Clive Lewis

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address

Clive Lewis voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address' (307-171, passed)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)

Clive Lewis voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)' (104-316, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)

Clive Lewis voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)' (78-408, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)

Clive Lewis voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)' (104-317, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)

Clive Lewis voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)' (104-317, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)

Clive Lewis voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)' (104-316, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)

Clive Lewis voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)' (78-408, defeated)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address

Clive Lewis voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address' (307-171, passed)

Spoke in debate: Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

Parliamentary appearance by Clive Lewis

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

I have listened to the Minister, and some of his points were relevant, but this is not just about technicalities and lapses of judgment. This is about a wider, rotten political culture: a 30-year project where proximity to wealth and power is not a means to an end but the end goal. That is what Peter Mandelson represented. This is not just about him being the ambassador or being selected to be ambassador; he was at the heart of the political project around No. 10. That has to change. Do the Gove

Spoke in debate: Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts

Parliamentary appearance by Clive Lewis

Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts

This deal with Palantir stinks. It stank before Peter Mandelson was involved, and it stank when those now on the Opposition Benches initiated the NHS and defence contracts. Peter Thiel is an oligarch who despises democracy, and the company has had widespread allegations of human rights abuses made against it. Even the Swiss army has rejected Palantir as a platform on national security grounds. Surely, after Greenland, now is an opportunity for our Government to begin to distance themselves and p

Spoke in debate: Lord Mandelson

Parliamentary appearance by Clive Lewis

Lord Mandelson

Obviously, people here want to get to the bottom of this, in terms of the accountability of the Prime Minister and other elements in No. 10, and of course they want to get to the bottom of what Peter Mandelson has done. However, the public understand that this is not just about a number of rotten apples in the system—it is systemic. It is about those who have wealth, power and access, and how they treat young girls and women, and us, the public. They take us for mugs. Does the hon. Lady believe

Spoke in debate: Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Parliamentary appearance by Clive Lewis

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman. Conservative Members always seem to portray this as an individual moral failing. That is how they see welfare, when actually it is about a collective insurance against economic risk. That is how we see it. You see it as a moral issue; we see it as an economic one.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

We on the Labour Benches at least understand the historical consistency:186 years ago the Tories made economic arguments against stopping children being sent up chimneys, and 186 years later they are making the same arguments, about stopping children being put into poverty. Same old Tories, nearly 200 years later!

Spoke in debate: Water White Paper

Parliamentary appearance by Clive Lewis

Water White Paper

After 18 months and an independent inquiry, the Government’s answer is more regulation, not enforcing the law as it is. Not one water company has lost its licence, yet we think that more bureaucracy and more regulation will make a difference. More bureaucracy will not fix our water. I am afraid the Secretary of State needs to know that the problem is ownership. Private monopolies with guaranteed incomes have asset-stripped, polluted rivers and paid themselves billions. Until that changes, nothin