Nick Clegg’s speech on political reform: full transcript

In his first major speech as Deputy Prime Minister, Clegg announces the most significant shake-up si

Nick Clegg, 11am, Wednesday 19 May 2010.

I have spent my whole political life fighting to open up politics. So let me make one thing very clear: this government is going to be unlike any other.

This government is going to transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state.

This government is going to break up concentrations of power and hand power back to people, because that is how we build a society that is fair.

This government is going to persuade you to put your faith in politics once again.

I'm not talking about a few new rules for MPs; not the odd gesture or gimmick to make you feel a bit more involved.

I'm talking about the most significant programme of empowerment by a British government since the great enfranchisement of the 19th century.

The biggest shake-up of our democracy since 1832, when the Great Reform Act redrew the boundaries of British democracy, for the first time extending the franchise beyond the landed classes.

Landmark legislation, from politicians who refused to sit back and do nothing while huge swaths of the population remained helpless against vested interests.

Who stood up for the freedom of the many, not the privilege of the few.

A spirit this government will draw on as we deliver our programme for political reform: a power revolution.

A fundamental resettlement of the relationship between state and citizen that puts you in charge.

So, no, incremental change will not do.

It is time for a wholesale, big-bang approach to political reform.

That's what this government will deliver.

It is outrageous that decent, law-abiding people are regularly treated as if they have something to hide.

It has to stop.

So there will be no ID card scheme.

No national identity register, no second-generation biometric passports.

We won't hold your internet and email records when there is no just reason to do so.

CCTV will be properly regulated, as will the DNA database, with restrictions on the storage of innocent people's DNA.

And we will end practices that risk making Britain a place where our children grow up so used to their liberty being infringed that they accept it without question.

There will be no ContactPoint children's database.

Schools will not take children's fingerprints without even asking their parent's consent.

This will be a government that is proud when British citizens stand up against illegitimate advances of the state.

That values debate, that is unafraid of dissent.

That's why we'll remove limits on the rights to peaceful protest.

It's why we'll review libel laws so that we can better protect freedom of speech.

And as we tear through the statute book, we'll do something no government ever has:

We will ask you which laws you think should go.

Because thousands of criminal offences were created under the previous government . . .

Taking people's freedom away didn't make our streets safe.

Obsessive lawmaking simply makes criminals out of ordinary people.

So, we'll get rid of the unnecessary laws, and once they're gone, they won't come back.

We will introduce a mechanism to block pointless new criminal offences.

And we will, of course, introduce safeguards to prevent the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.

There have been too many cases of individuals being denied their rights . . .

And whole communities being placed under suspicion.

This government will do better by British justice.

Respecting great, British freedoms . . .

Which is why we'll also defend trial by jury.

Second, reform of our politics.

Reform to reduce the power of political elites . . .

And to drag Westminster into the 21st century.

Starting with the House of Lords.

Did you know we've been talking about reforming the House of Lords for over a hundred and fifty years?

It's one of the areas where all the parties agree.

The time for talk is over.

This government will replace the House of Lords with an elected second chamber . . .

Where members are elected by a proportional voting system.

There will be a committee charged specifically with making this happen . . .

But make no mistake: that committee will not be yet another government talking shop.

This will be a dedicated group devoted to kick-starting real reform.

The same haste will be applied to fixed-term parliaments.

It's just wrong that governments can play politics with something as important as a general election . . .

Cynically picking the date to maximise their own advantage.

So this government has already set the date we think the next election should be:

May 7th 2015 -- no matter who is where in the polls.

That is, unless parliament votes to dissolve itself first.

As we legislate to fix parliamentary terms the details will of course need to be worked out . . .

But we believe that the support of 55 per cent of MPs or more should be required for parliament to opt for an early dissolution.

That is a much lower threshold than the two-thirds required in the Scottish Parliament.

But it strikes the right balance for our parliament: maintaining stability, stopping parties from forcing a dissolution to serve their own interests.

Former Labour ministers who were once perfectly happy to ride roughshod over our democracy and are now declaring this innovation some sort of outrage are completely missing the point:

This is a new right for parliament, additional to the existing powers of no confidence.

We're not taking away parliament's right to throw out government; we're taking away government's right to throw out parliament.

Parliament's power will be strengthened as we bring forward the proposals of the Wright committee, put forward in November.

Starting with provisions to give MPs much more control over Commons business.

And, in addition to strengthening parliament, we will of course make sure we've cleaned it up.

Which is why I have already commissioned work on introducing the power of recall.

If your MP is corrupt, you will be able to sack them.

You will need the support of 10 per cent of people living in the constituency . . .

And your MP will have had to have been found guilty of serious wrongdoing . . .

But it happens in Switzerland, in Canada, in 18 US states . . .

And it's going to happen here.

We will regulate lobbying in parliament.

Not all lobbying is sleazy.

Much of it serves a hugely important function, allowing different organisations and interests to make representations to politicians.

But let's get real: this is a £2bn industry where, according to some estimates, there are MPs who are approached by lobbyists a hundred times every week . . .

And that activity needs to be regulated properly and made transparent.

Which we'll do, for example, by introducing a statutory register of lobbyists.

As long as money plays such a big part in our politics, we are never going to curtail the tyranny of vested interests.

That's why David Cameron and I are determined to reform party funding.

All of the parties have had their problems . . .

And governments have been stopping and starting on this issue for years.

But so long as big money continues to hollow out our democracy . . .

Everybody loses.

So we will pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to deal with this once and for all.

And we'll act to tackle electoral fraud, too, speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.

There is, however, no programme to reform our political system that is complete without reform of our voting system.

This government will be putting to you, in a referendum, the choice to introduce a new voting system, called the Alternative Vote.

Under that new system, far more MPs will have to secure support from at least half the people who vote in their constituency . . .

And, hand in hand with that change, there will be new constituency boundaries, reducing the number of MPs overall and creating constituencies that are more equal in size.

David Cameron and I are very relaxed about the fact we may be arguing different cases in that referendum.

But my position is clear: the current voting system, first-past-the-post, is a major block to lasting political change.

According to some estimates, over half the seats in the Commons are "safe" . . . giving hundreds of MPs jobs for life . . . meaning that millions of people see their votes go to waste.

Is it any surprise that, with a system like that, we end up with politicians who are seen to be out of touch with the people they serve?

New politics needs fairer votes.

This referendum will be our opportunity to start to make that happen.

The third, and final step, is the redistribution of power away from the centre.

It's something the Prime Minister spoke about yesterday, and it is something we strongly believe. All politicians say they want to give people more control over their lives.

This government is going to make it happen.

In fact, if there is one area where the differences between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are almost impossible to spot, it's here.

We don't, unlike Labour, believe that change in our society must be forced from the centre.

Unlike the previous Labour government, we're not insecure about relinquishing control.

So rest assured, you will get more control over the hospitals you use; the schools you send your children to; the homes that are built in your community.

In our legislative programme we will be setting out plans to strip away government's unelected, inefficient quangos, plans to loosen the centralised grip of the Whitehall bureaucracy, plans to disperse power downwards to you instead.

And we are serious about giving councils much more power over the money they use, so they depend less on the whims of Whitehall, and can deliver the services and support their communities need.

We know that devolution of power is meaningless without money.

Our plans to disperse power also include strengthening devolution to other parts of Britain:

Working with Holyrood to implement the recommendations of the Calman commission . . .

Working with the Welsh Assembly on introducing a referendum on the transfer of further powers to Wales . . .

Supporting the continued success of the devolved government in Northern Ireland.

And, of course, asking what we can do about the difficult issues surrounding the West Lothian Question.

So, the repeal of illiberal laws, the reform of politics, and the redistribution of power.

Our very own Great Reform Act.

Not everyone will like it.

Not every MP . . .

Not the vested interests that want government to stay closed, opaque, easily captured.

But this new government, this new kind of government, creates an enormous opportunity for those of us who have spent our lives fighting for political reform.

This is a moment to step back and look at every shortcoming in our democracy . . .

Before we launch into the most radical programme of reform, empowerment, enfranchisement in over a century.

A programme so important to me personally that I will take full responsibility for seeing it through.

And as I do, I will be open, I will be ambitious, and I will listen.

I'll still be holding my town hall meetings, that I've been holding for the last two years, around the country, where you can come and ask me whatever you like.

The next one is actually in Sheffield on Friday.

As I lead the transformation of our political system, I want you to tell me how you want your politics to be.

Power will be yours.

That is new politics.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.