Conservative party 'headbangers' have won, says Nick Clegg

Conservative party 'headbangers' have won, says Nick Clegg
Tories want to 'line up with Vladimir Putin and other tyrants' by tearing up UK's long tradition of human rights, says deputy PM



The "headbangers" in the Conservative party have won an internal battle after David Cameron signalled the "death knell" for moderate Tories by ending the frontbench careers of ministers such as Kenneth Clarke in this week's reshuffle, Nick Clegg has said.

In some of his most aggressive comments about his coalition partners, Clegg said that the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, was sacked to allow the Tories to line up with "tyrants" such as Vladimir Putin in opposing the European convention on human rights.

The deputy prime minister laughed off the demotion of Michael Gove as he accused the former education secretary of creating a "destructive relationship" with teachers.

The Liberal Democrats made a conscious decision to delay their ministerial reshuffle until the autumn to distance themselves from the Tory changes this week as part of their "differentiation strategy".

The deputy prime minister was scathing about Cameron's reshuffle, which in addition to the removal of Clarke and Grieve, also resulted in the departure of the centre-ground ministers Damian Green and David Willetts.

Speaking on his weekly LBC phone-in, Clegg said: "The real significance of this week's Conservative party reshuffle was nothing to do with gender balance. It is all to do with the death knell of the reasonable internationalism of people like Ken Clarke. The headbangers have now won. They are now, in effect, saying that the Conservative party will turn its back on a long, long British tradition of upholding human rights across the world."

The deputy prime minister was highly critical of the reported Tory plan to risk Britain's expulsion from Europe's human rights watchdog the Council of Europe by drawing up plans to assert the supremacy of parliament over the European court of human rights. The BBC reported that the Tories were planning to unveil a new bill of rights at their annual conference in the autumn, which would mean that the UK parliament would rule on what constitutes a breach of human rights.

Clegg told LBC: "I have been completely blindsided today by hearing that the Conservatives – extraordinarily enough – want to line up with Vladimir Putin and other tyrants around the world by tearing up our long tradition of human rights."

The deputy prime minister added: "What on earth are we going to say to the dictators in Belarus, to Vladimir Putin if we do what the Conservatives now appear to recommend which is we basically say we are going to stamp our little feet and not abide by binding international human rights practices and conventions?

"It is really sad to see a mainstream party like that turning its back on a great longstanding British tradition of standing up internationally for human rights. That is the most immediate knock-on effect of removing people like Dominic Grieve – you have now got a much more extreme view taking root in the heart of the Conservative party."

Clegg dismissed the reported Tory plan to allow parliament to assert its supremacy over the ECHR on human rights. "The moment you say – they are going to get themselves into a terrible twist – that the government of the day, with a significant majority in parliament, can drive through parliament a rewriting of human rights disciplines you are basically accepting that human rights provisions are not universal – that they are pick and choose."

On the sacking of Gove, Clegg chuckled as he wished the new Tory chief whip well. "It is a good moment for us to turn the page on what had become a really destructive relationship between the Department for Education and many, many teachers … [who] felt offended by the way in which Michael Gove or maybe his team appeared to just brand all teachers as a blob – that all teachers were resistant to reform. I thought that was a divide-and-rule approach."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/17/conservative-party-headbangers-have-won-nick-clegg-reshuffle

Obviously trying to distance themselves from the Tory Party before the next election. I think they went into the coalition believing that they could hold the Tories back and actually do some good and have found that they have been walked all over and made to look like the bad guys, and have been totally undermined. I don't think they stand a chance at the election, but maybe it will show them that you have to stand by your principles and not compromise, because all compromise means is that you get the worst of most and the best of none.

It appears he is really 'going for it!'

Nick Clegg accused of hypocrisy after U-turn on bedroom tax
Lib Dem leader says party no longer supports policy in its present form in intensification of Tory 'differentiation strategy'

Nick Clegg moved to distance the Liberal Democrats from one of the coalition's most controversial policies when the party announced that it no longer supported the "bedroom tax" in its present form. Labour accused the Lib Dems of "unbelievable hypocrisy" after the party intensified its so called Tory "differentiation strategy" by saying that it would call on its coalition partners to agree to an overhaul of the policy before the election.

The Lib Dems accept that the Tories are unlikely to accept the change to the policy, which would ensure that social tenants only lose their housing benefit if they refuse an alternative property. The likely Tory rejection means the Lib Dems will include their plans, which would also ensure that disabled people are exempt, in their general election manifesto.

Under the bedroom tax, introduced by the coalition as part of its deficit reduction plan, housing benefit for tenants in social housing is reduced if their house is deemed to be too large for their needs. The coalition said the policy was designed to bring social tenants into line with those living in privately rented properties on housing benefit. It was also designed to tackle the imbalance whereby 240,000 families live in homes that are too small for their needs while housing benefit is paid to families living in properties that are too big for theirs.

The Lib Dems, who have faced immense political grief over their support for the policy, voted at their autumn conference to review the tax. Tim Farron, the Lib Dem president, announced in April that he was withdrawing his party's support for the measure on the grounds that it had caused "huge social problems".

Danny Alexander, the Lib Dem chief secretary to the Treasury, called for an overhaul of the policy after a report by the Department of Work and Pensions this week showed that only one in 20 claimants affected by the change had downsized their property. Under the Lib Dem plans, new tenants would receive benefits based on the number of rooms they need. But Alexander said that existing tenants "would only see a reduction in benefit if they are offered a suitable smaller home and, crucially, turn it down".

In an article for the Daily Mirror, Alexander wrote: "The Liberal Democrats will make the case for these new, fairer rules, seeking to get them in place during this parliament. If we can't convince our Conservative coalition partners, we will commit to these reforms in our 2015 manifesto.

"I want everyone to have the chance to live securely in a decent home. That's why I've driven through measures that will deliver record numbers of affordable homes to help tackle the root cause of our housing problem, lack of supply. And it's why our manifesto will set out plans to go further and deliver 300,000 new homes a year."

Labour depicted the move as a cynical bid by the Lib Dems to distance themselves from an unpopular policy less than a year before the election. Rachel Reeves, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "This is unbelievable hypocrisy from Nick Clegg. The Lib Dems voted for the bedroom tax. There wouldn't be a bedroom tax if it wasn't for the Lib Dems. And in February when Labour tabled a bill to scrap the bedroom tax, the Lib Dems were nowhere to be seen. This just goes to show why you can't trust a word the Lib Dems say - it is clear the only way to cancel the bedroom tax is to elect a Labour government next year."

Lib Dem sources said they were simply acting on the basis of evidence after the government report showed the policy was not working.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/17/nick-clegg-u-turn-bedroom-tax


Should have been doing this from the start instead of putting the coalition first, then he might have had a lot more respect, we would not have had to put up with this government for so long, but he would have lost his job. Maybe he thought he was doing the right thing, but he wasn't.

I support changes to the human rights legislation as it is too often used by foreign criminals to avoid deportation.


UK law should take precedence over any other in principle.



And there is no such thing as a tax on bedrooms.

It is not right or fair that some get housing benefit to pay for homes that are larger than their needs.

You can't have one person living in a 3 bedroom house and expecting to have it paid by tax payer.

One person = one bedroom, and that is all they should be able to claim.

:-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: 

Can't argue the points so just post childish shit.....

try and image your 80yrs old you had 3 children in the house you rented, you have lived there for 60yrs,your hopes and dreams all centred around that house.your children grew up there, all the memories of most of your life are in that house. you spent lots of money making it a HOME. your children all moved out,got married, made their own homes. Your on your own but you are in the house you have loved for all those years.Some one comes along and says "it's NOT your house you'v got to get out, we will put you in a one bed flat far away from your friends.I know the house is too big for one person,but for me it's wrong, and I am a tory.

nicko wrote:try and image your 80yrs old you had 3 children in the house you rented, you have lived there for 60yrs,your hopes and dreams all centred around that house.your children grew up there, all the memories of most of your life are in that house. you spent lots of money making it a HOME. your children all moved out,got married, made their own homes. Your on your own but you are in the house you have loved for all those years.Some one comes along and says "it's NOT your house you'v got to get out, we will put you in a one bed flat far away from your friends.I know the house is too big for one person,but for me it's wrong,  and I am a tory.

That sounds awful nicko.

When did this happen, and to how many people?

Good answer nicko, and that's the one i expected.

Now, what we could do, if we were bothered and had lots of time is go back year by year and see how many people, whom had mortgages, and therefore we could assume worked for a living, received a letter from their bank which said "this isn't your house, get out".

We could also search for those who worked hard for a living and lost their jobs, therefore they took a job maybe hundreds or thousands of miles from their families and only saw them either at weekends or less.

Living in a council house DOES NOT give you a god given right to live where the hell you want!!!

nicko wrote:try and image your 80yrs old you had 3 children in the house you rented, you have lived there for 60yrs,your hopes and dreams all centred around that house.your children grew up there, all the memories of most of your life are in that house. you spent lots of money making it a HOME. your children all moved out,got married, made their own homes. Your on your own but you are in the house you have loved for all those years.Some one comes along and says "it's NOT your house you'v got to get out, we will put you in a one bed flat far away from your friends.I know the house is too big for one person,but for me it's wrong,  and I am a tory.

Quite right Nicko, and it's happened to many, and to others who, even in the face of that, have tried to move and can't because there are hardly any one bedroomed flats or houses for them to move too, they are having to pay the extra money and go without food or heating in the winter to pay it. Only someone without the slightest empathy would not feel for them and realise how disgusting this policy is.

"Quite right Nicko, and it's happened to many"


Has it?

Any figures? Links?

Nicko, if you are paying for it yourself then there is no problem.
But housing benefit should only be paid to cover basic needs.
It is not right that one person can claim benefit to live in a 3 bedroom place all to themselves while others are restricted to only getting funded for a one bedroom place.

Any one who lives in a council house for 60 yrs or more and has paid their rent on time for all those years deserves a bit of consideration, if only finding them some where close to where they lived.The woman mentioned is my Auntie, 2 weeks after she moved a family of Roma moved in !!I suppose il'l be called racist now.

nicko wrote:Any one who lives in a council house for 60 yrs or more and has paid their rent on time for all those years deserves a bit of consideration, if only finding them some where close to where they lived.The woman mentioned is my Auntie, 2 weeks after she moved a family of Roma moved in !!I suppose il'l be called racist now.

You don't need to tell BigAndy9 about foreigners nicko.

But i've said it many times before - tough sh1t - the English must move aside, foreigners need the money, the schooling, the housing and hospitals more than us.

Reap what you sow.

nicko wrote:Any one who lives in a council house for 60 yrs or more and has paid their rent on time for all those years deserves a bit of consideration, if only finding them some where close to where they lived.The woman mentioned is my Auntie, 2 weeks after she moved a family of Roma moved in !!I suppose il'l be called racist now.

No you won't. You see, that's the policy, move out old people just because they have a room, and move in a family, doesn't matter which family. What they should be doing is building more houses. That way people get to stay in their HOMES, other people have a roof over their heads, there is more work, and they have to pay less benefits. Too difficult for them to comprehend it seems.

Labour importing 3 million foreigners and building fuck all housing is to blame.

You see Nicko, crap policy means rotten things happen that racists like Matti can use for their own agenda. The problem in the policy and the people that thought it up, because they don't give a damn about people like your Aunty, they are in clover.

Tommy Monk wrote:Labour importing 3 million foreigners and building fuck all housing is to blame.

3 million?

lol

Poor little xenophobes, screaming in agony because they have coloured faces around them. How awful for them lol

People like Sassy are the reason this country is in the shit.

Oh bless your little cottons, you just can't stand being opposed can you. Never mind Matti, you'll get over it, one day lol

Not about coloured faces Sassy, simple supply and demand economics.


Labour brought millions of people in and didn't build the necessary housing.


But I see you are using the old favourite leftie trick of trying to make it about racism to divert.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8339075/More-than-three-million-migrants-under-Labour.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359336/3million-migrants-came-UK-Labour-biggest-population-growth-1-000-years.html


And.....

"...Tom Copley said it galled him that Margaret Thatcher’s government built more council flats and houses in a single year than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown managed over 13 years in power.
His remarks were attacked as too “bleak” by one of Labour leader Ed Miliband’s top lieutenants. But the Coalition Government’s housing minister said Mr Copley was right and called on Mr Miliband to say sorry.
At a conference organised by think tank the Centre for Labour and Social Studies, Mr Copley spoke about his role as Labour’s housing spokesman on the London Assembly.
He said: “As a Labour politician one of the things that really galls me is that there’s this statistic that more council homes were built in the last year of Thatcher’s government than were built in the 13 years of Labour government, and that’s something I think as a Labour Party we need to apologise for.” Official figures show only 6,330 council houses were completed from 1998 to 2010, compared with 17,710 in 1990 alone, which was Baroness Thatcher’s final year as prime minister. In one Labour year, 2004, the number fell to just 130 council homes completed...."

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-should-apologise-for-social-housing-failure-8932797.html

Nope, she let people buy them and wouldn't allow the councils to spend the money to replace those that were bought.


So the social housing stock went down.



From 1979 council house building declined

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14380936

But those who bought were in social housing Sassy.

A lack of social housing could only happen if we then had more people needing social housing.

Now, where did they all come from?

Sassy is in complete denial over many things.



Typical leftie.

BigAndy9 wrote:But those who bought were in social housing Sassy.

A lack of social housing could only happen if we then had more people needing social housing.

Now, where did they all come from?

Because more people grow up and need housing DOH.

And labour built fuck all.... while importing millions of foreigners!!!!



Madness!!!



They denied the mass immigration at first and called everyone racist for daring to raise concerns.