Iain Martin in the Telegraph asks “Is Nick Clegg the Tories’ biggest headache?“. Once you get past the heartwarming bitterness, Nick is roundly praised with not-so-faint damnation, for blocking one right wing policy after another.
Mr Cameron remains pragmatic about the antics of his deputy, say colleagues. Some other Tories are much less relaxed. “Our backbenchers have really had it with Clegg now,” admits one minister. An MP from the Tory Right said that Number 10 was “supine” and far too eager to please the Deputy Prime Minister. “Why does our leadership spend so much of its time placating Clegg and the Lib Dems when there is no way he is going to walk out?
Possibly because Liberal Democrat votes are needed to get anything done. The whole piece is a fine example of not wanting to understand coalition. Martin goes on to speculate with little enthusiasm on the end of the coalition, or the end of Clegg’s leadership, concluding that …
Tories … urgently need to disentangle themselves from Coalition and show that they have not run out of ideas. Here they are hobbled by Mr Clegg’s veto, which allows him to block policy he does not like, even after he has appeared to agree to it. Incredibly, once again, Mr Clegg, the leader of a diminished small party, is calling the shots.
Diddums.
Well, up to a point. Enjoyment of Conservative frustration is perhaps also not in keeping with the spirit of coalition government. After 13 years of Labour there must be more that we can agree needs to be put right.
* Joe Otten was the candidate for Sheffield Heeley in June 2017 and Doncaster North in December 2019 and is a councillor in Sheffield.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Temporary Traffic Order - Lower Pleasance
Calling them out
The railway wars come to Market Harborough
Constructive opposition: a phrase you will hear a lot
Hugh Young
Roland
Kevin Hawkins
Steve Trevethan
36 Comments
As the article makes plain, though it wasn’t the intention, the Tories still do not understand that they didn’t win the election, can’t do anything they wish and continue to misunderstand coalition.
Also, and oh so shockingly, everything a nameless Tory says is treated as absolute Gospel, the sheer notion they could be being economical with the truth is obviously beyond comprehension.
” there must be more that we can agree needs to be put right”
Mmm. After privatising the NHS, secret courts, the changes to education policy, the failure to invest in sufficient power plants to keep the lights on, tuition fees, failed austerity programme… maybe doing nothing for the next two years would be a better idea?
You would hope that the Tories’ new biggest headache would be the exposure of what GCHQ appear to have been getting up to.
Speaking of which… why no commentary on this? At all? Anywhere? Or am I being spectacularly unobservant? (Quite possible!)
Good God Cleggie is blocking the Tories, good job he is not helping them or we could be in a bit of pickle.
Might be a good idea if the Lib Dems could a LIberal to lead it.
@Stewart
We could of course sue GCHQ for illegally accessing our data but the proceedings would probably be in a secret court using evidence we’re not allowed to see 🙂
Quite frankly, the more GCHQ get up to that I know nothing about. the happier I am
It may be uncomfortable for some, but there are many people internally and externally who wish us harm, and the prospect of every action having yo he approved by some unreliable politician means that secrecy keeps us all safer.
If that means GCHQ trawling through my assorted Viagra offers, it’s a small price to pay IMHO
Nick Clegg is also the Lib Dems biggest headache.
There are now sizeable chucks of constituency territory where you have little effective organisation. Much of the former left of the party has simply given up and down tooled (or downed canvass cards); They were previously very campaign committed like myself and like others who comment on this website, we will not do so again until Clegg and his acolytes have gone and the party is once more a ‘broad-church’ as we remember it. Furthermore you console yourselves in the comfort that you have some strength remaining in the constituencies where there is Lib Dem parliamentary representation, but out there in the other constituencies the councillor tally erodes each election. You may be able to concentrate Eastleigh-like for a by-election, but your active supporters continue to drift away because they have been so turned off by the Cleggistas.
We have not gone back to Labour, like he and his advisors told us to – we were never there in the first place. You are trapped with him because of the Coalition and you do not seem to know where to go from here, except hang on and hope. That strategy will not make me and the others return to tramp the streets for you once more.
“It adds to the sense in Tory circles that Mr Clegg simply cannot be trusted, even if he has agreed to something well in advance.”
It’s not just in Tory circles that people feel that about Clegg *cough*tuition fees*cough*. To be seen as two faced even among enemies is dangerous, especially given the prevailing opinion about Nick. It might be expedient politics to have killed the childcare initiative, but it comes at a growing cost to Clegg’s credibility.
Bizarrely enough, the unpopularity of the coalition may actually have boosted Clegg’s bargaining power (even as it diminishes the prospects of the Liberal Democrats). If the Conservatives know that they are very unlikely to win an election held in the near future, they cannot afford to risk breaking the coalition; nor, if they want to stay in power (as I presume they do) are they going to smile on the prospect of a patched-up coalition of the non-Tories. So they have every reason to try to keep Nick Clegg happy. If the Conservatives thought they had a good chance of winning a general election held tomorrow, they might just tell Clegg to shove it.
Steve Griffiths – nail on head
Steve Griffiths … It is with great sadness that I acknowledge much of what you say is very accurate.
John Innes … It was with great sadness that I wrote it, after decades of being an activist Liberal and Lib Dem.
Some Tory commentator
Incredibly, once again, Mr Clegg, the leader of a diminished small party, is calling the shots.
A party which obtained two-thirds of the vote of the other party in the coalition,so hardly “incredible” that it should have some influence. Although I appreciate that Tories are mostly not very numerate and so find it hard to understand that argument. Anyway, outside the Tory party, most people see it as the LibDems giving up almost everything to the Tories. We’ve taken the hits far more than they have, nice that they are so grateful to us for it …. . But to be positive about this, let’s make more of it and use the line in all our publicity, remind people that though general opinion in the country is that the coalition is far too right-wing, the Tories think it is not nearly right-wing enough. It is a sign of how far to the extremes the Conservative Party has drifted that the current government – which most people can now see is more to the extreme right than any government this country has had in the past 100 years – is the result of what the Conservative Party now REALLY wants being blocked by the Liberal Democrats. Anyone who restores the two-party system by voting Labour is pushing us to the point where we WILL be governed by a government consisting solely of these extremists sooner or later.
I think its a bit rich for a senior Tory to claim they have such a big problem with conceding much of their policy agenda to a smaller party. The Tory party grassroots acquiesed both immigration and European policy to UKIP. At least Nick Clegg is in the governing coalition.
@Steve Griffiths
“We have not gone back to Labour, like he and his advisors told us to – we were never there in the first place.”
Only problem with that is that Nick and his advisors have never said that.
BTW it’s rather ironic that someone who claims to believe that the Party used to be and should be a “broad church” wants “Clegg and his acolytes gone”.
I always thought I knew what “broad church” meant but it is clearly one of those words that means whatever you want it to mean.
Simon Shaw
I have a strong feeling of deja vu regarding your comment above and this reply; you, I, and others have rehearsed these arguments on this website several times before on other threads. As I and others have told you before, we have got the message from Nick Clegg and Richard Reeves loud and clear, as did others in the party:
http://www.liberator.org.uk/article.asp?id=256204226
If Nick and his advisors have never said/suggested/inferred such things, why then have so many of us received exactly that message? Are they just poor at communicating? I am sure both of us recognise a ‘broad-church’ political party when we see one and it is a pity you have resorted to a degree of sarcasm in the discussion of these deeply held views, which mean so much to those like me that have invested much time, effort and their own cash over the years into the Liberal and Lib Dem parties.
I want to see the lib Dems once more welcome those of my views AND the economic liberals. Sadly however, I have seen with my own eyes the party change from that centre left radical party of reform that I joined, to having a narrow centrist viewpoint and a perceived intolerance to those of my views. It is interesting that a Lib Dem member of the Lords said on LDV, on another thread, that “the battle for the soul of the party” was coming soon. Why would he say that if he thought the party was still a ‘broad-church’?
@Steve Griffiths
“I have a strong feeling of deja vu regarding your comment above and this reply; you, I, and others have rehearsed these arguments on this website several times before on other threads. As I and others have told you before, we have got the message from Nick Clegg and Richard Reeves loud and clear, as did others in the party:
http://www.liberator.org.uk/article.asp?id=256204226“
I recall claims like yours being made by others on LDV previously and I thought they had been confirmed as baseless then. My own rationalisation is that there are some people who want to be “insulted” and therefore read devious undertones into what leading Lib Dems say.
I note that you haven’t quoted what Nick and his advisors have actually said, merely what an unnamed commentator (from a particular viewpoint) feels they mean.
I am sorry you think I was being sarcastic but it is hard to avoid being so then you say that you think that, on the one hand, the Lib Dems were (only)” a centre left radical party of reform” but on the other hand it should be a broad church.
I do have a difficulty with those who think the Party should be positioned to the left of Labour and I think Nick has said something similar.
“Our backbenchers have really had it with Clegg now”.
Well, in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, he would say that, wouldn’t he? Much more politically expedient than “Thank God for Nick Clegg, who rescued our Tory Party from electoral defeat, and continues to be our best semi-secret ally ever.”
The Tories have provided ammunition for the likes of Simon Shaw, so that he can shoot down people like Steve Griffiths who know what the Lib Dems stood for before the disastrous decision to elect Clegg leader.
@Simon Shaw “I note that you haven’t quoted what Nick and his advisors have actually said”
I am new to this particular debate (though as Steve Griffiths notes, I have seen it rehearsed a few times).
Richard Reeves, who appears to be / have been a man close to Nick Clegg, wrote in The New Statesman (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/09/case-truly-liberal-party), “Anybody who wants a centre-left party will find a perfectly acceptable one in Labour.” It certainly seems that his view is that people who want a centre-left party (not a party to the left of Labour) should look elsewhere as that is not what the Lib Dems should be about. Perhaps Richard Reeve’ opinion is not one that you or Nick Clegg share, but I can certainly see why Lib Dems with leftish tendencies would feel unwelcome when a senior party figure publishes such an article.
As a footnote, to put that Reeves quote into context here is the full paragraph from which it is taken:
“And, even on the narrowest grounds of straightforward party interest, sticking to a truly liberal path is the best option. Those who yearn to pull the party back to the left should think hard about what the campaign message would be in 2015. Any attempt to position the Liberal Democrats as a party of the centre left after five years of austerity government in partnership with the Conservatives will be laughed out of court by the voters – and rightly so. Anybody who wants a centre-left party will find a perfectly acceptable one in Labour. The Liberal Democrats need centrist voters, “soft Tories”, ex-Blairites, greens – and anyone who thinks the Tories are for the rich and Labour can’t be trusted with the economy. There is a new political market for the Liberal Democrats. The party just needs to seek it out, rather than looking wistfully at the old customers who have turned away. The left-wing votes “borrowed” from Labour in 2010 will not be available in 2015. New ones must be found.”
Peter Watson
You found the article I was going to quote to Simon Shaw, before I did.
Simon Shaw
The term ‘centre left’ implies a party of both the CENTRE and the LEFT; i.e. a party with broader support than is simply described by only one of those terms. The word ‘only’ added in brackets was put in your text not mine. I am also capable of reading the text of a speech, evaluating the sub-text and other messages contained within it, and drawing my own conclusions. To imply that my judgement is impaired because I am simply wishing to be provoked in some way, or “read devious undertones” is rather lofty and very close to insulting my intelligence.
Translation: “Having needlessly antagonised the greatest portion of our base, we need to go even further in rejecting their support, because we might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. Instead, let’s go seek phantom votes from people who have never supported us or given the least indication that the possibility of considering supporting us had ever crossed their minds.”
@Peter Watson
“I am new to this particular debate (though as Steve Griffiths notes, I have seen it rehearsed a few times).
Richard Reeves, who appears to be / have been a man close to Nick Clegg, wrote in The New Statesman (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/09/case-truly-liberal-party), “Anybody who wants a centre-left party will find a perfectly acceptable one in Labour.” It certainly seems that his view is that people who want a centre-left party (not a party to the left of Labour) should look elsewhere as that is not what the Lib Dems should be about. Perhaps Richard Reeve’ opinion is not one that you or Nick Clegg share, but I can certainly see why Lib Dems with leftish tendencies would feel unwelcome when a senior party figure publishes such an article.”
But was he a “senior party figure” at the time? I also found that New Statesman article from September 2012. It points out that “Richard Reeves served as Nick Clegg’s director of strategy from July 2010 to summer 2012. He is an associate director of CentreForum.”
I don’t agree with quite a lot that Richard Reeves says, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to question whether seeking to occupy precisely the same position on the Left-Right spectrum as the Labour Party (or to the left of it – as some Lib Dems give the impression they favour) is a good idea.
Richard Reeves said “Anyone who wants a centre-left party will find a perfectly acceptable one in Labour”. Well, maybe, if you are prepared to overlook Iraq, civil liberties, being intensely relaxed about the mega-rich, and/or the earlier tradition of rigid statist socialism.
But besides that, why didn’t he equally say “Anyone who wants a centre-right party will find a perfectly acceptable one in the Conservatives”?
Because he is deeply biased, because he and Clegg and Laws are part of the Greater Conservative Movement.
Richard Reeves said “Anyone who wants a centre-left party will find a perfectly acceptable one in Labour”. Well, maybe, if you are prepared to overlook Iraq, civil liberties, being intensely relaxed about the mega-rich, and/or the earlier tradition of rigid statist socialism.
But besides that, why didn’t he equally say “Anyone who wants a centre-right party will find a perfectly acceptable one in the Conservatives”?
Because he is deeply biased, because he and Clegg and Laws are part of the Greater Conservative Movement. Their pretence that they intend any real independence for the junior partner in that movement, which they have worked with Cameron and Osborne to create, is totally hypocritical.
It’s a pity that people like David Allen, who pay such heed to what they think Richard Reeves is saying, don’t read fully what he wrote.
Two example quotes from that “offending” article:
“The Liberal Democrats need centrist voters, “soft Tories”, ex-Blairites, greens – and anyone who thinks the Tories are for the rich and Labour can’t be trusted with the economy.”
“This proves that there is an intellectual and electoral case for a hard-driving, radical liberal party of the political centre.”
You don’t have to agree with everything that Richard Reeves says (I certainly don’t) to recognise that it is people who accuse Nick Clegg, David Laws and Richard Reeves of being “part of the Greater Conservative Movement” who are really the problem here.
I was going to comment on this thread. But I said what I have to say about the Reeves piece at the time:
http://www.alexsarchives.org/richard-reeves-and-his-hard-driving-radical-liberal-party/
Simon Shaw
The soft Tories and Blairites are centre-right in persuasion. The Greens comment is an anomaly, unless he means Goldsmith and a few of the rich ecologist fraternity.
I see Clegg, Laws and their ilk of definitely fitting into a right-wing box – Law’s latest idea of fast-tracking soldiers into the classroom is a case in point and I would suggest the DoE is the most right-wing of the main Government departments of which the LD are members.
You, as a right-wing liberal would say the same if a LD supported the Labour Party so enthusiastically.
I find it amazing you still maintain that there isn’z a rapprochement between these people and to try and portray the Tories they are working with, members of the most ideologically right-wing Tory party I can remember, as centrist is pushing the boundaries of credulity
Alex Marsh
Thank you for the link to your piece. I had not seen it before; very well argued and thought provoking.
Simon Shaw
With regard to Richard Reeves’ seniority (or not); he was The Party Leader’s Director of Strategy during his Deputy Premiership. Short of being the Party Chief Executive, an MP, or a Peer, I am not sure how much more senior he could be.
I have read what Richard Reeves (and others) have said several times. and I have never accused Nick Clegg, David Laws or Richard Reeves of being part of a greater Conservative movement. I do feel however that the three of them would be comfortable in a latter day National Liberal Party. (Matthew Huntbach alludes to this in his interesting contribution to the ‘Lib Dem Narrative Dilemma’ thread currently also running).
The extract you quote on your last comment is taking us preciously close to previous discussions on this site about that old oxymoron ‘radical centre party’.
Steve Griffiths
I am not sure about Clegg (not sure what he believes in) but Laws, for me, is definitely a Tory in Lib Dem clothing. I think he would defect if the chance presented itself. As I said he seems happy to work along Gove in trying to take our education system back to a point that even the Thatcher Government thought wasn’t fit for purpose
I believe that Richard Reeves’ line that “The Liberal Democrats need centrist voters, “soft Tories”, ex-Blairites, greens – and anyone who thinks the Tories are for the rich and Labour can’t be trusted with the economy.” weakens his argument. He seems to be identifying the centre as an average of some left and right wing views by simply amalgamating groups who will probably disagree about more individual policies than they will agree on.
The problem with trying to live in the political centre is that it is a crowded and a lonely place at the same time. We all have a different idea about where it is, and we each have a different collection of slightly left and slightly right wing opinions which won’t always fit together. Targeting “centrist voters” risks combining a set of policies which satisfy nobody.
@bcrombie
“The soft Tories and Blairites are centre-right in persuasion. The Greens comment is an anomaly, unless he means Goldsmith and a few of the rich ecologist fraternity.”
You appear not to understand the comment. Reeves was talking about attracting voters, not other politicians such as Goldsmith you mention.
I am not sure what involvement you have had in politics but if you had met many ordinary voters you would realise that not all (or even most) “soft Tory” and “Blairite” voters are centre-right in persuasion.
@bcrombie
“I see Clegg, Laws and their ilk of definitely fitting into a right-wing box – Law’s latest idea of fast-tracking soldiers into the classroom is a case in point.
What a thoroughly strange comment. Anything that enables appropriate would-be entrants to teaching who have had experience outside the normal School-University-School routine to (potentially) progress in quicker than 4 years is to be welcomed. That could be just as easily seen as a left wing initiative.
Simon Shaw
On Goldsmith I meant to say ‘akin to’ – a simple mistake
I have been involved in politics since the late 80 s. Since then the political environment has moved very much to the right. Personally I do not see any evidence of left-thinking in any of our political parties. I see very little in what the LD are offering from their leadership that would attract anything other than people with a rightward slant
Simon Shaw
The equating of soldiers and teaching is a right- wing way of looking at the world. Harking back to the post-war years that Gove admires.
Teaching is not a four year training – it is one year but requires a first degree in a relevant subject. How someone with no formal qualification in a subject can be trained in the way proposed, and only if ex-military is bizarre
Teachers are professionals and to assume anyone can just walk in and do it on day-release is playing to the Gove audience.
By all means look at how to bring different skills into teaching but teaching our kids is more important than trying to play to a right-wing that worships all things military
@bcrombie
“Teachers are professionals and to assume anyone can just walk in and do it on day-release is playing to the Gove audience.”
If that was what was being assumed I would totally agree with you.
@Steve Griffiths
“The extract you quote on your last comment is taking us preciously close to previous discussions on this site about that old oxymoron ‘radical centre party’.”
I’m not sure I recall those discussions.
Personally I rather support the concept of the radical anti-extremist.