X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

Nick Clegg is changing the way the government works

1 December 2012

4:58 PM

1 December 2012

4:58 PM

Say what you will about Nick Clegg’s decision to take a different stance from the Prime Minister on Leveson, but the Deputy Prime Minister has this week effected another big change to the way Westminster government works. He has sent party members an email today explaining why he felt it was necessary to make a separate statement to David Cameron in the Commons on Thursday. The Lib Dem leader writes:

As you may have picked up, the Prime Minister and I disagreed; there is not yet an agreed ‘government line’. That’s in part why we had to make separate statements – a major departure from Parliamentary protocol, apparently.

I’m often non-plussed by the arcane rules of the House of Commons, most of which make no sense to ordinary human beings. To me it felt like the most natural thing in the world: two opinions, two statements.

Not everyone felt quite so comfortable with this, though. Peter Bone, ever the DPM’s adversary, tried to adjourn the House once Cameron had finished taking questions on his statement. I suspect Bone might, if he had to, try to adjourn a wedding to stop Clegg giving a best man’s speech, but on this occasion, his attempt failed. Others asked the Lib Dem leader about the implications for collective responsibility of having two separate statements from government ministers. But Clegg explained:

‘In a coalition government here can be no collective position that is not agreed collectively by all parts of that government. I know people in Westminster get terribly hot under the collar about some of these doctrines, but people out there in the country find it perfectly normal that in a government with two parties, there are issues on which those parties, because they are two parties, might not have the same view. We have to be relaxed and grown up about explaining that to the House and to the public, and then, as has been set out, seek to resolve those issues in the national interest.’

[Alt-Text]


Although some Coffee Housers might, like Peter Bone, wish Clegg didn’t have the opportunity to make his own statement on issues like this, the Deputy Prime Minister does have a point. There isn’t yet an agreed government position, and from the Lib Dems’ point of view, the worst thing Clegg could do would be to sit on the front bench with a frozen face listening to the Prime Minister giving a statement that he is reported to disagree with. In a way, this sort of dual statement-making in response to a report rather than as part of the announcement of official government policy, is a sign of a more mature coalition, where the parties are honest about their differences.

But there is another aspect of government that Clegg is changing where it is much more difficult to argue that the Lib Dems are behaving with maturity. The party’s ongoing insistence that even its ministers will vote against their government’s agreed policy on the boundary changes as revenge for the failure of Lords reform is a unique constitutional event. The coalition is divided, not just over the policy, but over the effects of the rebellion. Senior Tories believe it will be a ‘nightmare’ for their ministers to sit down in departments the day after the boundaries vote with their Lib Dem counterparts and expect life to continue as it did before. They worry – and indeed some senior Lib Dems tell me that they hope this to be the case – that once the Rubicon of ministers voting against their own government without being sacked has been crossed, the Lib Dems will believe they can make dire threats about rebellions more often. Lib Dem ministers themselves are rather eerily relaxed about the prospect, shrugging their shoulders, and arguing that this is a one-off event, and that the Tories can defeat a policy from the backbenches only, while Lib Dems need their ministers if they are to win a vote.

It’s worth noting that senior Conservatives still hold doubts that this particular Rubicon will be crossed, though. One minister tells me he hopes for a ‘Black Swan moment’: an event that the party can’t yet foresee, but which will mean the Lib Dems end up voting for the changes. That’s not a view supported by the Libs, though, and if a black swan doesn’t swim into view before the vote takes place, Nick Clegg will change the way government works, but not, as he did this week, in a positive way.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close