Q&A with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg - catch up here

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

At lunchtime today we'll be holding a live, in-person Q&A session with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, with an audience composed entirely of Mumsnetters.

With luck (and a decent wireless connection) we'll be live-blogging the whole thing, so do join us between 12.45 and 2pm to hear how the DPM responds to MNers' searching questions - and let us know what you think as the session unfolds.

Whiter

And yes, I saw it Juggling! Weehoo! As DS would say

What a vacuous man.

I loved "there's no point whinging about that." So... whingy.

mildly, totally agree, that comment was really really whingy, like a little boy

Thanks for posting the clip of his answer to my question on the NHS, obviously I wasn't taking notes at that point! :) Much appreciated xx

I really enjoyed attending today, and want to say thank you to MNHQ for organising.

Just one small thing. If Nick Clegg does do a web chat, can MNHQ please make sure it doesn't end up like the Harriet Harman one, which was frankly shit.

How can Nick Clegg claim that the child abuse revelations have exposed a "horrendous under-scene of British society which no-one knew existed"?

That's total rubbish. If he's serious he should be ashamed to call himself an MP.

The House of Commons itself has repeatedly had the issue raised in various guises over the last 30 years - AND committees have scrutinised them.

The Bryn Estyn Care Home in Wrexham, goes back to 1970s.

the Home Affairs Committee sat in 2002 and refers to more scrutiny in the 90s/80s/70s (and cover-ups)

AND these issues have been reported in the press for decades.

I'm very suspicious of Clegg's claim that 'no one knew'.

Call me as thick as shit but what exactly does BAME stand for?

Puffins: like many others I'd like to see/read Nicks answers and/or his appearance, but nothing. Followed all the links I ould find and can't see anything at all. Do only those who attended get to know what his opinions are?

Please MN, can you give us a link so we can all share?

Aha! Page 2&3! Bit too early in the morning for me!??

Pom, I think it's Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic, I think.

Can we link to blogs of people who were there? (it's not mine).

Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic (BAME)

In terms of the CSA cover-up issue, what I heard him say (at the end of the summary of what he said published in the press article) was that it was impossible for 'most people' to be aware of something throughout that had begun before nearly all of us in the room were born (and decades before being in politics), and that it was very likely individual issues were known and raised in that time (he gave the examples of a police force might know here, an MP there etc but with no connections made between issues at the time of reports made) but the argument he was given that 'everyone' knew, he disputed because in his words "It would have been uncovered much sooner".

My impression from his answer it was a few nasty people working to hide something from the majority of the moral and law-abiding (including the public) which does occur anywhere there are 'corrupt elements' (eg the security industry private sector are under scrutiny as well this week regarding handing out licensing qualifications).

Now in the last 16 years we have Google and the internet at all of our disposal, it is far easier to uncover and connect issues like this. In the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s, we only had what we were told by the mainstream media - TV and print newspapers.

Individuals and individual sectors who received reports over the years are to blame for not taking this hideous activity seriously, and hopefully they will hunt them all down and -burnthemaswitches-- make justice happen.

Hope that helps - haven't written up the meeting yet. Painkillers today, will try and do it later Xx

Thanks DeathStar, that's helpful.

I appreciate MNHQ have to paraphrase, but it did seem his response was cleverly avoiding the question. His answer given was basically that "you can't assume everyone knew" - which is true; but the question wasn't "did everyone know?" it was "do you really believe that nobody knew?".

There's an important if subtle difference imo.

It's a shame the whole thing hasn't been put on youtube (or has it?) so we can see his answers in context, rather than snippets.

One other thing I remember from yesterday's answers that I was pleased to hear as an early years bod was that they see it as important to invest in education right across the spectrum from early years to higher ed. Think he said this gov has ring fenced school spending but he'd want to expand this for the whole age range of education.

This is just my observation following .... but perhaps he's paid some attention to the evidence of the importance of excellent early years provision such as has been available and prioritised for a long time in Scandinavian countries - with proven results in terms of best learning outcomes for children

You're right Whitershadeofpale - the exact wording is something that brings clarity. A few others were recording, it would be interesting to hear the session over again.

Definitely individuals did know, in the csa issue over the years. Whether they were at the bottom enabler level (e.g. staff allowing contact with vulnerable children) or at the higher turning-a-blind-eye level (e.g. big newspaper editors who glossed over or even ignored stories by victims, but liked free lunches with celebrities). You wouldn't be able to find any connection or personal acquaintance between 'the staff member' and 'the newspaper editor' - I think that's the point he was making.

Although there is also a backlash now against the 'big brother' state of affairs with cameras everywhere and records being kept, this is exactly the kind of thing it was brought into effect to prevent happening again, and to catch criminals. We didn't have it at our disposal until recently. But it means we can trace movements of a criminal and prove that they are the connection in a perceived 'cover-up' - if you don't have the criminal, you don't know how many people at what levels in society, spread out around the place, were in on his actions. The enablers are not necessarily grouped together and most likely were kept unknown to each other by the perpetrators for just that reason, to try and guarantee secrecy - but are as much to blame.

Whistlingpot - sorry, tagged wrong poster!!

My recollection is that the question I asked was:

Do you now regret your initial refusal to back an inquiry into the child sex abuse scandal and your subsequent decision to back Fiona Woolf as the head of the inquiry?

He appeared confused by the question and said that he had backed it. I then asked if it wasn't true that he initially had said that should be a police matter and rejected an inquiry. He stumbled a bit and said that he couldn't remember the chronology but that everyone had been fairly quick to to respond but that initially no-one knew anything about it.

At that point I used my follow up question on that issue and asked if it could really be true that 'no one knew' when there was increasing evidence that in fact lots of people had known and subsequent governments had concealed eviedence. He gave the answer that is above and has been reported.

He still seemed slightly confused by the question and asked me to clarify my position, I asked Justine if that was ok as I was weary of time. She said yes so I did but he didn't say much more at that point.

Personally, I felt that his demeanor changed with that question and he gave the impression that I was accusing him personally of covering up abuses which he presented as absurd.

I think he answered the question to an extent and the cover-up point was really made on the spot as I had to take issue with him saying nobody knew.

I might be a wrong but I felt the need question took him by surprise.

Whitershadeofpale As a live topic in an ongoing investigation, it did need to be raised. Yes, that's how I remember your questions being worded.

I think possibly you got the cobbled answer he would have given a journalist, perhaps with the concern was that as we're the public, not a press pack per se, anyone could have asked him about the issue - a victim, a family member affected on either side of events - if you had introduced yourself and your position on the matter up front, he wouldn't have initially been caught off guard. A journalist asking the question would have a different agenda to a concerned or affected member of the public - and of course there were Press in the room, and restrictions on broadcasting certain things under active investigation or in the courts.

When he gave examples (in my earlier post) of estimates of where individual cases might have been known or reported previously but not connected, I think that's the most human answer that could have been given. Reports were out there scattered around at the time, but not connected or investigated to anyone's satisfaction, which is incredibly sad.

@WhistlingPot

Thanks DeathStar, that's helpful.

I appreciate MNHQ have to paraphrase, but it did seem his response was cleverly avoiding the question. His answer given was basically that "you can't assume everyone knew" - which is true; but the question wasn't "did everyone know?" it was "do you really believe that nobody knew?".

There's an important if subtle difference imo.

It's a shame the whole thing hasn't been put on youtube (or has it?) so we can see his answers in context, rather than snippets.

Many apols - we were indeed paraphrasing frantically throughout and the version here isn't verbatim; very sorry if we missed an important subtle distinction. We'll see if we can get the clip for you

And many thanks to all who came yesterday - hope you enjoyed it.

I agree that he appeared confused by the question. Once he recovered himself, I think he used the technique of answering the question he wanted, rather than the actual question that was asked.

OK . Afraid it's audio not video - this is purely because a rogue MNHQer was standing in front of our camera so the footage is just five minutes of the back of someone's head. Sorry.

Thanks Rowan, that helps a lot. I can see the point at the final comeback where there was an apparent direct query whether "it was known to him" (although the 'you' might have been intended as plural, i.e. meaning the government) which might have put him on a more defensive stance, but actually it was a comprehensive answer - one of the longer ones.