Clegg answers questions on his absence at EU debate

For those of you that missed here are the DPM's words after he missed the debate on the EU statement:

DPM: The coalition government is here to stay. On Europe, what I’m going to do is this – build bridges, re-engage, and make sure that the British voice is heard at the top table in Europe. Why? Not for the sake of the EU as a whole, because I think that is the right thing for jobs in this country, for growth in this country and for the livelihoods of millions of families in this country because that’s what I care about most.

Asked whether his not being there was a greater distraction:

DPM: The PM and I clearly do not agree on the outcome of the summit last week. I made it very clear that I think isolation in Europe when we are one against 26 is potentially a bad thing for jobs, a bad thing for growth and a bad thing for the livelihoods of millions of people in this country. I’m not here to defend the EU in and of itself; I am here to defend the jobs and livelihoods of millions of people in this country. That’s what I care about and that’s why I think what we need to do know is build bridges, re-engage and make sure that the British voice is heard loud and clear in the heart of Europe.

Asked if he had changed his position since Friday:

DPM: On Friday, I said that I regretted the outcome, and I’ve stuck to that line and I said that I thought that anti-Europeans should be careful what they wish for so I was quite clear on Friday that I was not welcoming the outcome of the...[interrupted]

Asked about the fact that the negotiating position was agreed in advance:

DPM: I haven’t changed my mind on that at all. The specific list of safeguards which were sought, which was a list of negotiating asks, were perfectly reasonable and perfectly measured in their scope. I haven’t changed my mind one bit from the moment the summit was closed.

Asked if he was running scared from his own MPs:

DPM: When I was told the outcome of the summit, after it finished, I immediately told the Prime Minister that I could not welcome it, that I thought it was bad for Britain. I have stayed with that view since, and I have simply amplified on my reasons for that since the summit.

Asked how damaging this is to the coalition:

DPM: The Coalition Government is here to stay. That’s absolutely clear. On this issue – and by the way, there are many issues, of course, in the Coalition where the parties differ – we differ, and it so happens to be that this is a particularly significant issue. Why is it significant? It’s worth remembering. Not because all things in the European Union are perfect, far from it, but because I think that being isolated - as one - is potentially bad for jobs, bad for growth, bad for the livelihoods of millions of people in this country. But the Coalition Government is here to stay.

Clegg on the eurozone

These are the latest quotes from Clegg on the eurozone crisis. Despite him saying he is "hand in glove" with David Cameron - which sounds a bit creepy by the way - on the issue of financial regulation, it doesn't quite feel that way. He points out that he is not asking for "exceptional" treatment for the City.

Deputy Prime Minister, what do you hope will come out of tomorrow’s meeting on the Eurozone?

Well, what I want to see, and what this whole Coalition Government wants to see, on all sides of the Coalition, is that we do the right thing for the country as a whole, in the national interest. What does that mean? It means firstly that we of course must play our bit in making sure that the Eurozone sorts itself out, because that’s good for our economy, it’s good for jobs and growth in Britain. And secondly, we must do everything we can to avoid a great big split in the European Union. Because if you split, you fragment the single market, which, after all, is the world’s largest borderless single market. That’s bad for jobs and growth in this country. Three million people are dependent for their jobs on our access to the single market. I have been speaking to a large number of European leaders over the last several days and weeks and, you know, that British perspective is one that is widely heard and widely shared by many other countries in the European Union.

What do you expect the Prime Minister to be asking for at that meeting?

The Prime Minister has been quite clear, and this is something that we all share in this Coalition Government, I mean I work in lockstep, hand in glove, with the Prime Minister on these issues, and as we are supportive to the Eurozone so they can sort their problems out, in return they introduce safeguards to ensure precisely what I said: that the single market is not fragmented and that important industries like the financial services industry are treated fairly. Not exceptional treatment, but are just simply treated fairly, on a level playing field within Europe.

You’ve said twice now that you’ve got to ensure there is no fragmentation of the market. Is there a danger that could happen?

There is always a danger at a moment of crisis, when some countries are part of the Eurozone and others are not, that you get, in the rush to create an instant solution, that you get momentum towards different solutions for different parts of the European Union. I think that might be tempting in the short term, but could be damaging in the long term. We have to remain, as we always have been as a country, absolutely part of our European backyard, our neighbourhood, and we’ve got to be able to continue to sell our goods and services, and create growth and jobs in this country, because of our place in the single market.

Cranky Dr shouts at PM's media circus...

Hat tip Paul Waugh

NO2AV take on Huhne

Lobbydog hears the NO2AV campaign plan to do tomorrow what Ed Miliband should have done today – attack Chris Huhne over his cabinet meeting outburst.

Miliband seemed to completely forget about the whole issue at PMQs giving it only a passing mention, when it should have been his most powerful attack line of the day.

The whole situation is a complete gift which could have made Clegg look very silly in the Commons on the eve an election – another one of Ed’s missed opportunities.

Anyway, the NO2AV campaign will send an open letter to Huhne dismissing his claims that they have specifically targeted Nick Clegg and run a dirty campaign against him.

I doubt they’ll go quite as far as accusing Huhne of using the issue to position himself as a potential Liberal Democrat leader, someone should though.

How Speaker Bercow cost Nick Clegg two hours of pain

The bust up between Chief Whip Patrick McLoughlin and John Bercow on Monday night (video below courtesy of The Telegraph) was all about the Government’s attempt to limit tomorrow’s debate on tuition fees to three hours.

The Government had put down a motion to achieve that end and Labour MPs wanting to object to it shouted “object” at the wrong time – a few seconds early.

If Bercow hadn’t encouraged then moments later to shout “object” again, the motion would have passed and the debate been limited.

Interestingly, last night the ‘three hour limit’ motion was on the order paper again but, when given the opportunity, the Government whip declined to move it.

Today we find another motion is down to be moved at about 7pm. But this time the motion limits the tuition fees debate to five hours.

That suggests that after the Mcloughlin/Bercow incident negotiations may have taken place and the Government been forced to concede a further two hours on the debate – two extra hours of excruciating discussion for Nick Clegg and his Lib Dem MPs.

Chatting earlier, a Labour MP argued that instead of sticking to rigid rules Bercow used his ‘common sense’ to interpret them – he knew Labour wanted to object, everyone else knew Labour wanted to object, they had signalled their objection and therefore Bercow took the objection.

But then again you might argue that as a direct result of Bercow’s intervention the Government has been put at disadvantage. As one colleague put it: “The Labour objection was outside the rules. If you are not going to obey the rules, why bother having them?”

Ed's comeback...

After last week’s PMQs debacle Ed Miliband showed grit to put in a good performance this week.

He even felt confident enough to turn one of Cameron’s taunts from last week – “not waving, but drowning” – back on the PM, though it wasn’t even his best line.

PMQs is normally not about scrutiny, which can’t be done properly when hundreds of people are screaming in your face. It’s more about embarrassing your opponent and lifting your troops.

On the second count Miliband got top marks, Labour MPs were buoyant. Even some of the front benchers who in the past haven’t played along with Miliband’s lines of attack by shouting at the right times, were letting themselves be led.

On the first count he did well too, but in part because the tuition fees policy, which he correctly pointed out was “in chaos”, offers an easy opportunity to divide the Coalition.

To make today’s performance develop into a run, he will eventually need to show he can carry out a solid assault on Coalition economic policy.

Labour squeaks on tuition fees...

Students should take note of the nuance in the motion Labour has tabled on tuition fees for the Opposition Day Debate today.

Far from showing the kind of brick-wall resistance to Government proposals student leaders want, Miliband’s mealy worded motion indicates nervousness over the issue.

It doesn’t call for tuition fees to be scrapped or lowered, but calls for the Government to “publish a White Paper…before asking the House to vote”.

It makes no mention of students from poor backgrounds being able to afford university, but instead “is concerned that major questions about how the Government’s market in higher education is intended to work remain unanswered”. Powerful stuff.

Compare that to the far more stirring motion tabled by Plaid’s Jonathan Edwards, supported by the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas, which talks about education “being a right, not a privilege” and you see just how carefully Miliband is stepping on tuition fees.

Firstly this highlights the problem that students face on this issue – they don’t, and have not had for a long time, any solid support from any major political party over fees.

Labour instigated the Browne Review and even the Lib Dems had resigned themselves to reversing their pledge on fees because it’s simply unaffordable.

If students want to make any headway they need to address affordability, not simply complain about who has ‘betrayed’ them politically.

But Labour’s motion also reflects the difficulty the shadow cabinet is having on agreeing its approach to tuition fees. Until they do the Coalition will continue to get an easier ride than it should on the issue.

Defector slams Clegg

You could hear the frustration in the voice of Robin Webber-Jones, the candidate who defected to Labour from the Liberal Democrats last night.

Webber-Jones fought for the Lib Dems against Stephen Dorrell MP in Charnwood in May, but chose to switch allegiance to Labour after becoming disillusioned with his former party’s role in the Coalition Government.

He said: “We stated at the General Election that we wouldn’t take money out of the economy and we talked a lot about aspiration, we also described the Alternative Vote as meagre – but now it’s all changed.

“There was a moment where it seemed getting hold of power was the only important thing for the Lib Dems, rather than actually thinking about what was being done.

“When the cuts are gone and the public services are decimated what then? The Government’s judgement call on the economy is simply wrong.

“If you listen to the likes of Vince Cable you can tell that he’s not comfortable with it either and there are other Lib Dems who don’t like the feeling that we’re going round wrecking people’s lives.

“I think Nick Clegg is looking after himself.”

I wonder how widely the view in that last line is shared at Lib Dem conference.

The David Cameron Rap..

Clegg, the puppet on a string. Chortle.

It can't be, it is....

“Please don’t be Gordon, please don’t be Gordon, please don’t be Gordon,” said the collective look on the faces of Labour MPs at Prime Minister’s Questions today.

Nick Clegg was about to reveal who the first person to call Andy Coulson was, after the then News of the World editor resigned over the phone-hacking scandal back in 2006.

While they’d hoped it was not Gordon who’d called Coulson to commiserate, comfort him and tell that he would one day have a “worthwhile” job – the irony – they knew deep down that it was him.

As one red MP later commented: “That’s so Gordon.”

It was the best moment in terms of theatre at PMQs, but obviously the more significant thing is that Speaker John Bercow said he would grant an emergency debate on the phone hacking scandal tomorrow.

Pressure mounts on Coulson. I’ll be there of course.

What have the Tory rebels got?

With a crucial Commons debate on the Coalition’s plans for electoral reform approaching, the Tory awkward squad are looking to flex their muscles.

Government plans to hold a referendum on whether to switch general elections to the Alternative Vote (AV) system will be almost first on the agenda when MPs come back to Westminster.

A good number of Tory MPs worry the AV system might lead to them losing parliamentary seats.

So Tory rebels are using an early day motion (edm) to garner support for opposing the AV referendum – but also to send a warning to the Coalition not to take them for granted.

At the moment the motion has won support from 45 MPs, two of which are Labour. That leaves 43 Tories who might vote against the Government on the issue.

The coalition has a majority of over 70 so it’s not urgent for Cameron and Clegg. Plus, many of the MPs who have put their name to the edm may well fall into line or extract some deal from the Government in return for support.

None the less, the debate on September 6 and 7 should be an interesting test of the Tory rebels’ chutzpah.

Fort holding

Lobbydog has returned to work today to find all sorts of people stressing that Nick Clegg is definitely not running the country.

I never actually thought he would run things in Cameron’s absence, but the veracity with which the point is now being forced is making me think otherwise.

It’s like a bad whodunit TV show when some-one says “I didn’t murder him,” and the detective replies with raised eyebrow, “no-one said anything about murder.”

Maybe the Tories are scared Clegg will do something stupid while they’re away. Anyway, the rather comical line, of which we’re reminded every 15 minutes on Sky, is that Nick is only “holding the fort”.

If the polls are anything to go by then maybe that’s what they’ll write on his political head stone. Lib Dem Leader Nick Clegg – holding the fort from 2007 to 2010.

Clegg pushes influence

Transport Secretary Phil Hammond took a sneaky swipe at Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, the Sheffield Hallam MP, during a hacks’ lunch I went to yesterday.

Hammond had been asked a question about High Speed Rail and told that Yorkshire authorities feared they would get pushed off the proposed route by the powerful North West lobby.

“Hmm,” Hammond mused.

“My experience of the Coalition Government so far is that Sheffield seems to have quite a strong lobbying organisation.”

Straw flops

When Jack Straw stood up at PMQs he resembled a baddy from a cheap Hollywood movie, who does nothing but stare at his opponent with an evil smile on his face.

It felt like he leered, smirking at Clegg and saying nothing for a full five seconds – until the House burst into laughter.

It may even have been a good psyche-out tactic had what followed been an incisive attack. But Straw’s performance, in what was an extremely odd PMQs anyway, was pitiful.

That was lucky for Clegg, who did not shine. But because Straw was so odd, Clegg got away with not being on any sort of form.

Straw was obviously trying to draw attention to Clegg’s handling of the Sheffield Forgemaster’s issue, with an eye on smearing his integrity.

The problem is that no-one outside Sheffield will take notice and PMQs is meant to be a place where you strike a chord with national sentiment.

On top of that Straw waffled awfully in his questions, even more than Clegg in his answers.

Labour MPs were shouting “answer the question” at Clegg – but I’m sure neither they nor he really knew what the question had been.

Straw should have gone for issues that drove a wedge between the coalition partners.

Finally there was this bizarre moment when Bercow called Claire Perry MP to speak, when Straw still wanted to have another question.

Straw simply refused to sit down and clung to the despatch box, doing his staring thing at Bercow as well – with the Commons audibly in chaos this was another black mark against Bercow’s Speakership.

Clarke admits he got it wrong...

Before the election Ken Clarke claimed a Hung Parliament would be a disaster for the UK.

But confronted with the current situation, he admitted to Lobbydog that he had been wrong.

I suppose he has to given his position in the coalition Government, but it’s always nice to hear a politician admit they were mistaken.

“During the election I was very hostile to the idea of a Hung Parliament and warned against it. I believed that British politicians would not be able to handle it.

“I feared we would have a weak minority Government doing populist things until we had a second election which is what’s happened in the past.”

He said, naturally, that it had been down to the way Cameron and Clegg had performed that the coalition was working, but had a little warning about things getting worse further down the line.

“I’m prepared to say my fears were not justified. I hope it will last, but so far it turns out that my fears were unworthy.

“The test is can it deliver and can it last for the necessary period of time. The answer to both questions I think is yes. But the test will really come when we start doing really difficult things.

“At the moment I find myself in a team of people who are going through a political honey moon period with a great sense of excitement and no signs of any tension inside Government and I tell myself ‘well I hope it’s like this in a couple of years time’.”

Thin on the detail......

Having had a read of the full coalition document I’m not sure I feel much more enlightened about what the Government will do exactly.

Throughout the paper the words “we will” appear over and over again at the start of sentences, but they’re often followed by statements which we have heard many times before.

Crucially, there are a lot of manifesto-style pledges that simply lack detail and so lack credibility too. For instance…

"We will ensure that people have the protection that they need when they defend themselves against intruders."

My personal favourite is this one…

"We will give councils a general power of competence."

I suppose as this coalition never had a manifesto as such before the election, it is entitled to have something resembling one now.

However, I was craving at least a small increment of detail today – not about what they want to do or what they believe in, but about how they are going to do it.

Cuts begin at the top...

Here are some details of those ministerial pay cuts.

It amounts to a 5% wage decrease for ministers. The coalition says that, along with the subsequent pay-freeze, will save the taxpayer £3million over the Parliament.

This is Cam and Clegg saying ‘we are cutting money that benefits us, because soon we will be cutting money that benefits you’. Watch this space.

More potent than the sum of their parts...

I couldn’t help but have a little snigger when Clegg turned to Cameron, looked into his eyes and said “together”.

But apart from those moments of sugary sweetness – this was as impressive as it was fascinating.

Their joint PR power was much more potent than the sum of its parts. I saw a sci-fi movie once where a bunch of mini-robots all joined together to form an all powerful uber-robot. This was the political equivalent.

They played off each other’s jokes, nodded at one another, made each other seem legitimate and justified.

But most of all they made the idea of coalition change from being something that seemed like urgent crisis management in the face of an inconclusive election last night, to being a vision and something that might inspire people this morning.

I have no doubt that the public will warm to this kind of joint press conference, if nothing else because it’s so novel. Rarely have they seen politicians of different parties talk like this.

The problem is that for the moment it is not the public, but their own MPs that they need to take with them.

I spoke to one Tory MP earlier who simply did not want the coalition to work, because they did not want it to become a positive advert for coalition politics.

Meanwhile the public themselves will only get carried away until they realise the horrific cuts that this brotherly coalition is going to implement.

Labour meanwhile will need to pick its leader very carefully to face off the challenge that Clegg and Cameron present.

The eventual leader will need to be able to drive a wedge between the pair, without being labelled as the person who didn’t want politicians to work together.

Cameron reaches out, but not at full stretch...

Cameron’s speech made the right noises of wanting to work with the Lib Dems.

But his offer of joint working did not involve much compromise, i.e. new steps.

Cameron outlined things where the Lib Dems and Tories already agree.

But then on the crucial issue of voter reform only offered to set up a “joint committee of inquiry”.

To Clegg and to the Lib Dems I’ve a feeling that means little real action. Ball back in Clegg’s court.

Clegg is playing is hand...

It’s interesting that despite his party coming third in seats and vote share, despite him actually ending up with fewer seats and losing key front bench colleagues – Nick Clegg has managed to look statesman like today.

Clegg previously said that the party with the biggest vote share would have a moral right to move things forward in a hung Parliament situation.

He has been given immediate kudos on TV and on the web for ‘sticking to his word’ and suggesting it is now for the Tories to try and “govern in the national interest”.

What’s even more interesting is the way the Tories have responded so quickly, with Cameron almost immediately scheduling a statement to show how he’ll meet that challenge.

Despite the policy differences between the two parties, which are stark, it does show how the two leaders operate similarly.

At least it shows how much closer Cameron is to Clegg’s wavelength than Brown.

Labour has put out all sorts of people this morning to appeal to the Lib Dems – Harriet Harman was positively smooching the third party’s political behind on TV just now.

But they don’t seem to have made any headway and anyway, none of those people has been Gordon Brown; putting aside that rather stiff statement earlier.

The PM said: “It is my duty as Prime Minister to take all steps to ensure Britain has a strong, stable and principled government. This is, of course, chiefly a task for politicians and – in time – for Parliament.

“But to facilitate this process and consistent with the conventions set out in the draft Cabinet Manual, I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to arrange for the civil service to provide support on request to parties engaged in discussions on the formation of government.”

Not exactly vibrant stuff, particularly when time is of the essence.

So could a Lib/Con arrangement of some sort actually be quite dynamic? It’s moving so quickly that by the time you’ve read this we may well have an answer.