Preview: Nick Clegg and Jemima Khan interview

“Why are the students angry with you, Papa?”

As we revealed on Monday, Jemima Khan has guest-edited this week's New Statesman. One of the highlights of the issue, which hits the news-stands tomorrow, is an interview between Jemima and Nick Clegg, whom she calls the "Tim Henman of politics". Here, to whet your appetite, are six of the most memorable exchanges.

1. Clegg on Cameron and the Murdoch clan

The Deputy PM makes it clear that, unlike David Cameron, he won't be dining with Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch anytime soon. "It's not my world. It's never going to be my world," he says. Here's the full quote:

Well, I'm assuming that they weren't sitting there talking about News International issues . . . Look, you're putting me in a very awkward spot. If you've got an issue with it, speak to Dave. I don't hang out in Oxfordshire at dinner parties. It's not my world. It's never going to be my world.

2. Tennis with Cameron

Asked if it's true that he plays tennis with Cameron, Clegg replies:

"No, no – well, er, I think we've played one game of tennis. Of course we meet from time to time but it's always basically to talk about what we're doing in government."

Who won?

“Ah no, that's a state secret," he jokes. (Cameron won.)

3. "Why are the students angry with you, Papa?"

Clegg admits that he worries constantly about the emotional effect his work has on his children. His nine-year-old son is starting to "sense things" and recently asked him: "Why are the students angry with you, Papa?"

4. Tears of a politician

Clegg says that he attempts to lead a relatively normal life but doesn't always get the balance right, which leaves him "quite miserable". In the evenings, he likes to read novels and "cries regularly to music".

5. Clegg hits back at Miliband

Following Ed Miliband's refusal to share a pro-AV platform with Clegg, the Deputy PM hits back, accusing the Labour leader of "ranting and raving".

I see it exactly for what it is. [Ed] is a perfectly nice guy but he has a problem, which is that he's not in control of his own party, so he constantly has to keep his troops happy and he thinks that ranting and raving at me is the way to do it.

6. Afghanistan

Clegg denies rumours that he wanted to call for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and says the coalition has made much progress in recent months.

We've now got an exit date, which we didn't have before, and a much better set of weapons on the ground. And crucially you've got the British government saying to [President Hamid] Karzai – who I had dinner with recently – this cannot be won militarily. Once you're in that far and you've had that many people die and be maimed, I think it would be morally questionable to cut and run overnight.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.