Yesterday morning Deputy PM Nick Clegg instructed LibDem MPs to abstain from voting on the Labour Party's motion, calling for Jeremy Hunt to be referred to Sir Alex Allen on the question of a possible breach of The Ministerial Code.
This opportunistic motion was doomed to fail given that Cameron had already made up his mind to exonerate Hunt. A decision made without consulting Clegg.
Clegg's instruction to his MPs to abstain suggests that he would had taken a different position on Hunt's actions if he were PM in a LibDem government.
Clegg's difference of opinion with Cameron on this issue was shared by the majority of the LibDem backbenchers.
Given that The Liberal Democrats were the only party that didn't get in bed with The Murdoch Press, unlike Labour and The Tories, it made little sense for LibDem MPs to vote with The Government or with The Opposition.
Given the parliamentary maths the Labour motion would only be passed if a significant number of Tory backbenchers (at least 28) AND ALL The LibDems voted AGAINST The Government, very unlikely.
For some reason Tory Backbenchers are crying foul over this. They claim that they backed The LibDems when allegations of wrongdoing emerged against David Laws, Chris Huhne and Vince Cable and The LibDems should reciprocate this backing in Hunt's case. Some of these backbenchers want to take revenge over this by blocking reform of The House Of Lords.
As usual, The Tories refuse to treat like with like and prefer to be economical with the facts.
In the case of Laws and Huhne the offenses took place while The LibDems were in opposition and only emerged after the formation of this Coalition. On this basis questions on The Ministerial Code are irrelevant.
Laws lied about his expense claim to keep his homosexuality a secret rather than an attempt to cheat the taxpayer. If this offense had taken place after the election, of course this would put Laws in breach of The Ministerial Code and Cameron (or Clegg) would have to sack him. Fortunately, Laws resigned to avoid embarrasing the government.
In Chris Huhne's case, it is alleged that his estranged wife, Vicky Price took the penalty points for speeding on election night when Huhne was at the wheel of the car. As a result both Huhne and Price have been charged with Perverting The Course of Justice. Once he was charged, Huhne could not fight the charge and remain a minister so he had to resign.
When Vince Cable made his comments about "Going To War With Murdoch" to Daily Telegraph reporters, posing as constituents in his surgery, it was clear that his comments were at odds with the requirement to be impartial regarding the BSkyB bid. It was right that Cable was stripped of responsibility for the bid. Some Tories believe that Cable should have been sacked as Business Secretary for making those remarks. Others, rightly accept that Cable made those remarks in his capacity of a constituency MP talking to what he thought were his constituents and in itself does not amount to a breach of The Ministerial Code.
Cable's behaviour contrasts sharply with that of Hunt and his Special Advisor, Adam Smith. How Cameron can accept that the flurry of texts and emails exchanged by Hunt, Smith and NewsCorp lobbyist Adrian Michel does not amount to a breach of The Ministerial Code is beyond me.
The failure to have Hunt investigated by Allen contrast sharply with Cameron asking Allen to investigate Baroness Warsi for the lesser offence of failing to disclose that a flight to Pakistan was paid for by a friend of her family, to the register of Lords Interests. This inconsistency is one of the reasons that many LibDems could not back Hunt in yesterdays vote.
For Tory backbenchers to accuse The LibDems of disloyalty betrays the arrogance of those Tories who would have preferred Cameron to form a minority government in May 2010.
This evening, I stopped to pick up a Labour Party leaflet left by the communal door of my residence in Harold Hill. The leaflet was titled News on the Hill from the Heaton & Gooshays Labour Party.
The first story HEALTH ALERT! asked 3 questions.
I have no problem with question 2 as it refers to the 41 hour closure of Queens Hospital, Romford, due to excessive demand during the Christmas break.
Question 1 asks “Did you know that the TORY led COALITION GOVERNMENT want to shut the A&E Department at King George Hospital in Redbridge and send all their cases to Queens Hospital in Romford?”
Question 3 asks “Did you know that your LABOUR COUNCILLORS have been leading the battle to get the TORY Council in Havering to fight these cuts?”
(NB Words placed in UPPERCASE by ME for emphasis)
I’ll be honest with you.
1) I am an amateur liberal blogger, who probably does not blog on this page often enough to be taken seriously.
2) I am also a fully paid up member of Havering Liberal Democrats, so no one can call me a Tory apologist. By the way I fully support Nick Clegg’s decision to go into coalition with the Westminster Tories.
3) I am blogging in personal capacity. I don’t agree with ALL the decisions made by The Coalition Government, but that is the nature of coalitions: You don’t always get what you want.
I was intrigued by this story. It seems to imply that
1) The decision to close the A&E at King George was made at cabinet level by The Coalition Government
2) The Havering Labour Party was the sole entity fighting against this proposed closure
I decided to test these assertions by the simple expedient of entering certain phrases from this leaflet into the Google search engine and seeing what came out.
The decision to close the A&E was made by the health Authority Health For North East London on 15th December 2010 http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/8741713.ILFORD_Closure_of_King_George_s A_E_and_Maternity_decided/
Redbridge Labour councillor, Andy Walker, who’s a member of Redbridge Health Scrutiny Committee referred this matter to Health Secretary Andrew Lansley earlier this year
In early February, a Labour motion to unite all political parties on Havering Council against these proposals was agreed http://www.london24.com/news/politics/new_allies_join_redbridge_hospital_fight_1_795604
A similar motion was agreed by Barking and Dagenham Council
As for government involvement, the decision taken by Health For North East London is probably a consequence of the coalition’s decision to increase health spending by less than the actual rate of health Inflation. When Lansley reviews the Health Authority’s decision, he can either approve it or reject it. The decision to close King George’s A&E would only be The Coalition’s fault if Lansley decides to approve it.
I respect Labour’s resolve to oppose, the Coalition’s cuts agenda at National and Local level, but this attempt by The Heaton & Gooshays Labour Party to portray a local decision as one made in Westminster is disingenuous to say the least.
Former Oldham East & Saddleworth MP, Phil Woolas was turfed out of Parliament for printing misleading leaflets about his Liberal opponent. It seems that Labour has failed to learn the lessons of his fate
