On 22 June 2010 a new parliamentary phenomenon was born. The Deputy Prime Minister in a new-fangled coalition government got his own Commons question and answer session. It was Labour MP Jim Cunningham who asked the first question then on plans for the AV referendum.
Since then these monthly sessions have generally involved Labour lobbing whatever verbal grenades they can, ably assisted by certain Conservatives who were not, to put it mildly, fans of the coalition.
Today marked the last Deputy Prime Minister’s Questions of this Parliament and it was unique in leaving Nick actually lost for words. He has generally dealt with the abuse with his customary good humour and wit but today, Harriet Harman asked a question so daft that he could barely believe it.
In an interview last week the Deputy Prime Minister pronounced that
“the way in which politics works is bust”
and that “Westminster is a joke”. When he said that, was he referring to himself?
Nick treated that with the contempt it deserved:
I wonder what answer I should give to that. No, of course not.
He then made a bold prediction:
I think that the era of single-party government in this country is over. I know she does not like that idea and that the establishment parties—those Members sitting both behind me and in front of me—do not like it either, but I think it is over. This coalition Government have, in very difficult circumstances, presided over what is now the fastest growing economy in the developed world, with more people in work than ever before, and more women in work than ever before, after the absolute economic mess she bequeathed us. That is quite an achievement.
The Labour gift just kept on giving today. Not only did the people who had centralised everything that sat still for five seconds or more have a go on devolution, but they even chose to attack him on Lords reform. He was ready for them:
I only wish the hon. Gentleman’s party had actually abided by his wisdom when we had the chance to vote for an elected second Chamber. For specious procedural reasons, the Labour party turned its back on its long-held traditional view in favour of democracy in the second Chamber. I agree that one of the virtues of an elected second Chamber is precisely that it would provide an accurate reflection of the regions and nations of the United Kingdom at the other end of the building.
And then one of them, presumably in a nod to the first session, had the cheek to raise the AV referendum – given that the voters had rejected AV, would Nick be prepared to take No for an answer. Oh dear. That was too easy for Nick:
I would like the hon. Lady to confirm—perhaps by raising a hand—which party had AV as its manifesto commitment in the last election. It was not the Liberal Democrats; it was not the Conservatives—oh, it was the Labour party’s policy. We put to the British people her party’s own policy, and she now wants me to disown it. Honestly, of all the topsy-turvy accusations I have had levelled at me, that really takes the biscuit.
I don’t normally like the “motherhood and apple pie” questions gently lobbed by a minister’s own side in languid fashion, but at least our lot have found a way of doing it thoughtfully, retaining their self respect. Julian Huppert asked Clegg if any party not agreeing to the NHS’s £8 billion would be under-funding the NHS. Nick replied:
Simon Stevens’s analysis of the financial needs of the NHS specified that by the end of the next Parliament there would be an £8 billion funding gap. That is not some sort of easy throwaway figure; it was identified on the basis of certain assumptions about considerable continued savings in the NHS. The Liberal Democrats have specified how we would find that £8 billion. It is now for other parties in the House to come clean on how they would find the money identified by Simon Stevens.
We’ve always been guaranteed a laugh at DPMQs when Peter Bone stands up as the pantomime villain giving Clegg a hard time. Here is their final exchange in full:
Peter Bone: For the last five years, I have tried to irritate the Deputy Prime Minister by asking him questions exposing Liberal Democrat failures, and he has always answered with good grace and good humour—although never the question I asked, of course—and I think that history will look on him as having been courageous in bringing his party into a national Government at a time of crisis. He should take great credit for that.My final question to the Deputy Prime Minister is simple: will he confirm whether he intends to serve another full term as Deputy Prime Minister?
Nick Clegg: I have enjoyed answering—or in the hon. Gentleman’s view, not answering—his questions on many occasions and perhaps look forward to doing so again in the future. I would happily settle for two terms as Prime Minister.
* 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
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Peter Martin
expats
theakes
Meg Thomas
9 Comments
Failing to differentiate/discriminate right to the very end.
Consistent, at least. 🙁
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/acaf061a-d23e-11e4-a225-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3VNi5YFHa
But his own preference may be for another Tory-Lib Dem coalition, given the reply he gave to Steve Rotheram, a Labour MP, who commented on his “last appearance”.
“I very much hope it is not the last time the honourable gentleman and I interact across the floor of the House of Commons — and in this configuration as well,” said Mr Clegg.
Is this a fair report? Are the Lib Dems inclined to form another coalition with the Tories. A voter needs to know.
g@
I think we can all guess what Clegg wants. That’s why I won’t be voting Lib Dem in May. Too risky for anyone who doesn;t want another right wing government.
G,
Any future coalition deal would have to go through several layers of party approval. The party would have to be convinced that it could get some liberal policies implemented in any coalition with anyone and will not be going into anything with its eyes closed. As a member of the party’s election campaign that I wouldn’t support any coalition which planned to cut benefits for the poorest or curb civil liberties in the name of counter terrorism.
So Caron, what you’re saying is that Nick Clegg was offering a personal opinion, not stating party policy? Do you have a simple guide to spotting the difference when he makes statements in parliament?
No, g, I am not saying that at all. In fact, if anyone is twisting Clegg’s words, it’s you. I took “the same configuration” to mean him in Government. Nothing more.
Not me, Caron, the Financial Times. All Clegg has to do is clarify that he didn’t mean that he’d prefer to be in coalition with the Tories, facing Labour and all will be settled.
@g – get real. He said what he said because he wants to be Prime Minister in a Lib Dem majority government – which necessitates Labour being in Opposition. It’s entirely consistent with his answer to Peter Bone which Caron quotes above. You might debate about how likely that is to happen, but I doubt there’s any political leader who doesn’t want to be PM come May – even Natalie Bennett.
There is a Political leader who does NOT want to be the PM of the UK —
see this excellent insight from Nick Barlow on his Blog which is relevant to this thread.
He starts —
“…Today’s shock political news is that a member of a political party has said that party will vote against the Queen’s Speech of a party it generally disagrees with should it be in a position to do so. This should be something so routine it doesn’t even need to be mentioned, but apparently because the party talking about it is the SNP, this becomes a grand constitutional matter, not an issue of regular politics in the House of Commons.”
http://www.nickbarlow.com/blog/?p=4023
In fact with Plaid and SF there are a number of party leaders who have no wish to be PM.
They want to do something NOT be something.