the Rainbow Warrior, fill it up with the sort of aid that could help families living in piles of rubble, and have it flagged off to sail to off to aid Palestine while escorted by the Royal Navy.
Given that the UK was very much part of the original problem when Palestine was broken up to create the new country of Israel, forcing many to lose not just their land, but their homes, isnt this the very least we should be doing…more than just a few sentiments and nice sounding words, eh?
Britain hasn’t had a military presence in the region for over 60 years (despite the actions of senior military officers in directing the Arab League forces in 1948; and a few years later in Suez).
Plus, the last time the RN was suggested as fulfilling a role in the Gazan waters, the voices behind the current propaganda mission issued threats against them (see Daud Abdullah of the MCB, and his failed libel case against Hazel Blears).
Regular news reports show a working infrastructure in Gaza with obesity a problem before starvation; and I have provided photographs of Lauren Booth strolling around a fully-laden grocery store with mobile and Wifi access, and then into verdant Presidential gardens. Just because Hamas has obstructed rebuilding of certain damaged buildings so to provide photo-shoots doesn’t make it widespread.
Wrong! Eighty percent of the Mandate area is now called “Jordan”, and until the 1960s there was little Palestinian Arab identity. Palestine is not an Arabic word, and Palestinian referred to Jews. There has been a Jewish presence in the region for millenia, and those areas within Israel and much of the ATs were majority Jewish (including Jerusalem, which the first census of modern times – the Ottoman census in 1842).
A casual acquaintance with the early 20th Century history of the region should impress on the reader that British policy from 1917-47 was to frustrate Jewish immigration and nationhood.
As long as the ships are searched and sealed during cargo load in an independent country the blockade should be removed. Obama and Blair have been very quiet and supportive of the Israelis which is very worrying especially afer that Nobel Prize. it should probably be taken back for his recent actions.
Also looking forward to getting rid of these scallywags in from of the Palace of Westminter. We all have the right to protest but not the right to desecrate an area as beautiful as this. We are proud of our country and our free speech but this lot are taking the piss. Go on Boris…get rid of them!
And if you want to protest you will still be allowed but go through the process. The Tamils were another lot that should have been removed straight away. Respect our laws and our country please.
So now our MPs have a little power and some influence but in return are somewhat neutered and silenced. It is vital that the voice of the Party continues to be heard. Already there have been unfortunate government decisions on Gaza, Summary Care Records and perhaps GM crops. What we need is, say, quarterly conferences organised outside of the official ambit of the Party – perhaps organised by Liberal Democrat Voice! If we can get used to coalition politics then we can get used to grown up politics in which it can be accepted that neither the LibDem nor Tory parties will necessarily agree with the compromises negotiated within the government.
Well said David Boothroyd. All those individual LibDems who would like their party to stick to its principles and espouse policies that differ from those being promoted by the Party’s representives in government have a number of choices (i) work to persuade the Goverment to change its position (best of luck), (ii) work to take the LibDems out of the coalition or (iii) leave the Party. Parties within Parties are not usually a recipe for success.
In the meantime some of your backbench MPs might wish to try and locate their backbones and realise that they have a role to play.
I really can’t see how having a Deputy Leader not bound by collective responsibility could possibly work. Are we going to have the leader and his deputy in open disagreement about Israel? Or are we going to have a deputy who says what the leader would like to say, but can’t?
Again, this points to the fundamental miscalculation on the coalition agreement. The Tories conceded lots of policy positions in order to get their hands on the real ministerial power. We have no say on what the UK response to the Middle East is because we have traded it for a referendum on AV. Like the good little policy wonks we are, we signed up for one Lib Dem policy a year in returning for voting Tory every other time and keeping silent whilst the likes of William Hague have free reign to indulge their Atlantacist fantasies.
A deputy prime-minister who gets into power on a stance like:
“And what has the British government and the international community
done to lift the blockade? Next to nothing. Tough-sounding
declarations are issued at regular intervals but little real pressure
is applied. It is a scandal that the international community has sat
on its hands in the face of this unfolding crisis.”
( from:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/22/lift-the-gaza-blocade-nick-clegg )
and this:
“Brown must stop sitting on his hands. He must condemn unambiguously
Israel’s tactics, just as he has rightly condemned Hamas’s rocket
attacks. Then he must lead the EU into using its economic and
diplomatic leverage in the region to broker peace.”
( from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/07/nick-clegg-israel-gaza-war )
And then goes to this within 6 months of getting in to power:
http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/europe/1537-libdem-leader-clegg-attends-friends-of-israel-fringe-meeting-but-ignores-friends-of-palestine
is not a man to be relied upon.
He is just a vote chaser and a turncoat to the people who put him in power.