JH: That was a very positive and constructive meeting. We talked about how the national interests could be best served by politicians working together in the best interests of the country
EM: What about the Liberal Democrats’ interest?
JH: Well it’s the national interest which is the absolutely critical thing. The country is in a very difficult situation, we need political reform, we need economic reform, we need a better deal for the kids – the pupil premium, and we also need a better tax deal for the low-paid.
EM: What was decided about the bottom line because David Cameron has laid where he doesn’t really want to move, what do the Liberal Democrats say in that regard?
JH: What we say is that we want to put the national interest first and that what we are looking at is the four planks on which we fought the general election campaign. To think that we might sort of do anything other than what was in our manifesto is somewhat surprising.
EM: How does your education policy dovetail with the Conservative policy?
JH: Well interestingly they seem quite positive about the pupil premium which makes that perhaps a very easy issue to settle.
EM: And voting reform?
JH: Well the political reform is a much wider issue than just voting reform. In theory they support the Wright Report reforms for instance.
EM: What about changing the voting system which is what so many people shouting outside want to hear about?
JH: Well exactly and changing the voting system is one something we want to see.
EM: But you’re being promised an inquiry which isn’t the same thing as getting the change?
JH: Well I’m not going into the details of the negotiations, I’m not on the negotiating group.
EM: I just wondered what the mood of the meeting was?
JH: Well the mood of the meeting was that we should decide what to do in the national interest.
EM: That’s a phrase that you’ve repeated several times and people can interpret that a hundred ways I guess. I’m asking you abut an important detail about a central plank of Liberal Democrat policy.
JH: I would have thought to most people in the country, when the country is in such financial problems as it is, that people would want us to be focussed on the economic situation and what’s good for the children and things like that.
EM: So forget voting reform for now is that it?
JH: I’m not saying forget voting reform for now, what I’m saying is we have four planks to the manifesto and those are the planks that we’re looking at in negotiations.
January 2010: “Lib Dems ‘should say no deal to coalition’ – John Hemming”
4 comments ↓
Hmm… sounds ominous. Thanks for posting.
Interesting. Who is EM?
If the leader you were so in favour of had a modicum of interest in the benefit of the country, he would not attempt to keep us in limbo until your party elected a new leader in 4 months’ time.
He would resign as PM and let the other 2 parties see what they can do together, or let Cameron try and form a minority Government.
He is a disgrace. Your party is a disgrace for trying to claw back some of the mandate you have lost.
Plea for Support to amend the current Uk defamation to include families of innocent Homicide Victims.
Dear Mr Hemming MP
Please forgive me for contacting you like this especially since I am not one of your constituents, but as you will note from the attached documents we are seeking to highlight the fact that families of innocent homicide victims have no legal standing under the current UK defamation legislation to formally challenge malicious falsehoods published by or on behalf of convicted murderers in the mass media.
We are aware that the view of many politicians is that the dead can no longer be hurt and it would be wrong to abolish the centuries old legislation on defamation to allow families of homicide victims any legal standing to pursue a defamation action on behalf of their deceased love one. May we take this opportunity to highlight the fact that our laws have evolved over the centuries to meet the needs of today’s society and as such we implore you to give careful consideration to the fact that it is unjust and morally wrong to allow convicted murderers and their supports to abuse the UK defamation legislation to publish malicious falsehoods about their victim(s) in their criminal memoirs or in the mass media. To simply say the dead cannot by defamed is an insult to the memory of innocent homicide victims not to mention the harrowing affect such abuse of our defamation legislation has on families of innocent homicide victims.
All we are asking you and your fellow MPs to do, is to recognized that it is inherently wrong to allow a innocent homicide victims good name and character to be unjustly called into question by a convicted murderer or at the hands of irresponsible journalist who knows only too well they can publish defamatory information on behalf of a convicted murderer with impunity under the existing Scottish and UK defamation legislation.
There are nine EU Countries that we know off who afford their citizens the legal mechanism to formally challenge malicious publications about deceased homicide victims when all other efforts to rectify malicious falsehoods fails, unlike convicted murderers (criminal memoirs) families of innocent homicide victims do not want or wish to profit from taking civil action for defamation of homicide victims. All we want is the legal right to formally challenge false or grossly misleading publications disseminated in the mass media and a correction published which relates to the original publication, not a small stamp size apology published in the corner of an inside page of the offending publication.
We are more than happy to supply you with further information on defamation of homicide victims on request.
Yours sincerely
Margaret Watson
Leave a Comment