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.

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496