Rennard and the Lib-Dems

[peterb]

While some nonentity in UKIP has been grabbing headlines, a greater (and more politically relevant ) story has developed with the Lib-Dems and Lord Rennard achieving a Mexican stand-off.

There is no doubt that the Lib-Dems owe a great deal of their election success to Rennard, who has worked for the party for some 20-25 years. So it is surprising that Clegg has allowed himself to be driven into a corner where either of the two outcomes will be bad - Clegg caves in and is effectively done for as a leader, or Rennard is expelled from the party, causing more division, with Clegg effectively done for as a leader - except it will take a bit longer. And we might see that scenario played out sooner than expected with the European elections round the corner.

[Saracen]

Well, what painted Clegg into the corner was, IMHO, more complex than that. First, the actual allegations behind this pre-date Clegg's leadership. Second, party structures and mechanisms, and people, seem to have tried, for years, to "manage" these claims away, bury them, to avoid damaging publicity, only to have it end up even more toxic.

Third, Cleggy couldn't really ignore the claims. He had to react. Unfortunately for him, the "independent" report produced the worst of all possible outcomes, both suggesting insufficient evidence to achieve the standard of proof party rules require while simultaneously suggesting the claims were credible and that Rennard ought to apologise.

And that LibDem internal "democracy" really means Clegg doesn't have the authority to take the sort of unilateral direct action other party leaders probably would have.

I have no notion of the truth, or otherwise, of the claims, and as a forum admin, require anyone posting views on that to do so very carefully, with one eye on defamation laws. Tgat said, the reports of what happened, and that little of that report that has been made public, lead me to feel that, first, the women certainly consider themselves harrassed even if Rennard doesn't agree, and Clegg considers the allegations serious enough, and cfedible enough, that he cannot just ignore it.

I feel a bit sorry for Clegg. Seems like he just happened to be the one left standing in the game of swapping party leader musical chairs when this particular stinkbomb blew up. It's largely not of his making, but he's holding the "buck stops here" baton at the wrong time.

[kalniel]

Also messy with regards legal effects of apologising - if he offers an apology for his actions then maybe it could be taken as admission of actions which he denies. If he offers an apology for perceived offence whilst denying actions then it might be considered a non-apology.

[peterb]

There was a discussion on R4 this morning about apology and non-apology.

Rennard feels he has done nothing wrong, a lawyer claims that those making the complaint are credible. English law holds the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, so unless there is a tribunal or other judicial hearing where both sides can be examined and cross examined, this will linger - although Rennard may take matters to a head if he carries out his threat to take legal action if he is expelled from the party.

[opel80uk]

Let’s be honest, Nick Clegg was a goner, electoral wise, before these allegations blew up in his face.

But, If Clegg was aware of these allegations a year ago, why is it that when the investigation was set up, no one anticipated this ‘worse case’ outcome? Why was a push not made to either have the various sides agree the outcome was binding with regards to party membership, whip etc, or to have the party rules changed so that it wouldn’t have been so difficult to expel Rennard? I mean, it wouldn’t necessarily take a criminal offence for me to be removed from my job if a tribunal found me guilty of harassment, so why should this be any different?

[HalloweenJack]

don't worry - MSP bill walker is a convicted wife beater..... so a serial pervert is tame....



wonder if he was mates with jimmy Saville.


the last man to enter the houses of parliament with honest intentions was guy Fawkes

[Saracen]

Let’s be honest, Nick Clegg was a goner, electoral wise, before these allegations blew up in his face.

But, If Clegg was aware of these allegations a year ago, why is it that when the investigation was set up, no one anticipated this ‘worse case’ outcome? Why was a push not made to either have the various sides agree the outcome was binding with regards to party membership, whip etc, or to have the party rules changed so that it wouldn’t have been so difficult to expel Rennard? I mean, it wouldn’t necessarily take a criminal offence for me to be removed from my job if a tribunal found me guilty of harassment, so why should this be any different?

On the first line, maybe, but both the LibDems collectively and Clegg personally seem to be electorally resistant to loss than I'd have expected. Holding a seat in a by-election when the sitting MP has gone to jail, amid huge publicity, for perverting the course of justice, and doing it in the shadow of the Great Tuition Fee Promise Fiasco, is quite astonishing.

The Euro election results will be .... interesting. Can the LibDems hold? Can, as they claim, UKIP do really well, perhaps even coming first? If they can, and I wouldn't entirely dismiss the possibility, then it sets UKIP up as at least potentially credible enough to just possibly he a viable, third, "protest" party, and that might eat into traditional protest vites, many of which go (or used to) to the LDs.

As for the "inquiry", I keep hearing different accounts of exactly what that was. One account is that it is merely a "report" from a lawyer hired by the LDs to consider whether adequate evidence exists for a disciplinary process to have a credible chance of a conclusive result, based on party disciplinary rules, which appear to require a criminal level of proof.

If so, it's not actually an "inquiry" at all. Certainly, some of the women complainants have said there has been no actual inquiry and that they weren't interviewed by or present evidence to the supposed "inquiry".

And even Rennard complains, not unreasonably, that he's supposed to apologise based on the results of this supposed inquiry, with being allowed to see the report.

Even the report conclusions, the very small bit that has been made public are mixed :-

1) The report apparently concludes that insufficient evudence exists to meet the required "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, but ..

2) The claims are "credible" and at least a limited apology "ought" to be offered.

Whether correctly or not, I infer from 2) that the inference intended to be drawn from that legal opinion is ....

- the case is unlikely to be proven, but he believes the women's account.

And therefore IF this "report" is indeed just a fancy form for a private legal opinion, it wasn't actually an inquiry, so the results couldn't be made binding, or even offered to be binding. Certainly, if I were a party to this, I wouldn't consider being bound by a "report" unless it was a proper inquiry, with a genuinely open and transparent process, and run by a genuinely independent party, like a High Court judge, with a published and acceptable mandate, and adequate authority.

[opel80uk]

On the first line, maybe, but both the LibDems collectively and Clegg personally seem to be electorally resistant to loss than I'd have expected. Holding a seat in a by-election when the sitting MP has gone to jail, amid huge publicity, for perverting the course of justice, and doing it in the shadow of the Great Tuition Fee Promise Fiasco, is quite astonishing.

Accepted, but that by-election vote needs to be put into context. The Conservative vote was effectively split by UKIP, with the Tories seen as flip-flopping on the EU question. The result in the by election would have almost certainly forced Cameron’s hand with regards to offering the EU referendum and If he had announced the 2015 referendum before the by election, I suspect the result would have been different. So yes, it was astonishing that the Lib Dems held the seat, but not really because of anything the Lib Dems did that was positive.

The Euro election results will be .... interesting. Can the LibDems hold? Can, as they claim, UKIP do really well, perhaps even coming first? If they can, and I wouldn't entirely dismiss the possibility, then it sets UKIP up as at least potentially credible enough to just possibly he a viable, third, "protest" party, and that might eat into traditional protest votes, many of which go (or used to) to the LDs.

The problem with UKIP is, whilst I agree that they could be a viable third party, they are a one trick pony. I suspect that Labour will be forced to offer an EU referendum in the lead up to the election, the result of which will determine UKIP’s future. A vote to stay in will effectively make them impotent; you cannot say you want to leave the EU because it is undemocratic, and then ignore the UK electorate. A vote to leave and I would expect UKIP voters to slowly move back to the Tories when it takes place.

I think the Lib Dem’s would/should be far more worried about defectors to labour come the General Election. Lib Dems presentenced themselves a viable alternative last time out, and rightly or wrongly, I don’t think that the electorate now see them as such (born out in most opinion polls). I would anticipate that Labour policy will focus on policies designed to attract the Lib Dem vote, not only just in the Lab/Lib seats but also the Con/Lab marginals.

And therefore IF this "report" is indeed just a fancy form for a private legal opinion, it wasn't actually an inquiry, so the results couldn't be made binding, or even offered to be binding. Certainly, if I were a party to this, I wouldn't consider being bound by a "report" unless it was a proper inquiry, with a genuinely open and transparent process, and run by a genuinely independent party, like a High Court judge, with a published and acceptable mandate, and adequate authority.

That’s exactly my point. It does appear that it is just a private legal opinion, so why did the Lib Dem’s allow themselves to get into this situation by not holding some form of official binding inquiry or tribunal? Surely the claims were sufficient enough for such a thing? I have no sympathy for Clegg whatsoever, because what was set up to sort these allegations smacks of trying to appease the women who are accusing whilst keeping a party big hitter (and one of the few people who may be able to save the Lib Dems come Election time) on side, regardless of whether the allegations are true or not.

[csgohan4]

The Lib Dems the fall and fall of a party.

I for one will not vote for them. The mess they made of the student fees fiasco left a bitter taste in my mouth.

[ik9000]

The Lib Dems the fall and fall of a party.

I for one will not vote for them. The mess they made of the student fees fiasco left a bitter taste in my mouth.

if that's the only problem you have with them you're doing well. Sadly the other two big parties are also worse than useless so I'm non-plussed as to who the heck I'll vote for.

[kalniel]

Sadly the other two big parties are also worse than useless so I'm non-plussed as to who the heck I'll vote for.

Well I'm incredibly 'plussed' as to who I'll vote for.. I just can't work it out yet as like you say they're doing a great job of showing me who I shouldn't vote for all by themselves.

[wasabi]

The Lib Dems the fall and fall of a party.

I for one will not vote for them. The mess they made of the student fees fiasco left a bitter taste in my mouth.

To form a coalition deals have to be made - see any other Western democracy with coalition governments (i.e. most - UK is different with first past the post elections)

Given the country was bankrupt and overspending heavily, we were coming out of a long stretch of entering dubiously legal wars, big brother ID card schemes were being considered/axed, banks were going bust/too big to fail.... etc etc etc Everyone gets hung up about a Student fees commitment that I bet very few outside the education sector actually knew about before it became a news story.

Personally I rate the coalition better than either party could have done individually. You mostly get the Conservatives tougher financial policies but with the worst rough edges whittled away by the LibDem influence. Suspect the LibDem soft / principled* edge is what Brit voters don't warm to - they want some kind of macho posturing great leader stuff. Pity.

* before someone says it, I mean in terms of wait till it has had a proper enquiry / legal process

[Saracen]

The Lib Dems the fall and fall of a party.

I for one will not vote for them. The mess they made of the student fees fiasco left a bitter taste in my mouth.

Student fees. Hmmm.

Two thoughts on that .... though, I note, as someone not paying them.

Firstly, the changes weren't as bad as made out, not least because of the way the system works, but they were EXTREMELY badly explained.

But second, and more on-track, the LibDems were hoist by their own petard. That 'pledge' will, I suspect, be used in politics courses in the future of the dangers of making pledges because you don't expect to have to live up to them. The LDs have, for years, decades even, been shooting their mouths off fairly sure in the knowledge they weren't going to end up in government and therefore have to live up to the problems their mouths got them into. At least, I hope, they've grown up a bit.

[herulach]

I can sympathise with both sides of this. Effectively he's been through a secret disciplinary process - bear in mind he didn't see the report only the findings, and because management don't like the outcome they're trying to overturn it. If it were a normal employer its a fairly clean cut constructive dismissal case.

I can also see the reason he's refusing to apologise, although an early false apology might have shut it up, it may also have inflamed matters more. Whatever you might say about politicians the lords in particular tend to be quite principled, and I can entirely sympathise with the sentiment that he's been found not to be culpable for anything, so why should he apologise.

The fact that we don't know the substance of the allegations makes most things worthless speculation. This could be anything from a clumsy chatup line whilst drunk to groping whilst bent over the photocopier.

All that being said, I don't give a fig. The sooner the whole lot blows up and we can be rid of that simpering whinger of an excuse for deputy pm the better.

[peterb]

Interesting that Rennard is threatening to sue the party though - as that could mean that the evidence will be made public - so he's either gambling that when push comes to shove, the women making the allegations won't testify, or that he is confident that the legal proceedings will exonerate him anyway, regardless of their testimony.

[Saracen]

I can sympathise with both sides of this. Effectively he's been through a secret disciplinary process - bear in mind he didn't see the report only the findings, and because management don't like the outcome they're trying to overturn it. If it were a normal employer its a fairly clean cut constructive dismissal case.

I can also see the reason he's refusing to apologise, although an early false apology might have shut it up, it may also have inflamed matters more. Whatever you might say about politicians the lords in particular tend to be quite principled, and I can entirely sympathise with the sentiment that he's been found not to be culpable for anything, so why should he apologise.

The fact that we don't know the substance of the allegations makes most things worthless speculation. This could be anything from a clumsy chatup line whilst drunk to groping whilst bent over the photocopier.

All that being said, I don't give a fig. The sooner the whole lot blows up and we can be rid of that simpering whinger of an excuse for deputy pm the better.

Erm, I can't see how the party are trying to overturn the report. What they're saying is closer to Rennard not being able to cherry-pick the bits he likes.

Don't forget, the report said (paraphrasing, obviously)

1) Insufficient evidence to meet the criminal (beyond reasonable doubt) standard of evidence - good for Rennard
2) BUT .... claims made by women are credible, and Rennard should apologise - bad for Rennard

Reading between the lines, the inference would appear to be the report author believes the accounts of the women, but doesn't feel the evidence is sufficient to PROVE it, "beyond reasonable doubt".

The suspension now is not over those allegations, directly, but that complaints have been received asserting that by refusing to implement part 2, the apology, Rennard is bringing the party into disrepute. hence, suspension pending a disciplinary inquiry ON THAT. Not on the original complaints. In other words, triggered by the fiasco over the complaints, but actually a second issue. As I Understand It.

If the "report" were actually a formal disciplinary process, and had found him not guilty, I'd agree with you. But, as I understand it, it wasn't. It appears to merely be a legal opinion, based on a review of documentary evidence, such as the complaints filed years ago. The claimants, and witnesses, apparently weren't even interviewed.

If it were a court case, it's a bit like the judge acting as judge and jury, and deciding based on the police reports, without bothering to hear actual testimony from either side.

I'm clearly only going by media reports, but while various people (mainly senior LibDems) seem to regard this as an inquiry, it seems to me it isn't anything of the sort.

What MIGHT settle this, properly, is actually a full disciplinary inquiry into these complaints, based along both the methodology and standards we would expect if such allegations had been made about a senior member of management in any commercial or business organisation. Then, at least we'd expect to see both sides able to actually present their case, and evidence, and the company can be held to account legally for ensuring proper and fair disciplinary standards are in place in the first place, and rigorously adhered to in something happens. The LibDem "process", such as it is, appears to be rather archaic, convoluted, and anything but rigorous in procedure, and more akin to a Star Chamber.