Little fresh thinking in Brown’s Afghan speech says Nick Clegg

Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats:

“The situation in Afghanistan is on a knife-edge. Yet today we have heard little in the way of fresh, new thinking from Gordon Brown," said the Leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Commenting on Gordon Brown’s speech on Afghanistan, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg said:

“The situation in Afghanistan is on a knife-edge. Yet today we have heard little in the way of fresh, new thinking from Gordon Brown.

“After pursuing an overambitious and under-resourced strategy for eight years it’s hard to believe that increasing the training of the Afghan police and army will now do the trick. We need a bolder change of strategy to turn things around. When it comes to Afghanistan, we need to do things properly or not at all.

“Despite the recent elections being plagued by fraud and low turnout, Gordon Brown has chosen not to take a stance on this issue. He must realise that a second round of elections is now necessary to ensure Afghanistan gets a president with legitimacy without which the conflict against the Taliban will be all the more difficult.”

Soldiers’ pay should be increased by £6,000 - Clegg

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg today launched plans to increase the pay of the lowest-paid troops by £6,000 a year. The proposals, which would mean that no service personnel in the Army, Navy or RAF would receive less basic annual pay than a new-entrant police constable or development-level firefighter, would be funded within the MoD’s existing budget.

Key points include:

• The lowest paid personnel would receive an increase of £6000 - placing them on £22,680 and an equal footing with a development-level firefighter or new-entrant police constable
  
  
• Privates and lance corporals would receive an average annual pay increase of over £3000, with the average annual basic pay across these two ranks rising to around £25,000
  
  
• Higher NCO ranks would receive an average annual pay increase of around £1,000

Commenting, Nick Clegg said:

“Nobody can put a price on the sacrifices our brave service men and women make on our behalf. But it is painfully clear that pay levels are a national disgrace. Those who are prepared to die for this country deserve to be treated better.

“It is simply unacceptable that we have reached the point where we hear of some forces families having to rely on handouts. Widespread dissatisfaction over pay among the lower ranks has had a dreadful impact on morale.

“The Liberal Democrats would ensure that no soldier, sailor or airman goes into harm’s way on less basic pay than a new recruit to the police or fire service. We would increase the salary of the lowest-paid privates - many of whom are fighting now on the front line - by £6000 a year.

“This can be afforded with only a fraction of the sum wasted by the MoD on bloated bureaucracy, bungled procurement projects and an outdated Cold War missile defence system.

“Action is needed now to restore the military covenant between the Armed Forces and the British people. We must start with the scandalously low pay our troops receive.”

Nick Clegg asks public servants ‘in the know’ how to save taxpayers’ money

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg is asking people who work in the public sector where they think taxpayers’ money can be saved. Nick Clegg is today visiting a hospital in Sheffield, as well as launching a website where people who work in the public sector can submit suggestions on how to cut waste.

The ‘Ask the People in the Know’ project recognises that serious savings will have to be made to bring public finances under control and seeks the expertise of those working in the public sector on how to cut out waste while protecting services.

Nick Clegg said:

“Hard-working nurses and teachers tell me how frustrated they are by the money which is being wasted on needless paperwork, administration and computer systems that don’t work.

“David Cameron and Gordon Brown are having a sterile debate about the size of the total Whitehall budget. But they’re asking the wrong question: we first need to find out if money is being spent on the right things.

“It can’t be right that billions of pounds are being spent on NHS computer systems which don’t work, yet basic help for people with serious mental health conditions is still lacking because of a shortage of money.

“The people who are best placed to tell us where money is not being well spent are the teachers, nurses, social workers and other public servants who work so hard day and night on our behalf.

“Politicians should stop talking over the heads of public servants. We need to listen to the people in the know on how we can better run public services, making sure that every penny of taxpayers’ money is well spent. That’s what ‘Asking People In The Know’ is all about.”

To find out more about this campaign, please visit this website.

Pakistan President Asif Zardari meets Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg has met with Pakistan’s President, Asif Ali Zardari, in the run up to the party’s Autumn conference.

The President was keen to meet with Nick Clegg during a private visit he is making to the UK. Discussions were held on the important role Pakistan plays in foreign policy, the upcoming British General Election and the contribution the Pakistani community makes in the UK.

Nick Clegg was joined by the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Manchester Gorton Qassim Afzal, who helped to arrange the meeting.

Commenting, Nick Clegg said:

“This meeting was important as the Liberal Democrats run councils in urban areas of Britain which have a large and vibrant Pakistani community.

“The President and I spent time discussing how Pakistanis can continue to fully integrate in the UK and starve any extremist views that might take hold.

“It is vital that we support Pakistan in the fight against terrorism and the Taliban and continue to provide assistance to the refugees in the Swat Valley.”

Commenting, PPC for Manchester Gorton, Qassim Afzal said:

“It is essential to continue to build bridges between the UK and Pakistan and this meeting is a positive move in developing this.

“As the candidate for Manchester Gorton I’m very proud to represent the Liberal Democrats as the truest home for equality and diversity for all.”

Labour has criminalised a generation with a million children convicted in a decade

More than a million children have been convicted of a criminal offence and another million cautioned since Labour came to power, according to research by the Liberal Democrats. The figures, contained in answer to a Parliamentary Question, show that:

• 1,033,454 children aged between 10 and 17 have been convicted of a criminal offence since 1997. This includes almost 30,000 10 to 12 year olds.
  
  
• The number of 10 to 12 year olds convicted rose by 87.2% between 1997 and 2007. Among 13 to 15 year olds, it rose by 54.6%.
  
  
• 1,172,599 children aged between 10 and 17 were cautioned for a criminal offence under Labour.
  
  
• In the same period, 2,251,798 young adults (aged 18 to 21) were convicted and 577,424 were cautioned.

The Liberal Democrats propose a new approach to youth justice, tackling potential offenders before they enter the criminal justice system. Community Justice Panels should be established to draw up Positive Behaviour Orders (PBOs), which require minor offenders to agree on a course of action to pay back the community they have wronged.

The party is also committed to putting 10,000 extra police officers on the beat by scrapping the Government’s national ID card scheme. More officers will enable higher visibility policing at gun and knife crime hot spots and provide improved capability for intelligence-led stop and search.

The Liberal Democrats aim to engage young people and provide activities that will divert them from crime. The party will create a Youth Volunteer Force for every area, with young people working with local authorities on projects that serve the community.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg said:

“These shocking figures show how Labour has criminalised a generation of our children.

“It is a disgrace the Government spends eleven times more locking up our young people than it does on backing projects to stop them getting involved in crime in the first place.

“Dragging young people through the criminal justice system for minor offences is the best way of helping them to graduate to a more serious life of crime.

“Labour talks tough on crime, and then creates more criminals. It's time to talk sense and act smart to stop the young offenders of today becoming the hardened criminals of tomorrow.

“We need to see innovative approaches that ensure children make amends to their victims and put things right, rather than immediately criminalising them.

“The Liberal Democrats propose a new approach to youth justice that prevents young people from getting into crime in the first place.”

Gordon Brown’s silence on Megrahi absurd and damaging says Clegg

Speaking ahead of today’s statement in Holyrood on the release of Abdelbaset Ali Al Megrahi, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg said: "It is absurd and damaging that the British Prime Minister simply remains silent in the hope that someone else will take the flak.”

“Although the decision to release Megrahi was a Scottish one for which Gordon Brown was not personally responsible, the fallout puts the UK at the centre of an international storm.

“In these circumstances, it is absurd and damaging that the British Prime Minister simply remains silent in the hope that someone else will take the flak.”

SNP SEEK ASSURANCES OVER ELECTION TV DEBATES

The SNP is seeking guarantees that the party will have a place in any UK-wide TV debate between party leaders ahead of the next General Election. The party’s election campaign co-ordinator Stewart Hosie MP today (Sunday) confirmed that he would be writing to broadcasters to make sure that the party would be part of any UK-wide broadcast.

Mr Hosie said:

“Scotland has a long tradition of party leader debates, and it is high time that we had them at UK level for the next General Election.

“Peter Mandelson has raised the issue again, and although it might have made Gordon Brown choke on his cornflakes when he heard it, the political parties and broadcasters should seize the initiative.

“And the broadcasters must meet their obligations to audiences across the UK – and so that would have to include Alex Salmond’s participation in any election debates involving Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

“We are obviously prepared to be flexible about options for the format, but the broadcasters’ public service obligations require them to be fair to their audiences in Scotland, and indeed Wales.

“Both the SNP and Plaid Cymru are now parties of government, the polls indicate we are aiming for substantial success at the General Election, and our voice must be heard. We will certainly be writing to the broadcasters at an early stage about this issue, so that they can be in no doubt about the position.”

Blair and Brown Must Not be Allowed to Escape Spotlight of Iraq Inquiry

Commenting on Sir John Chilcot’s announcement on the terms of reference for the Iraq war inquiry, Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats said:

“It is essential that this inquiry has the teeth it needs to get the job done. The Government must not be able to interfere to keep Blair and Brown out of the spotlight for the sake of political convenience in the run-up to an election. Tony Blair ordered this disastrous war and Gordon Brown signed the cheques - without public appearances from them this inquiry will be seen as a whitewash.

The inquiry must have access to high level legal advice, in particular a counsel to assist them in cross-questioning witnesses. This is important to ensure that as gifted a communicator as Blair is not allowed to slip off the hook. It is very disappointing that the chances of an interim report have been described as ‘unlikely’ - there is no reason that such a report could not be published before the election.

Sir John’s assurance that evidence will be held in public ‘wherever possible’ is welcome. But where evidence is given in private, a genuine national security interest must be proven in each case. There is a strong case for televising hearings so the public can see that proceedings are as open as possible.”

CLEGG LEAVES LIBDEM ROADS POLICY IN TATTERS

LONDON LIBDEMS HYPOCRITICAL DEMANDS JUST DON’T ADD UP

An announcement by the LibDem leader Nick Clegg that they ditch key Lib Dem policies in an attempt to be more honest with voters about spending cuts has undermined his own self-styled Chief-of-Staff’s attempts to make un-costed demands for spending on roads says SNP Highlands and Islands MSP Dave Thompson.

Yesterday the LibDem leader announced that his party had to be "disciplined and honest" which has been followed today by his Chief-of-Staff, Danny Alexander, making demands for immediate funding in Highland roads.

Mr Thompson pointed put that it was already the LibDem’s policy to cut roads funding and that yesterday’s announcement just further undermines Danny Alexander’s spurious attack on the SNP Government.

Mr Thompson also pointed out that the LibDems failed to invest in one single major road project in the Highlands in the eight years they were in power with Labour.

Research already shows that the LibDems’ policy on roads is a chaotic mess with local demands for roads improvements contradicting the party’s national policy which would cut roads funding.

Mr Thompson listed the LibDems’ position on transport funding and roads which contradicts what they are telling voters at a local level:

* A Liberal Democrat policy signed by LibDem Scottish leader Tavish Scott is not to invest in roads - "We believe that building more roads and runways will not tackle congestion. We would invest in a proper public transport system, taxing lorries and domestic flights to invest in high speed rail." (See Note 1)

* As part of their UK 4p income tax policy which will see cuts of £20 billion across the UK the LibDems want to cut 90% of all major road projects

* Liberal Democrat MSPs voted for the £500 million Edinburgh tram project - diverting funds from other projects

* Liberal Democrats want to charge for usage of all motorways and trunk roads - a scheme supported by LibDems' Scottish leader Tavish Scott

Yet at the same time LibDems at a local level are demanding immediate or increased funding in roads projects which directly contradicts the policies they have and would enact in power.

Commenting on Mr Thompson said:

"Danny Alexander is being entirely dishonest and hypocritical with the Highland public. He is making demands that his party has no intention of delivering – in fact they will cut funding for Highland roads.

"And in the eight years in power with Labour, the London LibDems delivered little in terms of major road project and what was announced was subject to delay, dither and incompetence under two LibDem Transport Ministers!

"In contrast it is the SNP which is bringing forward an unprecedented number of plans to improve road transport across Scotland.

"The LibDems not only had eight years to deliver these improvements, and failed, they now actually have a policy that would mean no money and no new roads.

"Not content with diverting valuable cash, which could have been used for other transport schemes, to an Edinburgh project that even people in Edinburgh don't want – the LibDems in Holyrood and Westminster want to cut the funds and stop roads.

"We even have LibDems bidding against each other with Danny Alexander wanting money to be taken away from the new Forth Crossing. How will that go down with LibDem MSP Jim Tolson?

"The LibDems are notorious for trying to hoodwink the voters. They will say one thing on local doorsteps whilst hoping the voters don't notice what policies they are supporting in Holyrood and Westminster.

"A raft of LibDem MPs and MSPs has some questions to answer about why they are trying to hide this policy from people locally whilst supporting it when in Edinburgh and London?

"If we had a LibDem administration none of those projects would have had sufficient funding and the schemes they call for locally would never be started, far less finished.

"It's time the London-based LibDems told the truth to people across Scotland about their policy on roads and recognised the damaging impact their policies would have on the economy."

Government Strategy in Afghanistan Over-Ambitious and Under-Resourced

Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats today responded to Gordon Brown’s Parliamentary Statement on the war in Afghanistan and last week’s G8 Summit. Describing the Government’s strategy in Afghanistan as ‘over-ambitious and under-resourced’, Nick Clegg called for extra helicopters to be sent to support the troops on the ground.

Nick Clegg said: “I believe the British people are resilient and understand the sacrifices that are inevitable in conflict - so long as the purpose of that conflict is clearly explained and understood.

But how can people understand the true nature of this war when the Government has refused to explain what the achievable aims of this mission really are?

For the last eight years, the Government has been sending mixed messages about the nature and purpose of this deployment. In the last week, we have had the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary giving different justifications for this war.

We on these benches support the Afghan mission in order to stabilise Afghanistan and reduce the threat of terrorism to British citizens. But we need to be very clear about the limits of what we can achieve: military action may be able to contain problems, but not resolve them.

We have learnt some difficult lessons in the last eight years. We have learnt that our forces were not in a position to secure Helmand alone, given the chronic shortages of equipment and manpower.

And we have learnt that, because of the nature of Afghan tribal society, we must not overreach ourselves by trying to import overnight a western-style liberal democracy in a country that’s never had a functioning central government.

Does the Prime Minister now accept that, at best, what we can do is stabilise Afghanistan, to provide a space for the state to grow?

And so does he see that, since our troops first stepped into Afghanistan, the Government strategy has been over-ambitious in aim and under-resourced in practice?

Isn’t it time to commit the necessary resources, and set a reasonable goal? When exactly will the Prime Minister find a way to send the desperately-needed helicopters to our troops on the ground? And when will he seek full co-ordination of the international political strategy in Afghanistan?

Does he recognise that, as military commanders themselves argue, military intervention can only ever be part of the solution?

It must, to be effective, take place in the context of a much more forcefully coordinated political strategy.

We know that President Karzai vetoed the appointment of a single, strong political figure to coordinate the international strategy in Afghanistan. So will the Prime Minister now prevail upon President Karzai or his successor to reverse this decision and accept the appointment of a single senior figure to bring together the piecemeal strategies of the international community?

Finally, Mr Speaker, I’d like to turn to the G8 Summit conclusions on nuclear non-proliferation. It is clear that conflicts like Afghanistan are likely to dominate in the coming years, rather than the old state-to-state conflicts of the Cold War era.

So I welcome the position taken at the G8 on nuclear non-proliferation and the strong line taken regarding the 2010 talks. But does the Prime Minister not agree that rushing to commit Britain to like-for-like replacement of the Cold War-era Trident system hardly puts Britain at the forefront of such efforts?

Isn’t it time to admit we do not need, nor can we afford, Trident, and start to look properly at the alternatives, so we can commit the resources needed for modern, asymmetric warfare like in Afghanistan?”

Ask Nick Clegg: On Monday we can change the way we do politics

Every week I travel around the country to meet people in their local town halls and listen to their views.

Anyone can come along and ask me (just about) anything and in return I get a pretty good picture of how people across the UK feel about politics and how they are being affected by the recession.

Next week I am going to do another of my public Q&A meetings, but this time it is going to be live and online so that you can ask me your questions from home, your work or wherever you happen to be online. There will be no script and no special invitations - just get in touch and ask a question on subjects that concern you.

The one thing that keeps coming up again and again is the state of our politics and how we can clean it up. Many people say they would like to see action taken against MPs who seriously abuse the system. But currently voters have no power to sack those MPs who have been found guilty of serious wrong-doing.

I want to change this and make politicians more accountable and politics more transparent. I am keen to hear your ideas.
This has never been done before so, on Monday 13th July post your questions and lets discuss how we can clean up politics and fix the British economy.

I want as many people to take part in this as possible.

There are three ways you can help spread news of this event:

• Blog about this or post on your website
• Tell friends on Social Networks or Tweet
• Forward this email to five of your friend

Nick Clegg

Leader of the Liberal Democrats

Clegg: Brown's leadership is "running out of steam"

Nick Clegg has described Gordon Brown's policy plans as "a hotch potch of unrelated Whitehall schemes" with no unifying" vision from a prime minister who was "running out of steam".

Mr Clegg said both the Prime Minister and David Cameron were treating the voters as if they were children who were "too young to know the truth".

He said: "Neither are willing to come clean on the difficult long-term savings we will need to make to balance the nation's books."

"It's like a big hoax: they trade insults and numbers but hide the truth." The public had been promised a vision based on decentralisation and personal entitlements but many of these entitlements were "just the recycled versions of old targets", he said.

"Last week you called a cut an investment. This week you are calling a target an entitlement. Can you tell us exactly what's the difference?"

The Liberal Democrat Leader concluded that the Prime Minister's statement was nothing more than a "hotchpotch of unrelated Whitehall schemes, a ministerial cut-and-paste job".

Greenpeace backs Nick Clegg Trident announcement

Greenpeace today welcomed the announcement by Nick Clegg that the Liberal Democrats would review the decision to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system.

And they also urged the government to delay the ‘initial gate' process for the proposed successor submarine - which commits up to an estimated £2.1bn to the start of design work (1).

The Ministry of Defence currently plans to make the decision about whether to proceed with initial gate this September while Parliament is in recess.

Greenpeace disarmament campaigner Louise Edge said: "Given the state of the economy, committing taxpayers to the astronomical costs of replacing Trident without so much as a parliamentary debate is deeply irresponsible.

"The time is right to re-examine the need for a cold war white elephant before we sign the cheque."

Pressure is growing for a delay. An early day motion calling for the initial gate decision to be delayed until Parliament is in session has already been signed by over 155 MPs, including 80 Labour members (2). The cross party House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee this week urged the Government to allow MPs a debate on the renewal of the ageing deterrent system when the project reaches initial gate stage.

Greeenpeace believes that the government should take a lead in restarting international disarmament by:

• taking Trident submarines off patrol and removing the warheads to an internationally monitored storage site in the United Kingdom;
• cancelling plans to build a new nuclear weapon and halting associated developments at AWE Aldermaston of new laser facilities and super-computers;
• working closely with other key states to strengthen existing disarmament treaties and to restart global multi-lateral disarmament negotiations.

Clegg: Response to Iraq inquiry announcement

Nick Clegg response to the announcement of an secret Iraq inquiry.

I passionately believe we were wrong to invade Iraq but I am second to none in my admiration for the bravery and dedication of our service men and women.

Everyone knows that the invasion of Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake this country has made in generations; the single most controversial decision taken by government since Suez.

So Mr Speaker, I am staggered that the Prime Minister is today seeking to compound that error, fatal for so many of Britain's sons and daughters, by covering up the path that led to it.

Liberal Democrats have called for an inquiry into the build-up and conduct of the Iraq war for many years, and we can be grateful that finally, the Prime Minister has acceded to that demand. But, as so often, he has taken a step in the right direction but missed the fundamental point.

A secret inquiry will not deliver what Britain needs. Does the Prime Minister not understand that the purpose of an inquiry is not just to produce a set of dry conclusions, but to allow the people of Britain to come to terms with a mistake made in our name?

To allow veterans, and the families and friends of those who gave their lives in this disastrous war, to come to understand how it happened? I have met the families of these soldiers. And just an hour ago I was asked to speak in their name and tell you that nothing short of a fully public inquiry - held in the open - will satisfy them.

Will the Prime Minister not listen to what they need? He says it the inquiry has to be in private to protect national security. But it looks suspiciously like he wants to protect his reputation and that of his predecessor, not Britain. Why else would he want it to report after the general election? It is perfectly possible to have particular sensitive sessions in camera while retaining the fundamental principle that this inquiry should be open to all.

I am grateful that he has listened to my representations and extended the inquiry to cover the origins of the war. And to give it full access to the documents and files it will need. But I am disappointed he made such a feeble attempt to secure consensus on the panel that will conduct the inquiry.

The experience of successfully established inquiries like the one being held in the Netherlands shows that consensus can be secured if the government conducts painstaking consultation. Why did the Prime Minister not even attempt that sort of constructive discussion?

The Government must not be allowed to close the book on this war as it opened it: in secrecy. Last week he stood there and spoke eloquently about the need for more public accountability and transparency. This was his first test. He has failed. He chose secrecy instead.

For six years, we have watched our brave service men and women putting their lives on the line for a war we did not support and cannot understand. To rebuild public trust, the inquiry must be held in public. Will the Prime Minister, even now, reconsider? Will he make this inquiry a healing process or will he continue to deny the British people's legitimate demands?

Clegg: The torch of progress has passed to us

Labour has run out of steam and of ideas. Its supporters are turning to the Liberal Democrats.

Last week at Prime Minister's Questions I suggested to Gordon Brown that the real choice in British politics is now between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

The Labour front bench howled with joy, merrily dismissing the possibility that their party might be in serious decline as a laughing matter. The next day, the Labour Party's national vote in the local elections stood at 23 per cent and the Liberal Democrat vote rose to 28percent.

We destroyed the Labour vote in exactly the areas that we intend to win at the next general election - in Burnley, for example, a former Labour stronghold, we won five of the six county council seats from them. In a council division that we won in Cumbria the Labour vote collapsed from 1,900 to 185.

I have heard people claim that the local and European elections were a missed opportunity for the Liberal Democrats. I disagree. Background of course, as in all elections, there were losses as well as gains. In a contest when the voters wanted to give the Establishment a kicking, it is hardly surprising that we suffered some losses in the South West, where we have been the governing party for 20 years.

And in a Euro election in which many voters cast protest votes for fringe parties, no mainstream party leapt forward. But the Liberal Democrat and the Conservative vote remained broadly static, with both parties winning one extra MEP.

So I repeat my belief that the Liberal Democrats can replace Labour as the progressive party in British politics.

Political parties are not facts of life, cast in stone for ever. They change, waxing and waning with the times. It may not happen overnight: it took Labour 23 years from its formation in 1906 to become the biggest party in Parliament.

The Lib Dems are now the dominant political party of urban Britain, running the majority of big cities outside London, while the Conservatives remain invisible in northern city politics. And we are present throughout the South and South West just as Labour disappears from these regions altogether. This is the platform from which we can overtake Labour.

If it takes a little time to progress in the battle for numbers, we are already winning the battle of ideas: we were first to identify the dangers of an overleveraged banking system at the heart of the British economy; and the first to advocate radical political reform, changing the rotten system in Westminster for good. We have been consistent in our defence of civil liberties; outspoken about the need to clamp down on tax avoidance, to reduce the tax burden on low and middle-income earners, and so make taxes fairer. We remain radical on the need to make Britain environmentally sustainable; principled in our defence of the international rule of law; brave in standing up to failed populism on law and order; and progressive in pushing for new childcare and education policies, to break the cycle of deprivation that, after 12 years of Labour, is still handed down from one generation to the next.

These are the touchstone issues of progress, of reform, of conscience where Labour has proved such a disappointment. Perhaps it was Iraq. Perhaps it was the tortuous compromise at the heart of new Labour - sticking to hard-nosed Thatcherite economics while promising a gentler Britain, promising progress while out-toughing the Conservatives on crime and civil liberties. Perhaps it is simply the grinding struggle of day-to-day government after 12 exhausting years.

Whatever the reason, Labour has let down the millions of people who looked to it in the hope of a new progressive start in 1997. It has delivered, instead, unreformed politics, overcentralised government, diminished civil liberties, a confused approach to foreign affairs and the environment, and a society still disfigured by profound social injustice.

We must do better than this. And we cannot allow David Cameron to turn the clock back. He may talk a good talk, but the effects of a Conservative government are now becoming clear: they say that they want fairness, but advocate tax cuts for millionaires; they say that they want to protect the environment, but seek out allies in Europe who are climate-change deniers; they say that they want clean politics, but block any change to party funding.

So Britain desperately needs a strong progressive voice. Labour has run out of road, out of ideas, out of steam. Voters looking for a new home will only secure the fairer Britain that they want by uniting around a new centre of conscience and reform.

That is why I now say to anyone who supported Labour in 1997 because they wanted fairness; they wanted to support, not demonise, young people; they wanted political reform, they wanted the environment protected; or because they simply believed in a better future - turn to the Liberal Democrats. We carry the torch of progress now.

Clegg: PM must cancel Recess to implement political reform

The Prime Minister today outlined a range of urgent measures to clean up Parliament. Nick Clegg described the reforms as a "deathbed conversion to political reform".

Nick Clegg's statement in full.

I welcome this deathbed conversion to political reform from the man who has blocked change at almost every opportunity for the last twelve years.

Everyone knows the Labour party will lose the next General Election. So any reforms must be in place before the election if they are to mean anything at all. Anything else would be a betrayal of the British people, who are angry and demanding we change our rotten political system for good.

Doesn't he see this is no time for more committees, more reviews and more consultation - we've been debating these issues for decades - isn't it now time to get things done?

I strongly welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to moving towards an elected House of Lords.

But will the Prime Minister give us a date by which this reform will be complete? We've already voted on it in this place: there should be no more delay.

I also strongly welcome the move towards a Parliamentary Standards Authority and a MPs Code of Conduct. These changes should be implemented immediately with no more delay.

So will he ask this House to forego its summer recess so that we can push through all the necessary changes to clean up politics?

And will he make sure his immediate proposals include the right for people to sack their MP if it has been shown that they have done something seriously wrong?

I am dismayed that the Prime Minister is completely silent on the issue of party funding. How on earth can he possibly justify it? We cannot allow our politics to go the way of America's, where elections have become a contest of advertising budgets, not ideas.

Why delay when he could just implement the Hayden Phillips recommendations in the Party Funding Bill that's already being debated in another place? The way forward's been agreed - so will he now act?

Turning to electoral reform, I welcome any movement away from our discredited system. A system which gives his government untrammelled power when only one in five people voted for them. A system which gives MPs safe seats for life. As Robin Cook recognised, as his new Home Secretary realises, this can't go on.

So why is he seeking to restart a debate on electoral reform? We've had the debate. Roy Jenkins' report, the independent Power Inquiry. We can't afford to wait for a cross-party consensus because the Conservatives will never want to change this cosy Westminster stitch-up.

We don't need to wait for his Cabinet to make its mind up. It's not up to them to decide how our democracy works. People should now be given a say. So will the Prime Minister now call a referendum, this Autumn, to give people a choice? A choice between the bankrupt system we have now. The timid option of Alternative Vote, a baby step in the right direction. And serious proposals for reform like Roy Jenkins' AV+ or better still the Single Transferable Vote?

He has nothing to lose. This is no time for his trademark timidity. Just get on with it. Will he now cancel the recess? Pass the legislation we need? And give people the say they deserve?

Nick Clegg Visits Bristol To Celebrate Taking Control of Bristol City Council

Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats today visited Bristol as the Liberal Democrats took control of Bristol City Council, picking up four seats.

Labour fell into third place on the Council, losing eight seats.

Commenting on the result Nick said that now “the Liberal Democrats run the vast majority of the big cities”.

To find out more about the Bristol City Council Election, see the full story: Here and Here.

The BBC’s projected national vote share is Conservatives 38%, Liberal Democrats 28%, Labour 23%.

Clegg: No summer holiday before the overhaul

Thu, 28 May 2009

Warm words and rhetoric are easy. We must seize the mood and enact a radical programme of reform within 100 days.

Finally the dam has broken, and everyone is talking about changing Britain's political system. For decades reformers have been thwarted by Westminster inertia. But the MPs' expenses scandal has overturned old certainties and made change possible.

This moment must be seized by all who want a different kind of politics. Warm words, rhetoric and consideration are not enough; indeed, they are a guarantee that little will happen. So let us bar the gates of Westminster and stop MPs leaving for their summer holidays until this crisis has been sorted out, and every nook and cranny of our political system has been reformed.

Today I'm setting out a plan of action to get all the changes we need delivered in just 100 days - making it possible for MPs to be sacked by constituents, abolishing the House of Lords, getting corrupt money out of politics and changing the electoral system to give everyone a voice. People will say it isn't possible - parliament can't act that quickly. I say the innate conservatism that marks out our political establishment is part of the problem. Let's stop all this self-congratulatory hype about the mother of parliaments and get on with improving it.

Momentum will ebb away unless we act quickly. Delay would be a victory for those who want to confine change to the bare minimum - the two establishment parties who will talk up reform long enough for the storm to pass, then kick it into the long grass for good.

David Cameron's proposals set out in the Guardian on Tuesday were a masterful example of well-judged rhetoric free of substance and conviction. Open-source software, new select committee chairs and legislative text messages will not rescue British democracy. They are designed, I fear, to provide verbal cover for maintaining the status quo.

Real political change is about taking power from those who have hoarded it for themselves, and distributing it to others. So change will only be possible if the vested interests that have benefited from the way things are accept that they can no longer preside over an institutional stitch-up. For generations the Labour and Conservative parties have ­colluded to keep out competition. They are like a corporate duopoly, ­setting the rules of the game to maintain dominance. And just like in economics, it's ordinary people who suffer: taken for granted, and deprived of the ability to make different choices to those imposed upon them.

That is why what Cameron did not say is more revealing than what he did. No mention of the murky business of party funding. No mention of the scandal of an unelected second chamber. The rejection of any change to an electoral system that hands power to governments on a fraction of the vote. Without these changes, British politics will continue to be a game of pass the parcel between two old parties, while the rest of the country switches off,

So instead of long-term consideration of the possibility of tinkering, let us have 100 days of real action: swift, decisive and confident. It really is possible. The details of a reformed system of party funding have already been thrashed out between the parties, months ago. Sir Hayden Phillips secured outline agreement to ban donations of more than £50,000, limit spending to £100m over a parliament and shake up union contributions. The reason it wasn't adopted was because the Conservatives walked out, keen to protect donations from tax exiles such as Lord Ashcroft. But there is no reason not to return to what was all but agreed, and enforce it. The political parties and elections bill, now before parliament, could be amended and adopted within weeks.

Similarly, on House of Lords reform, the principles of a fully elected chamber have already been exhaustively debated and adopted by MPs. As in any bicameral system, peers should be elected on a different constituency basis and electoral cycle to MPs. Details could be decided on and introduced in the constitutional renewal bill being promoted in the House of Lords by Paul Tyler.

And then there's electoral reform. The ideal solution would be an Irish-style single transferable vote system in which voters elect the person, not the party. But even alternative vote plus - as first advocated by Roy Jenkins in 1998 and now backed by Alan Johnson - would ensure most MPs have a personal constituency link with their voters, as already occurs in Germany and Scotland. Labour made a promise more than a decade ago to hold a referendum on the Jenkins proposals. If the government won't call a general election, let us have this referendum in early September, as the culmination of 100 days of reform.

Together, over the next 100 days, we could achieve nothing less than the total reinvention of British politics. These months could become a great moment in British political history, rather than a shabby footnote to a shameful month of scandal. Let us seize, not squander, the opportunity for change.

Clegg: Let's take the dirty money out of politics - and have a battle of ideas

Wed, 27 May 2009

The expenses scandal that has rocked the country in the past few weeks is just the tip of an iceberg of problems with Britain's political system.

The exploitation of the House of Commons expenses rules has exposed a culture of arrogance and secrecy right at the heart of our democracy, protected for decades by the vested interests of those in charge. Finally, the truth is out and real change is becoming possible.

This is a once-in-a-generation chance to overhaul our political system, and we must seize it. We need a revolution - the power to sack MPs, a fair voting system, an end to the House of Lords, more power for Parliament to control the government and the eradication of dirty money from politics.

Money has far too big an influence on our politics. Labour is funded by trade unions, the Conservatives by multimillionaires, many of whom don't even pay their full British taxes. And all the parties have run into difficulties with donors who look dodgy. So we must stop big donations once and for all with a cap of £25,000 on any individual donations and a cap on total spending too. Politics should be a competition of ideas, not advertising budgets.

Once elected, government should be subject to proper control by the people's representatives in Parliament. Our Parliament has been weak for too long - there isn't time for MPs to scrutinise legislation and spending is controlled entirely by government with MPs unable to alter a single pound in a single budget. This has got to change. And a new, reforming Speaker should urgently reduce the power of government in Parliament.

But the reform of Parliament will never be complete while appointed party apparatchiks sit as legislators in the House of Lords. Whatever the merits of individual lords and baronesses, they should not be deciding the law of the land. This anachronism cannot be swept under the carpet any longer.

Finally, we must restore democracy by giving power back to people. Liberal Democrats have been calling for over a year for constituents to have the right to sack their MP if they are suspended for wrongdoing - this must be made law immediately so people can have their say on corrupt MPs as soon as possible.

The ultimate power people hold, however, is in their vote, and our system denies millions their voice. The Labour government that holds the reins of power was elected in 2005 with the support of just 22 per cent of eligible voters. Such a system, where so much power depends on the support of so few people, will always breed secrecy and arrogance. It must be changed and a voting system introduced that puts power into everyone's hands.

We have a choice in this crisis. We can patch up the obviously rotten parts of our democracy like expenses and pretend that's enough. Or we can choose to build a new democracy from scratch, with new rules for everything and new hope for the future. I know which side the Liberal Democrats are on.

Clegg: Government decision great victory for Gurkhas

Thu, 21 May 2009

Reacting to the Government’s announcement that all Gurkha veterans with four years' service would be allowed to move to the UK, Nick Clegg said he was “absolutely thrilled”.

The announcement outlined rules that will allow Gurkhas and their immediate families who retired before 1997 with four years service to settle here with.

Nick Clegg said; "I am absolutely thrilled that the Gurkhas have finally been given justice."

"This is a great victory for the Gurkhas and for everyone who has campaigned on their behalf."

"Gordon Brown has finally woken up to the principle that people across Britain understand instinctively: if someone is prepared to die for this country, they must be allowed to live in it."

The announcement follows a key House of Commons vote lead by the Liberal Democrats that the Government lost.

The Liberal Democrat Leader went on to say; "Tragically this decision will come too late for many of those brave Gurkhas who have been waiting so long to see justice done."

"Gordon Brown's claim of a ‘moral compass' rings hollow when, on every issue from Gurkhas to expenses, he has to be dragged every inch of the way towards doing the right thing."