We’ll let the Daily Mail set the scene:
The image of politicians has taken a further dive after a Liberal Democrat MP called a minister an “a***hole”. Greg Mulholland stormed out after making the remark during a fiery debate about the problems of funding hospices. The party health spokesman was furious after Labour frontbencher Ivan Lewis refused three times to let him intervene in the discussion.
The Voice, having read the debate in Hansard in full, is firmly of the opinion that Ivan Lewis was indeed “an a******”, and that, if anything, the Lib Dem MP for Leeds North-West let him off lightly. So you can judge for yourselves, below we’ve reproduced the text of Greg’s speech which sparked the now famous fiery exchange:
Greg Mulholland (Leeds, North-West) (LD): … We are all very aware of the wonderful work that hospices do in dealing with those who have a terminal illness. Hospices provide not just palliative care but a whole range of services—a point that often does not come out—including not only skilled nursing care, pain relief and counselling, but activities such as art, music and physiotherapy. Of course, hospices offer services not only for patients but for their families, as other Members have made clear.
The key issue is, and the purpose of the debate is to discuss, the consistency of funding across the hospice sector. Members on both sides of the House have related some very interesting and concrete examples. Each and every hospice faces a struggle month on month, year on year, to secure the funding that it needs to continue doing its vital work. We have heard from Help the Hospices that, on average, just 34 per cent. of funding comes from Government—a little over one third. I think that we heard a slightly lower figure for Wales from my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams). Of the £1.2 million needed by hospices every day, only £360,000 comes from the Government, so every day hospices have to find an extra £840,000 to carry on their work.
Inequality of funding—I am referring to the proportion of money that hospices receive—has been touched on. For some, it is potentially as high as 62 per cent.; for others it is considerably lower. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) made the point, which was clearly not acknowledged by the Minister, that funding for hospices has dropped in real terms in recent years. That is putting considerable extra pressure on the hospice movement. …
The message is clear: there simply must be equity for hospices and other partially funded sectors of the health service. The reality is that we are talking about mainstream NHS palliative care. … fundraising should provide add-ons to core services, not the core funding itself. …
I am conscious that the Government are considering the issue, which is why this debate is particularly timely. I hope that the Minister will accept that there are real concerns, and that several questions are being asked in the hospice movement about funding, equity and the differing proportions of funding for some hospices.
Liberal Democrat Members welcome the grant that was announced to refurbish hospices, but as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, that is not a long-term answer to the questions being posed. In the new strategy, will he commit to an increase in hospice funding not only overall, but proportionately? Will the Government seriously consider that? Will he address the issue of equality of funding across the hospice sector? Will he comment on the idea of a tariff-based system for hospice care, which has been mentioned by Sue Ryder? Given the Government’s commitment to full cost recovery and closer partnership with the voluntary sector, the simple question is: why does that still not apply to hospice care, and when will it?
I again pay tribute to all Members who have taken part in this most important debate; I look forward to the Minister’s contribution. One thing that Members on both sides of the House are absolutely committed to and 100 per cent. behind is the view that we must do whatever we can to support the wonderful work done by hospices.
A passionate but fair-minded speech, you’d probably conclude, raising important questions, but acknowledging the Government’s role to date, and the advocacy of MPs from all parties on behalf of the hospice movement. That wasn’t Ivan Lewis’s conclusion – he instead chose to launch an unprovoked attack on Greg Mulholland and Mark Hunter, and then deny either of them the right of reply:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Ivan Lewis): … The only partisan contributions made during the debate were made by the hon. Members for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) and for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland). They turned it into a party political issue. They talked about a real-terms cut in the amount of funding for hospices based on those figures. That was absolutely opportunistic and disgraceful.Greg Mulholland: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman be writing a blank cheque to the hospice movement? Is he saying that if the Liberal Democrats ever formed the Government, they would meet all the hospice costs at 100 per cent. recovery? Of course not, but that is the impression that Liberal Democrat Members always give when contributing to debates.
Greg Mulholland: Will the Minister give way?Mr. Lewis: We are all fed up with it. I return to the substantive issues.
Greg Mulholland: Will the Minister give way?Mr. Lewis: I will not give way.
On regulation costs, I shall consider the question of the consultation that the Healthcare Commission is undertaking—
Greg Mulholland: He’s an a*******.
Mr. Lewis: —and the nature of regulation costs. That was not very parliamentary language, Mr Williams.
Not parliamentary, perhaps. But under the circumstances quite forgivable. Ivan Lewis: you are an a*******.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Hywel
paul barker
Peter Chambers
Mark Valladares
Mark Smulian
20 Comments
Trust the daily mail to defend an a@$*hole like ivan lewis. time to modernise parliament-how about making MPs meet in Newport market they’ll encounter plenty of “un-parliamentary” language. the y dont live in the real world
Of course he was right. He shouldn’t have to apologise for telling the truth!
Anal ysis of his comments will show that they wrecked ‘im (geddid?? eh? eh?)
Oh well, worth a try. No? okay then, not worth the try….
We have a hospice in the Constituency and I know Greg feels strongly about the issue.
Was it really necessary? It seems pretty petty behaviour if you ask me – if Mulholland was my kid he’d be grounded for having poor self-control.
I have had some professional dealings with Ivan Lewis, and I certainly sympathise with Mr Mulholland’s analysis.
This was a Westminster Hall debate about nursing homes, a matter which concerns many people but which is not strongly party political. All the MPs who spoke acknowledged the difficulties and concerns – except the two Lib Dems who made party political speeches. And what’s more, misleading party political speeches which did not acknowledge the financial impact.
Ivan Lewis corrected them and pointed out their deviousness. Mulholland deliberately broke the rules by shouting insults. For refusing to apologise he should be suspended as an MP. Quite unacceptable for this practice to be tolerated.
Of course, Greg was wrong to express himself in this manner, in the House; and of course, Ivan Lewis IS an a***hole.
Ivan Lewis is an Old Labour Thug dressed up in New Labour clothes. I had the “pleasure” of appearing on the Politics show with him 2 or 3 weeks ago. His behaviour in response to the request by Greg to intervene was unparliamentary and downright rude. People who live by that kind of conduct can expect to get it back and deserve to do so.
Tony Greaves
Ivan Lewis is always deeply partisan.
Greg Mullholland is my MP and I helped in my own small way to get him elected and I am proud that my Lib Dem MP is so passionate about such an important issue to real life (and unfortunately death) even if it is not politically important.
Maybe it should be unparliamentary to not tell the truth but then not much would be said in Parliament at all
Was Lord Greaves actually AT this debate? What kind of conduct? Not giving way to a man who has had a good run of a whiney speech already? That’s just good sense. Westmninster Hall debates are quite short and time limited and there is only so much indulging of axe grinding that is possible if you are to get your own speech out.
At the very least on reading this Hansard extract you’d have to say that Mulholland got a good crack of the whip in his speech and then he tried to get back in before Lewis had the chance to get going again. If you lot are happy for Lewis to be sworn at in this way for not giving way – having just listened to GM for a considerable time – what can we call the interruptive, disruptive, heckling, childish, immature, toys out of pram Mulholland?? Perhaps without swearing?
Let us remember these debates are seldom into double figures of participants and are generally fairly informal, fairly non party political, and fairly civil. This seems to be deliberate attention seeking from a Lib Dem MP who may have some concerns about keeping his seat.
I remember when a town councillor told another trouble-making councillor, in a broad Devonshire dialect “ I ‘ad enough of yer ‘assle” and was promptly reported to the Standards Board for calling him a A*****E!
Is Ivan Lewis going to run home and tell his mummy? I’m sure Mrs Lewis will tell her poor wee lad to ignore the horrible man who was mean to her brave little son.
Are you guys all crazy, or just so partisan that you refuse to admit that anyone in your own party can ever be wrong? “You are an arsehole” is not only crude and unparliamentary, but is utterly unimaginative. Is Mullholland really such a boor that he can’t dream up an intelligent insult?
Just a few weeks ago there was an active thread where lots of LibDems were moaning about how daft PMQs is, and now you all rush to defend bringing playground insults into debate. Unbelievable.
15. As I remarked earlier, Mullholland was totally in the wrong in making this remark. Saying out loud what the rest of us are thinking is obviously incorrect, isn’t it?
Martin, web forums and email are pretty bad places to attempt sarcasm; it is hard to be certain whether you mean what you say or the opposite.
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the debate (and it does, rather unusually I might add, look as though Chris P has a point in that Mulholland had just had a long chance to make his point and wasn’t giving Lewis much chance to progress) the point is that such language is just sloppy, as well as being bad manners. If both sides play it you would rapidly descend into something Pythonesque –
MP #1 “arsehole”
MP #2 “twat”
MP #1 “double piss-flaps, and no returns”
etc
now, that might pass for meaningful debate in the Land household but I know I would give my students short shrift if they tried to pass that off as such.
One only has to have seen what ‘Comment is Free’ used to be like to see how fruitless the House of Commons would be as a place of debate if the free for all on the internet was allowed.
It is ridiculous [and the thin end of the wedge] that they have allowed ‘blackberries’ in there..
17. My students are subjecting themselves to the delights of MFL’s and Intercularal Studies, giving a different meaning to bad language.
I agree sarcasm doesn’t work, so let’s make myself clear. Greg should not have said what he said. No serious debate can take place if one reacts in that manner. However, our friend Ivan is yet another minister of this government who will simply not answer a straight question with a straight answer. In the circumstances, I suspect I would have difficulty biting my tongue all the time!
Thanks Martin. Indeed, two wrongs to not make a right and even though Lewis may well be an complete arse (and a flatulent one at that) I don’t think it is necessary to call him one in the chamber.
[and I should add, not answering the question is more being close to power than anything else; I have come across quite a few Lib Dems Councillors who are more than adept at not answering straight questions :-)]