Clegg caves in on Kennedy sharing platform with Miliband
Nick Clegg has changed his mind and will now allow his predecessor as Lib Dem leader, Charles Kennedy, to share a platform with Ed Miliband in promoting a Yes vote in the forthcoming referendum.
The Yes to AV campaign had originally planned to hold a cross-party rally yesterday, involving both Ed Miliband and the former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy.
But Yes to AV organisers refused to allow Nick Clegg to join the platform, even if, as he suggested, he simply spoke early on and then left the event. When Clegg learned of this rebuff he then refused to allow Charles Kennedy to join the event, as had originally been planned.
The Yes to AV campaign calculated that Nick Clegg is now so unpopular that he would no longer be an asset to their cause.
Charles Kennedy, in contrast, is perceived to be a relatively popular figure. Kennedy has made no secret of his doubts about the Coalition, and voted against the government over the rise in university tuition fees.
Nick Clegg has now backed down and allowed Kennedy to take part in the cross-party event, which has been rescheduled for 29 March 2011.
Update at 17:30:
One of Nick Clegg's senior aides has contacted me to say "it's not true that we stopped Charles attending. And it was Miliband who said no to the deputy prime minister, not the 'Yes' campaign."
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 16th Mar 2011, Jono wrote:It sounds childish but I'm more likely to vote for AV if Nick Clegg cannot claim it as his own victory. Charles Kennedy and Ed Miliband is a winning formula.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 16th Mar 2011, steve smith wrote:It will hardly be a ringing endorsement of AV if people are more likely to vote for it if the 'wrong' person isn't on the stage.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 16th Mar 2011, barriesingleton wrote:FARCE MY FARCE
I am in danger of laughing to much - come the day - to hold a pencil.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 16th Mar 2011, JunkkMale wrote:'2. At 5:00pm on 16 Mar 2011, steve smith wrote:
It will hardly be a ringing endorsement of AV if people are more likely to vote for it if the 'wrong' person isn't on the stage.
A well considered analysis, neatly put.
Were the piece that inspired it anywhere close.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 16th Mar 2011, barriesingleton wrote:TIME TO START CONSIDERING THE DATE OF THE NEXT ELECTION
Nick n Dave can't go on like this. I was TOLD again today (The Hunt, on Daily Politics) that I voted, along with the country, for coalition, and coalitons of the swilling, are washing up all over the place, with empty prams abounding (the bounders having climbed out).
I DID NOT VOTE FOR COALITION and have yet to meet anyone who did. Neither did I give Nick leave to dump pledges and dump on students.
Then there is the Conservative liar flyer (undue influence/false instrument) widely used to gain votes.
Time for a General election WITH INTERNATIONAL SCRUTINEERS. Westminster parties cannot be trusted.
Bye bye illegal stitch-up. At the next election:
SPOILPARTYGAMES.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 16th Mar 2011, barriesingleton wrote:POLITICAL LYING OR SLOPPY JOURNALISM? (update 17:30)
Oo-er! Soooo hard to choose. Still, it's, without doubt, what we all want.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 16th Mar 2011, TheGingerF wrote:Thank goodness for that crucial update from Michael at 17.30.
Otherwise I'd have been thinking that Clegg was a total electoral liability with a sideline in rubbish decision making.
The comments from his aides have now put my mind completely to rest on these points.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 16th Mar 2011, threnodio_II wrote:"Nick Clegg has changed his mind and will now allow his predecessor as Lib Dem leader, Charles Kennedy . . "
ALLOW?
Good Lord by what power could he possibly have prevented it?
Or have the Lib Dems finally descended into the control freak dictatorship mentality of the other shabby beggars?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 16th Mar 2011, TheGingerF wrote:2&4
The only thing Nick Clegg is a ringing endorsement of is John Prescott.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 16th Mar 2011, razmit wrote:I also wonder about Ed Miliband's political sense in supporting the 'Yes' campaign. In my blog I have likened him to the French golfer Jean Van de Velde in the 1999 British Open held at St Andrews:
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 17th Mar 2011, barriesingleton wrote:FLAT EARTH v 6 DAY CREATION (#10)
I have a gut feeling that the AV debate is in meaningless terms. There are verbal equivalents to optical illusions out there; I reckon the discussion of the relative value and, utility, of 'sequenced votes' is one such. This would explain how two expensively educated, 'qualified' cipher-ninnies, can be diametrically at odds over the issue.
But at base, it is just another manoeuvre like plain fag packets and minimum booze cost. Westminster holds us in contempt, and manipulates every aspect of our lives.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 17th Mar 2011, corum-populo-2010 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 17th Mar 2011, stevie wrote:Just vote NO NO NO and put Clegg out of his misery...you know it makes sense.....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)