In his hardest-hitting attack yet on the Labour and Tory parties, Nick Clegg has used an interview for BBC News’s Hard Talk programme to denounce both parties for colluding in ‘corrupt politics’. You can watch a three-minute clip from the programme here, in which Nick discusses Afghanistan.
The Guardian reports Nick’s comments here:
Clegg uses an interview today on the BBC’s Hard Talk programme to publish a list of “progressive” policies Labour and the Tories have blocked. He says: “A vote for Labour or the Conservatives is a vote for corrupt politics. A vote for Labour or the Conservatives is a vote for tax dodgers in politics. A vote for letting guilty MPs off the hook. A vote for an unfair voting system.”
Here’s the party’s evidence for Nick’s verdict:
Labour Party
Labour promised to clean up politics and make it fair but they failed. They wouldn’t even push through reform after the expenses scandal. They went back on their promise to change the voting system. They failed to make the House of Lords elected and accountable to voters. They failed to clean up party funding because they rely on the unions. And they blocked attempts to give people the right to sack corrupt MPs. Labour will never change the political system.
Three specific examples:
What Labour did … No progress. There has been an agreed statement of government policy on this – with cross-party consensus – since July 2008. Ministers have promised draft clauses for scrutiny at least four times but published nothing.
What Labour did … No progress
What Labour did … No progress. Labour peers voted down an amendment that would do just that in the Political Parties and Elections Bill. And the government did not include it in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
Conservative Party
The Conservatives cannot be trusted to clean up the political system and make it fair. David Cameron talks about change, but none of the Conservative MPs who avoided Capital Gains Tax or made huge profits flipping their homes were forced to resign. He promised to give people the right to sack corrupt MPs but then the Conservatives voted against a law that would do just that. They have made it clear they will block attempts to make the voting system fair. They walked out on cross-party talks on party funding and refused to cap donations. They will not even say if top donor, Lord Ashcroft, pays tax in this country. The Conservative Party are not interested in real change. They are interested in protecting their own interests.
Three specific examples:
What the Tories did … No progress. Walked out of party funding negotiations under Hayden Philips. Allows top donor Lord Ashcroft to keep his tax status in the dark, refusing to say if he pays full British taxes. Supported top candidate Zac Goldsmith who avoided nearly £6m in tax by being a non-dom.
What the Tories did … No progress. Continues to oppose central measure that will change politics: electoral reform.
What the Tories did … No progress. Opposed Liberal Democrat proposals to introduce fixed term Parliaments in Political Parties and Elections Bill.
The full interview with Nick Clegg MP is broadcast on Wednesday, 6th January:
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
Henry
4 Comments
A policy of complete withdrawl from Afghanistan is probably not a good idea because there are parts of the country that have never supported the Taliban, and they would prefer to support us. So we could help out the tribes in the North and West, and include Kabul in that.
That said I think that in large parts of the country we are wasting our time and we should leave. It bothers me that first Paddy Ashdown and now Nick Clegg are both telling us that it is fait accompli – if we withdraw the Jihadists will win power in Pakistan. They never get round to explaining why this is.
In truth Pakistan is looking very unstable and there are a whole number of scenarios that could lead to the overthrow of the Pakistani regime. If we want to protect it, then surely it would make more sense if we direct our effort more directly towards Pakistan instead?
As for Afghanistan and it’s influence on Pakistan it really depends on how we engage ourselves there. When Obama initially sent in his first consignment of 21,000 troops, the impact was disasterous and the Pakistani Taliban were given a great boast. Whenever more troops are sent in, I just hope they do not repeat the same mistakes.
We are spending a lot of money trying to “defeat terrorism” in Afghanistan, only to see it spring up in Somalia and Yeman. The cost matters because we are trying to be a global superpower (together with the US) when we simply cannot afford it.
Given we have to cut public spending, we really should make sure a lot of those cuts go on the defence budget, because the consequences of cutting elsewhere will be a lot more painful.
Unless, Geoffrey, the real reason for us being in those parts of Afghanistan is their strategic importance in relation to Iran. The rationale would be that there is no way of predicting where Iran’s nuclear programme will go, therefore, there is no way of predicting what Israel might do to prempt nuclear weapon development in Iran. The allies must reassure Israel that it need not take premptive action as the allies will do this on behalf of the international community. Part of that reassurance would necessarily included deployment of military resources around Iran, including in Iran’s immediate neighbour to the east, Afghanistan.
This is fighting talk from the Cleggster – I like it!
I’m not interested in being a crutch for the vested interests of other groups – I’m interested in people who say what they mean, mean what they say, reach agreement on it and then put it into action.
Give ’em both barrels boyo!
A policy of complete withdrawl from Afghanistan is probably not a good idea because there are parts of the country that have never supported the Taliban, and they would prefer to support us.
Tough. The big-mouths in the Muslim world are telling us our presence there is an outrage to Muslims, and no-one in that world is being vocal enough to oppose that. We pull out and say “Anything bad happens there and moderate Muslims, the blood is on YOUR hands because you would not give us tyhe moral support we needed to stay there”.