Given this week’s coverage of the so-called Panama Papers — the cache of 11.5m confidential files from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca — this week, it was interesting to come across this account in David Laws’s book, Coalition, from a meeting in 2013:
An interesting nugget from David Laws’s book in the light of the #panamapapers pic.twitter.com/D8WtrKiz74
— Nick Thornsby (@NickThornsby) April 6, 2016
* Nick Thornsby is a day editor at Lib Dem Voice.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We need a tax rise to fund additional defence spending (Simon McGrath)
Putting Liberal values into practice in the heart of London (Victor Chamberlain)
Sanctions against Israeli settlers welcome – but inadequate (Jonathan Brown)
Protecting children shouldn’t mean abolishing their right to privacy (Tara Foster)
AI and Liberal Democracy (Robin Ashby)
Lib Dems in the King's birthday honours 2026
Party leadership plotting: Yes, Minister's Party Games episode
From cinema to book shop
District council backs a parish council for Market Harborough
New by-election poll gives Burnham 5 point lead
Lib Dems force government to end Russian sanctions exemption
Bobby Charlton and Arnie Sidebottom at Stamford Bridge
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Lib Dems successful in tricky by-election defence
Pope Leo speaks for all liberals when he condemns racism, supports migration, and supports Ukraine
Abrial Jerram 
David Garlick 
Andy Hyde Abrial Jerram 
Kevin Hawkins 
26 Comments
And how did the conversation continue after that?
I would have hoped Nick Clegg would have said, “No, I am not happy”. I haven’t worked out what the “or else” should have been, but it is infuriating that they get away with that. Surely the whole point of the Coalition is to end that kind of corruption?
Is it not time for those full of increasingly odd hatred that is harboured by some for Nick Clegg and the coalition colleagues, to see the other part of that venture, revealed here and often , a genuine attempt to temper the Tories and contribute a degree of Liberal policy wherever they could and did !
I read such bitter views and negative comments on some threads about our own fellow Liberal Democrats , who , in failure or success are that , fellow Liberal Democrats !
Thank you for this reminder from David Laws
Lorenzo, I think there is a line to be walked between Clegg-scepticism and Cleggophobia. Not all criticism of our departed leader is well-founded, but certainly not all of it is illegitimate. No siree.
@Lorenzo “a genuine attempt to temper the Tories and contribute a degree of Liberal policy wherever they could and did”
But that isn’t what that extract shows, albeit stripped of context. Cable went in with liberal proposals on zero-hour contracts, living wage and corporate fraud; three very reasonable proposals, with apparently the full backing of Clegg, Alexander and Laws.
What the LDs came out with was a fairly meaningless “consultation” on zero-hour contracts and nothing at all in regards to a living wage or corporate fraud. When pushed the Conservatives admit they’ve got no real opposition to the corporate fraud measures other than the naked self-interest of their donors and … the LDs then just capitulate. Cameron brings a halt to the meeting and asks Clegg if he was happy. We don’t get Clegg’s answer but judging by his public proclamations we can only assume the answer was “Yes, very, long may this continue.”
That’s a very poor return given the lasting electoral damage the Coalition was inflicting on the LDs and how far out of whack zero-hour contracts and corporate secrecy are from supposed LD values.
I appreciate the tone in which you post, Lorenzo, but those of us who said throughout the Coalition that the way it was being approached by Clegg, Laws and Alexander would do immeasurable damage to our party were proved to be correct. I spent my adult life, along with thousands of other activists, building up the Liberal Party/Liberal Democrats to a position where we at last had a core vote, only to see that smashed to pieces by Clegg and his allies in the party. If a revisionist version of those five years is allowed to take hold as “the truth” then the party will make the same mistakes again, if it ever gets the chance, and another generation or three of activists will also see their dedication betrayed.
We could all unite by going to Downing Street on Saturday. I believe this is how young people campaign these days: https://www.facebook.com/events/1587310231586811/
#making it Iceland
The Lesson I take from The Coalition is that we should never join another unless either, The PM is a Libdem, or both/all the participating Parties are enthusiastic about a program of Reform, including Electoral Reform.
Just like most political leaders, they don’t know morally that they are doing wrong. Indeed as Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Baronet said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
‘Corporate & Political Sociopaths and Psychopaths are Destroying the World Order, but where the Political and Corporate Psychopaths are Not aware of what they are doing to the world-at-large – Globalization is the Weapon they are using to Sequentially destroy the planet and the People are the Only Ones who will ultimately suffer, not the rich and powerful who have created this monster’ – http://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/corporate-psychopathy-is-destroying.html
‘Cameron letter urged Europe to protect offshore tax havens’ – http://www.accountancyage.com/2016/04/07/cameron-letter-urged-europe-to-protect-offshore-tax-havens/
Pretty major stuff is breaking on the Prime Ministerial transparency front.
I’m afraid that he may need to resign. While I personally do not see anything at all wrong with legal tax arrangements, I do not see how a prime minister can criticise aggressive avoidance and then benefit from it.
His position ought to become untenable.
L find it interesting that the day after Cameron comes clean on his earnings the media have an EU pamphlet story to distract attention.
“Philip Rolle 7th Apr ’16 – 8:44pm
Pretty major stuff is breaking on the Prime Ministerial transparency front.”
What major stuff? From my viewing of the ‘news’ on this, there is nothing to see, other than the press throwing mud. All the statements coming out of Downing St. have been clear and consistent; there is no story other than the fact that the press and others don’t get this.
I think talk of betrayal rather than mistakes is unhelpful and just unnecessary .I have respect for the terrific efforts of those who electorally built up this party , but the praise for that need not come with the contempt for our colleagues . I have strongly and with a robust tone , given my own slap on the proverbial wrist to the leading politicians who have made those mistakes, but much good was carried out and when not , was at least attempted , in difficult circumstances.It is not revisionism to be liberal in our understanding of good intentions .How come the often same people who make no allowances for the foibles of our own leaders , are so understanding of the foibles of many , in our wider society and worse?!!
The zero hours review wasn’t meaningless, it resulted in a change in the law to remove exclusivity clauses!
Sadly this shows just how weak we became in coalition. We went into it from a position of strength with Cameron desperate for our support (if he hadn’t delivered government, the Conservatives would have dumped him very quickly), but Nick frittered it away by not demanding enough, refusing to have an exit strategy and refusing to listen to those with real experience of working in coalition in local government. He went into it believing that he could work with Cameron and ended up destroying the party.
@Roland
‘All the statements coming out of Downing St. have been clear and consistent;’
But as it emerged this morning, not quite true. I didn’t believe them at the time, because once you get in family trusts and legacies, it’s really hard to be as categorical as the Prime Minister was a couple of days ago.
I think it’s symptomatic of Cameron, that after 5+ years of a charmed life, he has started taking a serious of risky decisions and positions.
@Ian – can’t see the ‘breaking’ news – that wasn’t on the late news last night, you are referring to.
I think there are a lot of people who need to open their eyes and engage brains, rather than simply join the clueless rabble…
Remembering all the tax efficient saving schemes around in the late 80’s early 90’s and the huge amounts of monies going into “emerging markets”, I see no grounds for the complaints being made against David Cameron, particularly as has been made clear he and his dependents have held no offshore tax avoiding investments since before the 2010 general election.
So unless you can find evidence that him and his immediate family do still have investments in tax havens, there is no story.
Roland
This morning’s story was that he had to go back a bit on saying that neither he nor his family had benefited at all. My point was that it was rash of him to make such as specific denial in the first place.
I don’t hold him responsible for the sins of his father, and maybe he has been unfairly roughed up on this point. I could envisage a situation where he or his family could have benefitted, with no control over the circumstances.
Well said Lorenzo! Those who continue to decry what we did achieve in government, limited though it may have been, do no good for the party’s future. (I have also been pretty forthright in then past about what we did wrong in Coalition)
Our power in government was incredibly limited, beyond what was in the coalition agreement. (One of) Our mistake(s) was in pretending otherwise, and continuing to do so. But I have no doubt that our ministers did a good job where they could and that Nick Clegg et al did what they could to moderate what the Tories wanted to do. Surely the evidence for that is all around us now that they are no longer there.
Cameron ditched the Blairmore shares just before becoming PM in Jan 2010, but were those shares in the Register of Interests when he was a plain old MP in the period 2007 to 2009 when he bought and retained those shares?
Overall, this messy drip, drip of information over several days paints a picture of subterfuge and not the transparency that he and many politicians preach for everyone else to abide by.
@Ian – ‘units’ held in a unit trust are not shares, however they are an investment. Hence what we are seeing is the press being either pedantic or thick (take your choice).
Also he didn’t say “had benefited” but “do benefit”… If you read his comments they are consistent; yes he had a specific set of investments relating to his father’s company these were disposed of in 2010 etc. no he and his family do not have any such holdings now.
@Roland, the issue here is not what Cameron said, but what he didn’t say. His earlier statements had obvious gaps (i.e. what he had done in the past) and this is what the press have gone after. By not telling us everything, he gave the press an opportunity and they took it, and it has taken a couple of rounds to get to the truth, which may make him look evasive to some. Had he come out with a full and frank disclosure up front he would have left the press with nowhere to go.
Guys,
Stop and think for a moment. @Lorenzo Cherin is right.
Some of you are complained when people like @NickThornsby attacked Labour. You wanted him to attack the Tories.
Now he is attacking the Tories, you’re complaining about him not attacking Clegg.
Sorry George, I don’t agree with you. Nick Thornsby wrote this article quoting part of David Laws’ book which epitomises Clegg’s lack of robustness in dealing with the Tories in coalition. This is a period where the narrative of that experience is being contested, and in my view it is essential that the version of events that is accepted in the future is one that precludes anyone in our party making the same mistakes again.
Besides which we know what Cameron said about corporate transparency and what he has done. Still well done Mr Laws fro not making a fuss about it while he could achieve something.
@Tim P “The zero hours review wasn’t meaningless, it resulted in a change in the law to remove exclusivity clauses!”
The meeting detailed above happened in 2013, presumably July-August, the issue with exclusivity was apparent then, it isn’t the only issue with zero hour contracts (pensions, holiday pay, working conditions, punishments etc.) but it is the most egregious and indefensible, it should have been removed there and then. In contrast it was May 2015 before this “consultation” finally removed exclusivity clauses, two whole years to get rid of something so obviously bad that it should have been removed on day one, by which point the General Election was already on us and it provided no electoral benefit to the LDs and 99% of the public probably remain unaware it happened to this day nevermind who they should give the meagre credit to.
That fig-leaf represents the sole concession the LDs managed to wring out of the Tories from the exchange quoted above, even through Laws’ rose(garden)-tinted specs.
Thank you to Nigel and George for your comments .I feel very much good could come to our party if those who hate or harbour anger that lasts , towards our coalition leaders , would look at the feeling and see it is destructive , not constructive .If Nick Clegg and co were bad , terrible people , a degree of that feeling might be cathartic , but they are not , and are , actually , good people , who made some real , political mistakes .Let s learn and move on as friends and colleagues .