Nick Clegg on Mumsnet this Thursday (16th Sept) evening between 8 and 9 pm

[JustineMumsnet]

We're delighted that the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, will be joining us for a webchat this Thursday evening 8 and 9pm.

Next week the Deputy PM will be joining other world leaders, celebrities and business leaders who are gathering in New York for the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Summit. He will be aiming for global action to reduce the shocking number of women who die during pregnancy and childbirth in the world's poorest countries.

Nick is happy to answer your questions on the UN summit as well as on his role as Deputy Prime Minster. Join us on Thursday evening or if you can't make it along then post your question (one each only please) here.

Thanks.

could Orville quack? I can't remember.

Have reread thread.

He was appalling

I speak as someone who is ready to be charmed (changed my mind about Ed Balls on the hustings thread).

Off to bed,

Agree with pollycazalet.

I wonder if Nick was surprised at the reaction he got on here.

Talking of Ed Balls, all 5 leadership candidates are on Question Time in 5 mins.

don't

Well, it was unfortunate that more people were shouting about the state of the UK than worldwide maternity issues, but I can certainly understand why.

I'm happy he answered my question, and very pleased it was echoed by a couple of people - just raising a bit of awareness about FMG is a fantastic result. A shame it was such a stock answer with no mention of whether the govt has any plans to tackle FGM occurring in the UK.

I'm very disappointed no mention was made of the posts about how the Western idea of helping women in the developing world is to swoop in with clinics and caesarian sections and over-medicalisation of birth and formula milk, when what they should be doing is working with the women at grass-roots, training up local midwives and helping provide clean water and basic sanitation. If anything, the West should be learning from the developing world about how to leave birthin' babies to women, keeping things as simple and natural as possible.

Very testy, Miaikins. I think he got off very lightly too. Gordon got a proper roasting and personally I feel he came off better (Biscuitgate excluded!)

So sorry Maiakins for the name mis-spell

hmm as expected he skirted round some issues and gave the stock answers to others. Some of the things he mentions are good achievements, but when taking into account the entire picture it is clear why people feel misled.

The Lib dem policies that have made it into the budget:
A slightly above average increase in the income tax allowance of £1000. (Although the original policy was for this to go up to £10,000). However the Conservatives? VAT increase will mean that the low paid are actually worse off from this budget.

A £2bn levy on banks, who got us into this financial mess because we had to bail them out. However the Conservatives tax cuts for large corporations mean that actually the banks will be better off.

:(

I don't think there's anything I really want to ask you Nick.
Is that a bad thing (addressed to mumsnetters)

"Ok well that was fun.Sweet dreams".....good grief,Justine,what planet are you on?

Came back to this thread thinking 'oh drat, I missed it'. Then skimmed through it and realised it wasn't worth the effort. I suppose at least he acknowledged the Fawcett question but pathetic standard politician non-answer there.

I missed this in the end, but reading through the answers a second time - they're not actually glib at all, except for a few. He does say stuff in them - look at the one about the banks, for example.

It's just that in between there are so many accusations of not answering the question, being superficial etc. etc. and general "torytorytorytory" stuff that you actually need to read the answers twice to see that he has some good answers, because the accusations in between colour your first impression.

That said, I wouldn't mind if I never heard the phrase "greener, more balanced economy" again. He's definitely best when he keeps off the listy-type stuff.

Lastly (because it needs seeing again).

"after the Spending Round, we'll still be spending around 700 billion pounds of public money per year, more in cash terms than we do now."

lifeinlimbo - it's going up to 10,000 in stages.

Re. VAT - I thought you'd have to spend 16,000 a year on VAT-able goods to be worse off if you were in lowest income bracket?

On the other hand, at least we didnt have only the Con. policies. Jeez, who voted for those idiots?! Even apes understand fairness.

Voluptuos - I didnt want to talk to him either.

cheekylittlesocks - in answer to your question about the cervical screening programme, I have posted on previous threads with comprehensive information and explanation about the reasons for not screening the under 25s. However you may wish to start here

Vesela - its going to go up by 1000/yr.
So that means at about 20% tax, a saving of £200/yr.
The VAT rise will add £400 to the average family VAT bill (by the lib dems pre election calculation) so yes, worse off is correct.

lifeinlimbo, it's that £400 that I think is calculated as the result of spending 16,000 a year on VAT-able goods. If people spend £16,000 then they'll be £400 worse off. if you were in lowest income bracket that means you'd have to spend almost your whole income on VAT-rated stuff, and that doesn't happen.

Nick - if you read the rest of the thread, please stop saying the NHS has been ringfenced. Anyone working in it can tell you that it hasn't been. Redundancies, non-replacement of staff, cost improvement plans etc

We would like to know when the Conservatives will admit that what they are really upto is the privatisation of the NHS. GP consortia will buy in the expertise to run, negotiate and manage the million pound contracts they will expected to run. This will come from two places. (1) consultancy firms who have already squeezed the public sector dry with their 'advice' (2) American insurance and health companies such as Kaiser Permenante.
Neither of those options fill me with joy - people are going to get a nasty shock, not patient choice!

We hate Nick! We hate Nick!

..(and the pope)

hee hee

The fact that he didn'T answer my question or address ANY of my posts tells me that this conferenfce is essentially what I thought it was: a way for the rich world to maximise profits in the third world, like they have been doing for the past 30 years.

Plumpynut and formula will continue to be promoted to undermine breastfeeding.

Issues such as how international free trade policies are designed to benefit western conglomerates at the expense of third world farmers will not be addressed

The maternal mortality rate in the US will be glossed over, telling me that this is more about controlling women in poor countries than it is about women. Are they seriously suggesting US women are not as important when their maternal mortlity rate is worse than some third world countries and their infant mortality rate is the second worst in the world

How on earth can as US-led conference (and the UN is the US) possibly help women in the third world? I fear for the consequences of this kind of rich-white-man involvement..

If you really care about women, tackle poverty at home and abroad, and the rest will take care of itself

.

And the point of that was...?

Well the Guardian liked the webchat!

What a lovely article by the Guardian. You only get quoted if you insult Nick Clegg. How deep and profound!