8/8/2019 Hancock Letter to Nick Clegg

1/3

Councillor Mike Hancock CBE MPLondon Office: Portsmouth Office:

House of Commons 1A Albert Road

London Southsea

SW1A 0AA Portsmouth PO5 2SE

Tel: 0207 219 5180 Tel: 023 9286 1055

Fax: 0207 219 2496 Fax: 023 9283 0530

Email: email@mikehancock.co.uk

Please reply to 1A, Albert Road, Portsmouth PO5 2SE and quote ref above___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SOMEONE WORKING FOR YOUTwo Advice Centres: Every Monday from 5.45-7pm at the City of Portsmouth Girls School. No appointment necessary.

Saturdays by appointment. Please ring 92861055. Website: www.mikehancock.co.uk

Rt Hon Nick Clegg, MPHouse of CommonsLONDONSW1A 0AA

BY EMAIL

19 September 2010

Dear Nick

I am writing to you with two concerns.

Firstly that we may be abandoning a key aspect of the Liberal Democrat policy in supporting thewelfare state. And secondly we are going beyond the coalition agreement without it being referredback to the democratic structures of the party. I am sure, you agree with me that we must not havedictatorship of the party by 20 Lib Dem ministers. I hope that you will use your leaders speech tothe party conference to put to rest both these concerns.

You say that the Liberal Democrats are not a party of the left. I have to say that these labels are notperhaps very relevant these days. However there is concern as to what your words are code for.

What I hope we are is a modern liberal and social democraticparty that particularly draws on the work of Beveridge and the welfare state.

There is though concern from me and many in the party over your comments reported in the presswill see the abandonment of traditional Beveridge Liberalism. Liberalism has been concerned withthe freedom of the individual. But modern Liberalism has recognised that means true freedommeans freedom from poverty and ill health.

I bring to you to attention your words to the 2008 Lib Dem party conference:

In Britain today, some people are still more free than others. Pensioners spending a whole winter inthe bedroom, because it's the only room they can afford to heat. That isn't freedom. Childrenshunted from one damp, temporary flat to another - sharing a bed with their parents because there'sno space for a room of their own. That isn't freedom.

I agree with you. But cutting someones housing benefit, forcing people into ghettos of sub-standardhousing or trimming pensioners winter fuel payments, as the coalition Government proposes to dodenies people freedom and reduces their social mobility.

There is a widespread myth that it is easy to live on benefits. I dont believe that it is. But if you thinkthat it is then you, the Prime Minister and ministers should try it for a month. I am sure that you willremember the TV programmes that Matthew Parris, the former Conservative MP and now ajournalist and broadcaster has made about living on benefits. In 84, he ran out of money, and in

8/8/2019 Hancock Letter to Nick Clegg

2/3

2004, perhaps a bit wiser, his money just about stretched.Although he fully admits this wasnt afull test on a number of points he had for example the TV lights to keep him warm!

I believe that the proposed cuts to housing benefit are spiteful, vindictive, increase poverty, reducefreedom and social mobility and pander to the worse aspects of Tories and the Tory Press.

In your 2008 conference rally speech, you said a young 8 year-old girl in your constituency hadasked you what politicians actually do. You said: I told her that the job of a politician is to give avoice to the voiceless. Maybe it sounded a bit sentimental for an 8 year old's taste. But even if it's

cheesy, it's true.

We must now give voice to those in poverty and on housing benefit. It is not freedom or socialmobility for a young children to come back to do their homework to a damp, depressing property andthat will what the cuts to housing benefit will mean for too many. And their voice is being drownedout by the Tory press.

We agreed the coalition agreement as a democratic party through our agreed democratic structures.There is now concern in the party that the agreement goes beyond what was agreed.

There is no mention of the VAT rise in the coalition agreement despite detailed proposals on othertax measures. Yet just a few weeks that was in the budget. As Prof Ron Glatter, Emeritus Professorof Education at the Open University has pointed out the Academies Bill was not in the coalitionagreement. Yet within days of the coalition agreement being signed, a very detailed Academies Billwas published and within weeks, rushed through Parliament.

As you know I voted against the VAT rise and the Academies Bill - not out of disloyalty to you or theGovernment but out of loyalty to the Coalition Agreement and the party. There is a danger also thatthe agreement is becoming one of Orwellian newspeak when "helping" people into work becomescode for cutting benefits. I do not see cutting benefits as helping people - quite the reverse. Lessmoney will make it more difficult for people to get work rather than less. Looking for work takesmoney - smart clothes, transport, stamps, paper, computers etc.

There is a fundamental point here. If we do not stick to the coalition agreement and if we do notratify any major changes that are not in line with the Lib Dem manifesto through the triple lockagreement then we will never be able to sign an agreement in the future with any party. The partywill say that the parliamentary party didn't stick to the agreement why should we trust you now.

I would be grateful if you could confirm in your speech on Monday that you will in the future bringany fundamental policy changes to the agreement without going through the triple lock democraticarrangements of the party. Or if that is not going to be the case that you will bring forward changesto the party constitution to change the triple lock. As I say that was not the case with the VAT riseand the Academies Bill. We are, I believe above all, a democratic party relying on the work andgoodwill (more than the other parties) of our volunteers, activists and councillors. This cannot be a

party of a dictatorship of 20 Lib Dem ministers.

Let me also be clear where I am as regards Labour. If Dennis Skinner can remain a member ofLabour throughout the past twenty years of new Labour, I as a founding member of the SDP withover 25 years membership of the Lib Dems can certainly remain a member of the Lib Dems.

We should remind people of the actions of new Labour and the Labour ministers who are now goingaround trying to be their leader did. In fact there is such amnesia amongst them that I fear they havemay have had a complete lobotomy! They supported things that you and I campaigned and votedagainst. Attacks on the poor through the abolition of the 10p tax rate. Attacks on studentsintroducing tuition fees. Attacks on pensioners with the miserly 75p increase in the pension. Attacks

on civil liberties with ID Cards and increasing the big brother state. The decimation of the local postoffice network. And just the down-right mean spirited with not allowing Ghurkhas to settle here. Andyou are rightly to be congratulated on the campaign that you ran on this.

8/8/2019 Hancock Letter to Nick Clegg

3/3

I know that I and my constituents will not forget these things. The coalition Government should notfall into the same trap - giving with one hand and taking away with other. The above inflationincrease in the state pension against the trimming of winter fuel payments. More money for schoolsthrough the pupil premium against scrapping Building Schools for the Future. A real terms increasefor the NHS (as supposed to Labour cuts) against yet another re-organisation.

It probably remains one of your frustrations that leading the Lib Dems is a bit like herding cats!However it remains one of the strengths of this party that we can have a proper grown up

discussion. I remain amazed at some of things that my Labour MP friends voted for just because ithad Blair, Brown or Mandelson stamped on it. Indeed things that they are now professing that theywere against. It is difficult to find someone who was not a Tory Minister in the early '90s who saynow that they were not privately against the Poll Tax. Yet none were brave enough to stand upagainst Mrs Thatcher at the time.

You have noted the importance of arguing through issues and that they are not rubberstamped.Speaking to the 2008 party conference, before obviously the General Election you said youshouldn't look for freedom of expression in parliament. And We know that every time there's a votein Parliament, it's not the argument that wins. It's the Government. Labour was elected with thesupport of 22% of Britain's voters. And in 11 years they have been defeated just three times.

It is important that Lib Dem MPs weigh things carefully as you yourself have noted. I hope that willapply to Tory and Labour MPs as well.

I am afraid I will continue to weigh things against my own conscience, do what I think is right for thecountry and my constituents, in line with Liberal Democrat principles and manifesto commitmentsand for the coalition agreement and the Government in that order. I believe that this is the properconstitutional duty of an MP and I hope my fellow Lib Dems MPs and the hundreds of thousands ofLib Dem members and volunteers will do the same. And indeed MPs of other parties will do thesame. It may make it more difficult in the short term for Government ministers and partyfrontbenches and I apologise for that. But I believe as things like the Poll Tax show it is the bestthing for the country, the party and the Government.

May I end by thanking and congratulating you on your work as Deputy Prime Minister for the countryand for the Liberal Democrats. The party through its "triple lock" democratic mechanism took thehistoric decision to enter Government for the first time in peacetime since the early part of the lastcentury. This must be a tribute to the hard work of everyone in the party - every leaflet deliverer,helper, activist, member of staff (paid or unpaid), MEP, MP, candidate and you as Party leader.

But there remain two fundamental things, I hope that you will make clear. Firstly that we do not havethe dictatorship of twenty ministers on the party but we agree things beyond the coalition agreementas a democratic party. Secondly that we remain the party of Beveridge and of a decent welfarestate.

I look forward to you making these things clear to the party in your speech. I wish you continuedgood luck in your hard work for the party and the country.

Best wishes

MIKE HANCOCK CBE MP