We may be coalition partners but it doesn't stop me thinking that Simon Hughes is a dick.Simon Hughes clearly feels that he is the "real" voice of the Lib Dems, he isn't. He may well reflect the views of a number of Lib Dem MPs who haven't reconciled themselves to the fact that coalition means compromise. But, as I have said before, a Lib Dem who isn't prepared to enter a coalition with anyone except Labour isn't a Lib Dem. They're Labour.
Hughes' latest bone-headed idea is for back-bench Lib Dem MPs to have a veto on the coalition government's policies. Fool.
There is a process by which backbench MPs can oppose the Government's policies, it's called a division. Backbenchers from the party of government have never had a veto on the government's business, why should the Lib Dem's be afforded that luxury?
It seems that most Lib Dems understand that there is a tricky balance to be struck, that there is important work to be done and, while this isn't the best position for each of the coalition parties, we need to dig in and work together. If Hughes feels it impossible to work with the Conservatives and his own front bench Lib Dem colleagues why not just bugger off to Labour and let the serious politicians get on with it?
Posts
25 comments:
The breathtaking arrogance here leaves me wondering how on earth you got elected, and why exactly you feel informed and qualified to comment on what Lib Dems do or do not feel. I personally long for the day when some Lib Dem MPs will cross the floor, and it will come, and I do hope Simon will be one of them. However coalition should not mean losing your identity as a party, and if there is to be ANY hope of the LDs having any life beyond this coalition ( which I think is quite UNlikely), it is essential that they are able to do so. We are not exactly experienced in coalition government, so all possiby legitimate avenues to allow MPs to continue to represent their constituents and vote according to their their own party policies are essential, however much the Tories may dislike the idea. When you have given as much service as Simon, and gained some maturity, maybe then you can criticism. Till then, think on.
Well, I think he's a dick and a hypocrite for what he did to Peter Tatchell; and in any case, he's a politician, so that makes him automatically a dick.
That aside, he has a point if the policies in question weren't in the Coalition Document - which they did get to vote on.
But what would a veto achieve? As you say, they can always vote with the opposition in a division, but they could then lose the whip.
Both parties need to keep their backbenchers on board, and people like Hughes may actually help this by appearing to speak up for them. Don't make the mistake of thinking that his remarks were addressed to you. Netanyahu and Ahmedinejad each make statements we think are stupid and inflammatory, but they're addressed to their domestic audiences and have a domestic political aim not an international diplomatic one. This hughes-speak is in the same class.
"This is my personal site, the views expressed in the comments stream do not necessarily represent my views, those of the Mayor or of the Conservative party.
Produced and promoted by James Cleverly on behalf of James Cleverly at 5 White Horse Hill, Chistlehurst, Bromley, BR7 6DG"
Whose views are these then?
Simon Hughes a "dick"? takes one to know one.
Simon Hughes maybe a dick - but you are a prick! You and your appalling party did not win the election (or did you fail to notice that?) and hence why you are reliant on the Lib Dems - DO YOU UNDERSTAND? In a parliamentary democracy where the largest party fails to win a majority they are completely at the mercy of the other parties - as you would find out if there was a confidence vote! PS Keep up the good work on the blog - we need more Tories exposing their genuine beliefs.
@Isla Dowds - The breathtaking arrogance demonstrated here is that of Simon Hughes who wishes to have all government policy vetoable by representatives of the party that came a, very poor, third, at the polls.
When the LibDems have grown up and given some length of service in government to the rest of us then perhaps they can lay claim to policy formation or veto in Government by virtue of actually winning an election. Until then they need to remain grateful and humble for being given a chance at government and to influence policy by the Conservatives that the electorate plainly were not prepared to offer to them directly.
Hughes is, was, and always will be a Socialist dick masquerading as something that he is not; a champion of genuine democracy.
@Anon
'You and your appalling party did not win the election (or did you fail to notice that?) and hence why you are reliant on the Lib Dems - DO YOU UNDERSTAND?'
I rather thought that was the point being made, that it's a tricky balancing act, an applecart Hughes seems determined to upset.
James Cleverly, You are a cunt.
p.s. also Simon Hughes is a more accomplished politician than you will ever be.
Well, it's pretty clear why the Home Office isn't going to be calling *you* to see if you want a diplomatic posting any time soon.
I'm reminded yet again that the Liberal Democrats are so called because they're neither. Hughes - cunt. Isla Dowds - well, prick, I suppose, since we must kowtow to equal opportunties.
Isla Dowds/Anon
Where is arguing for special dispensation "just because you're LibDem" part of the democratic process.
Your attempts to misrepresent the article you comment on are quite sad and blinkered. I would suggest reading it again and try to get past your kneejerk "tory bastard" reaction to anything which remotely challenges you in the world.
Blimey, James - You go and say something truthful and all these little trogs just start whinging....Simon Hughes is nothing but a Grade A prick. He only got elected on a blanket of lies and is pissed because he is so disliked that Cleggy never gave him a real job.
Most of the comments of support are probably from him and his little band of interns who ease him along the slippery alley he inhabits.
Many years ago I was at a Green Party Conference. Simon Hughes addressed a meeting. It was put to him later that if, as he claimed, he was a 'green' politician, why was he not joining the Green Party?
It was, he said, something to do with where he thought he'd have the most influence. He wanted to be an MP and he bluntly put it that he did not believe he could achieve his aim as a member of the Green Party.
I have an idea that Sarah Lucas MIGHT have been part of that debate, She was certainly at that conference. You know, Sarah Lucas who worked long and hard to become an MP. That Sarah Lucas...
Simon Hughes tries to be all things to all men. And ends up as he is. A sort of Vicar of Brey like figure, with added snake oil.
Some egomaniacs seem to be attracted to politics for the sole purpose of putting the boot in. Simon Hughes and David Davies are two of the worst but I suspect IDS and Vince Cable are coming up on the rails. Their attitude is: "You have to do what I want or else I'll have a major tantrum and sabotage all your plans". Its not just Labour politicians who are psychologically flawed.
Good plain speaking.
Agree, Hughes is a dickhead.
Yup James, Hughes is a first class bell-end and a self-serving, arrogant one at that. One of the most specious, weaselly and irritating apologies for a politician we have. He's from Shirley's SDP rump of the Lib-Dems as opposed to Steel's Liberal portion. And as any fule know, that's the old-school marxist spin-off. I wish he'd just front up and bugger off to where he dogmatically belongs. In the unreconstructed, illiberal and swivel-eyed basket-case that is the Labour Party.
I don't think Hughes ever recovered from being humiliated by Thatcher in that now famous last PMQs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw
It's been eating him up inside all these years.
Truly disappointed in you James.
How has it taken you 30 years to find out that Simon Hughes is indeed a smug, self-serving pizzle?
"there is nothing progressive about a party which consistently spends more than it can raise in tax, and certainly nothing progressive in passing that debt onto future generations"
Coalition was always going to be a bit uncomfortable for some of the fluffier lefites among the lib dems.
The problem lies in that the lib dems will never gain full power in the current environment. Ever. The success of labour and conservatives is that public sector workers have a financial imperative to vote Labour, while entrepreneurs will always have a financial imperative to vote Tory. There just simply aren't enough people with a vested financial interest in voting Lib Dem.
I presume the good gentleman who doesn't approve of the conservative cuts of £64bn, must approve of the Labour cuts of £51bn? Lets speak frankly, Labour may well have kept Brown on to ensure they lost, leaving the unpopular business of spending cuts to ruin the goodwill to the other parties. I will not be happy until the deficit turns negative.
SorenK
Thank you for drawing my attention to the wonderful clip of Margaret Thatcher at her best in the House of Commons exposing the wholly woolly thinking of the Simon Hughes and the Scottish socialist opposite.
Great stuff - may she have a long and very happy retirement.
Yes, coalition means compromise. Which means that policies that weren't in the coalition agreement just don't go ahead. So if Simon Hughes is a dick, what are you? A clever dick? And we all know what we think of them.
James, I know Simon Hughes and I know you, and I wouldn't call either of you a "dick", although on the basis of this article I might change my mind on you.
The Liberal Democrats are in coalition at UK Parliament level with the Conservative Party. This does not mean the Liberal Democrats have merged with the Conservative Party. It's a novel situation, and one we are going to have to make adjustments to if it works. One of those adjustments is accepting that we may publicly disagree on policy because we are two independent parties.
Far from saying he could not work with the Conservatives, I heard Simon Hughes speak very favourably of the coalition at the "thank you" party for Liberal Democrat activists in Lewisham following the general election. I myself defended the coalition as the only viable government following the election in a letter just last week in the Guardian.
Yet I agree 100% with what Simon Hughes has been saying recently, and I am quite sure that what he is saying reflects the view of the majority of Liberal Democrat party members. We are NOT going to be pushed down the road where our party no longer has a distinct identity from the Conservatives and we are then pushed into a merger with them on the grounds "isn't it natural?".
The coalition is a temporary arrangement made because the country needs a stable government and the 2010 election meant a Conservative-LibDem coalition was the only one that was possible (apart from Conservative-Labour, ruled out because neither party was willing to consider).
Liberal Democrats have every right to be concerned that their leader is being sucked into being a yes-man for the Conservatives and therefore to organise to force him to be a bit tougher in negotiations. We are a democratic party, ultimately we the members are his boss. It's time he listened to us instead of being sweet talked by David Cameron. We know compromise is necessary, but compromise is not the same as surrender.
Jules wrote:
Hughes is a first class bell-end and a self-serving, arrogant one at that. One of the most specious, weaselly and irritating apologies for a politician we have. He's from Shirley's SDP rump of the Lib-Dems as opposed to Steel's Liberal portion.
This is 100% wrong. It is part of the Orwellian re-write of history which an extreme economic right-wing fringe element are engaged in to try and pretend that their politics has a historical basis by spreading the lie that the pre-merger Liberal Party supported their sort of politics. Simon Hughes first won his seat in the Bermondsey by-election as a Liberal. I was a member of the Liberal Party then, and spent a lot of time working for Simon Hughes in that by-election.
In fact the by-election took place at a time when there was a lot of Liberal-SDP rivalry. Many Liberals like myself came to Southwark and Bermondsey to support Simon precisely because he was a Liberal and we wanted to show Liberals knew how to win elections, and also to see off the disgraceful campaigning by an Independent Labour candidate who right up to the week of the by-election was being put forward in the press as the main challenger to Labour (that candidate did so badly that he has been forgotten and some of what his campaign did is now wrongly attributed to the Liberals - more Orwellian re-write).
The Liberal Party at the time did NOT support the sort of right-wing economics which now sometimes get called "economic liberalism". If anything, it was David Owen in the SDP who was moving in that direction, and it was one of the causes of Liberal-SDP disagreement which led to Owen not accepting the merger.
I had a very wise grandmother who told me that the first person to resort to abusive language had lost the argument...
I think that Lib Dems should be allowed to vote against the government if the matter was not in the coalition agreement, as should Conservatives. Both parties have a fairly broad base, and all MP's fought the election on the basis of their own parties manifesto. The Whip should only be withdrawn if the vote relates to the agreement both parties back benchers voted on.
I thought the new politics was to be grown up, the public want to see adult debates.
Perhaps you should try this and disagree with Mr Hughes in a manner I can show my children to aspire to.......
Post a Comment