What is Lord Rennard now trying to achieve? Because his aims certainly do not seem to include the wellbeing of the Liberal Democrats.
Regardless of how he may feel about his treatment, he needs to recognise the damage that he is doing to the party for which he worked for so long. On the assumption that he is still a wellwisher of the party, he would do better to leave quietly.
Yeah, write the bullies a blank cheque... and 'the wellbeing of the Lib Dems' includes pointing out the error of their ways, and ensuring that the members' own rules are given their proper construction.
The botched and farcical attempts to keep all this quiet and low profile for years have self-evidently failed. Rennard doesn't seem too pleased that it's all coming out now, does he? Nor for that matter does Clegg, but clearly it's their problem so they either come to an 'arrangement' very soon or this will be firmly round Clegg's neck from now on.
Of course if he loses, then he would have to bear th efinancial as well as political cost.
Now that is what I call politicalbetting. And there is no such thing as a sure thing.
Webster stated that there was a less than 50% chance of a beyond reasonable doubt decision, not that there was no chance. If the LD party wants to fight, then the relavent women will have to testify. That will be a lot of dirty linen being very publically washed.
@politicshome: Lord Rennard confirms he is taking legal advice about civil action against the Lib Dems. Read full statement here http://t.co/g2RZb58WNo
So if he manages to win a large amount of money from the Lib Dems, he'll be allowed back into the party - or would causing that cost be cause for a further suspension?!
Damages would be nominal, probably. Legal costs could be significant, however. They'll capitulate before it gets that far.
And no, it would be no grounds for further disciplinary action. They'd lose again. See Tantussi v Molli [1886] et al...
I seem to remember Rod confidently telling us that legal action would result in Barack Obama not being US president. Some prophet.
I think Rod was more saying that Obama shouldnt be President as it was unconstitutional. I dont think he was ever 100% confident that the current guardians of the constitution would be as vigilant on these issues as he is. Though I do remember him getting very excited about a case in Georgia that we never heard about again but that was in 2012 when the fact that Obama was already President was probably enough to satisfy even the most ardent sceptics.
@RodCrosby Lord Rennard will get no happiness by taking legal action. He will not clear his name in the eyes of those who believe that he probably did what he was accused of, he will not advance the political cause he has supported for many years.
A better strategy would be to play a longer game. When passions have cooled all round, a way through could be found and he might well find more sympathy from more quarters, enabling a quiet return without any of the melodrama that he's stirring up, to no one's benefit except the opponents of the Lib Dems.
Of course if he loses, then he would have to bear th efinancial as well as political cost.
Now that is what I call politicalbetting. And there is no such thing as a sure thing.
Webster stated that there was a less than 50% chance of a beyond reasonable doubt decision, not that there was no chance. If the LD party wants to fight, then the relavent women will have to testify. That will be a lot of dirty linen being very publically washed.
Sorry, you know nothing of this subject. The courts are not interested in the merits of the LibDem case against Rennard. "The standards of behaviour in a club are a matter for the members themselves." They will not act as a court of appeal in relation to the facts.
Channel 4 news going to town on the Rennard thing now and even have harriet weighing in on the issue
People who think this won't impact at this point I can't help feeling are a little delusional. For the man/woman in the street here they are probably looking at this and thinking "If I did that at work and the evidence was as strong I would be collecting a P45 within a couple of weeks"
Of course if he loses, then he would have to bear th efinancial as well as political cost.
Now that is what I call politicalbetting. And there is no such thing as a sure thing.
Webster stated that there was a less than 50% chance of a beyond reasonable doubt decision, not that there was no chance. If the LD party wants to fight, then the relavent women will have to testify. That will be a lot of dirty linen being very publically washed.
Sorry, you know nothing of this subject. The courts are not interested in the merits of the LibDem case against Rennard. "The standards of behaviour in a club are a matter for the members themselves." They will not act as a court of appeal in relation to the facts.
Just the procedure...
OK, I'll bite. Presumably, Renard doesn't only have to demonstrate that the proper procedure was not followed, he also has to show that he has experienced damage as a result. Since he is still in the HoL and still paid, his financial damage is presumably nil. As for reputational damage, that was experienced prior to the withdrawal of the whip and his reputation would have been equally damaged if the whip was withdrawn or not. Can the LDs argue for nominal damages (~1p) on those grounds? I genuinely don't know the answer here.
If the LD party wants to fight, then the relavent women will have to testify. That will be a lot of dirty linen being very publically washed.
It's also vanishingly unlikely that Clegg could possibly just drop any legal action that was taken and subsequently just give in to Rennard unless he really does have a death wish for his own political fortunes. The instant legal action is instigated on either side then this gets far, far worse for both Clegg and Rennard.
In comparison, the rule of the Mob is a boring, placid affair...
It's the rule of the mob that has seen him retain the whip in the first place - if the Lib Dem peers hadnt made it clear that they would vote against removing it from him there presumably wouldnt have been a problem. What's more mob rule than that?
Lord Rennard will get no happiness by taking legal action. He will not clear his name in the eyes of those who believe that he probably did what he was accused of, he will not advance the political cause he has supported for many years. .
.. from which we can deduce that he's not trying to clear his name in the eyes of his critics, nor is he seeking to advance the political cause he has supported for many years.
That in turn makes it very tricky indeed for Nick Clegg, who seems to be powerless to do anything much, even if it were clear what to do.
It is indeed a funny old world; of all the issues the LibDems could have imploded over, this one seems almost comically unexpected.
OK, I'll bite. Presumably, Renard doesn't only have to demonstrate that the proper procedure was not followed, he also has to show that he has experienced damage as a result. Since he is still in the HoL and still paid, his financial damage is presumably nil. As for reputational damage, that was experienced prior to the withdrawal of the whip and his reputation would have been equally damaged if the whip was withdrawn or not. Can the LDs argue for nominal damages (~1p) on those grounds? I genuinely don't know the answer here.
The Court's classical answer was the proportion of the member's sub he had already paid during his wrongful suspension/expulsion. Recently they have become a bit more generous...
OK, I'll bite. Presumably, Renard doesn't only have to demonstrate that the proper procedure was not followed, he also has to show that he has experienced damage as a result. Since he is still in the HoL and still paid, his financial damage is presumably nil. As for reputational damage, that was experienced prior to the withdrawal of the whip and his reputation would have been equally damaged if the whip was withdrawn or not. Can the LDs argue for nominal damages (~1p) on those grounds? I genuinely don't know the answer here.
The classical court answer was the proportion of the member's sub he had already paid during his wrongful suspension/expulsion. Recently they have become a bit more generous...
"A leading bookmaker has suspended betting on the Queen announcing her abdication by the end of the year after a large gamble was placed in the Windsor area."
£200 is enough to shift 3/1 to 1/2? I wonder if the mystery punter was seen tying up their corgies outside the shop before entering...
If the LD party wants to fight, then the relavent women will have to testify. That will be a lot of dirty linen being very publically washed.
It's also vanishingly unlikely that Clegg could possibly just drop any legal action that was taken and subsequently just give in to Rennard unless he really does have a death wish for his own political fortunes. The instant legal action is instigated on either side then this gets far, far worse for both Clegg and Rennard.
"A leading bookmaker has suspended betting on the Queen announcing her abdication by the end of the year after a large gamble was placed in the Windsor area."
£200 is enough to shift 3/1 to 1/2? I wonder if the mystery punter was seen tying up their corgies outside the shop before entering...
Something might turn on Article 14 of the Constitution.
Rennard would probably have to exhaust the internal appeals procedure before being entertained by the Courts...
He may well argue that the party has so flagrantly disregarded the rules that he is entitled to interim relief until the internal procedures have been exhausted.
@rcs1000 - well put. I've always thought of politics from c.1924 to c.1974 to have been the interests of labour (Labour) vs. those of property (Conservative).
I admit I am struggling to see how the two parties will maintain their hegemony in the long-term.
The only thing that props them up is fear of the other. When I attempt to persuade Conservative friends to swear allegiance to the Dark Lord, I rarely get the response that I'm wrong. Merely that voting UKIP would let Miliband in. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the Left who have no time for Labour, but vote for them to keep the Conservatives out.
Really, though, neither party can keep going out with such hollowed-out constituency organisations, and so little loyalty among the general public. Either, we'll see a 1922-24 blowout, or PR will be brought in.
Would either prevent further hollowing out of overall party membership? The problem is wider than that of the existing parties.
In "Big Bang Localism" Simon Jenkins blamed centralisation of power. People stopped getting involved in local politics, because they were no longer able to change things.
Lord Rennard will get no happiness by taking legal action. He will not clear his name in the eyes of those who believe that he probably did what he was accused of, he will not advance the political cause he has supported for many years. .
.. from which we can deduce that he's not trying to clear his name in the eyes of his critics, nor is he seeking to advance the political cause he has supported for many years.
That in turn makes it very tricky indeed for Nick Clegg, who seems to be powerless to do anything much, even if it were clear what to do.
It is indeed a funny old world; of all the issues the LibDems could have imploded over, this one seems almost comically unexpected.
I think you're overanalysing. We're seeing an emotional response here from Lord Rennard. He needs some good advice and I don't think he's getting it.
Something might turn on Article 14 of the Constitution.
Rennard would probably have to exhaust the internal appeals procedure before being entertained by the Courts...
He may well argue that the party has so flagrantly disregarded the rules that he is entitled to interim relief until the internal procedures have been exhausted.
Yes, I think if the decision is so bad it could not be cured by internal appeal, he can go straight to M'Lud...
What exactly does a victory look like for Rennard?
He retains the whip in a party which he has split and of which a significant number of members find him distasteful to say the least? How is that a good place to be for him? Personally as well as or rather than politically?
I'm afraid, analagously to Mitchell, he must just suck it up and realise that that's politics.
He would do better to quietly and conscientiously devote himself to some particular political or social cause until he is deemed to have completed his penitence.
Channel 4 news going to town on the Rennard thing now and even have harriet weighing in on the issue
People who think this won't impact at this point I can't help feeling are a little delusional. For the man/woman in the street here they are probably looking at this and thinking "If I did that at work and the evidence was as strong I would be collecting a P45 within a couple of weeks"
And probably get instant dismissal, subject to nothing.
Technically , there is nothing to stop Lord Rennard being given / accepting the Party Whip in the House Of Lords whether he is a member of the party or not . Lord Alderdice , for example takes the Lib Dem whip although he is not a party member . He is a member of the NI Alliance Party .
Technically , there is nothing to stop Lord Rennard being given / accepting the Party Whip in the House Of Lords whether he is a member of the party or not . Lord Alderdice , for example takes the Lib Dem whip although he is not a party member . He is a member of the NI Alliance Party .
Yes, but that is a long-standing special exception, I think. They view each other as "sister parties."
"A leading bookmaker has suspended betting on the Queen announcing her abdication by the end of the year after a large gamble was placed in the Windsor area."
£200 is enough to shift 3/1 to 1/2? I wonder if the mystery punter was seen tying up their corgies outside the shop before entering...
Abdication would be quite the turn around from the previous supposed position of HM, and her apparent character on ideas of faith and duty. What about odds on not abdicating but setting up a regency? A slight but important difference if she were to go the Pope Benedict route of not being physically or mentally up to the task, but not thinking it right to stop beign head of state.
"A leading bookmaker has suspended betting on the Queen announcing her abdication by the end of the year after a large gamble was placed in the Windsor area."
£200 is enough to shift 3/1 to 1/2? I wonder if the mystery punter was seen tying up their corgies outside the shop before entering...
Abdication would be quite the turn around from the previous supposed position of HM, and her apparent character on ideas of faith and duty. What about odds on not abdicating but setting up a regency? A slight but important difference if she were to go the Pope Benedict route of not being physically or mentally up to the task, but not thinking it right to stop beign head of state.
It would probably require an Act of parliament, I don't think such a regency is compatible with the previous acts.
A regency would be better. I know that European Royals abdicate to retire, but the Queen will remember the abdication crisis of 1936, and surely that will colour her views.
Either a regency or abdication would set a precedent that Charles could follow in time...
"A leading bookmaker has suspended betting on the Queen announcing her abdication by the end of the year after a large gamble was placed in the Windsor area."
£200 is enough to shift 3/1 to 1/2? I wonder if the mystery punter was seen tying up their corgies outside the shop before entering...
Abdication would be quite the turn around from the previous supposed position of HM, and her apparent character on ideas of faith and duty. What about odds on not abdicating but setting up a regency? A slight but important difference if she were to go the Pope Benedict route of not being physically or mentally up to the task, but not thinking it right to stop beign head of state.
It would probably require an Act of parliament, I don't think such a regency is compatible with the previous acts.
"A leading bookmaker has suspended betting on the Queen announcing her abdication by the end of the year after a large gamble was placed in the Windsor area."
£200 is enough to shift 3/1 to 1/2? I wonder if the mystery punter was seen tying up their corgies outside the shop before entering...
Abdication would be quite the turn around from the previous supposed position of HM, and her apparent character on ideas of faith and duty. What about odds on not abdicating but setting up a regency? A slight but important difference if she were to go the Pope Benedict route of not being physically or mentally up to the task, but not thinking it right to stop beign head of state.
It would probably require an Act of parliament, I don't think such a regency is compatible with the previous acts.
"A leading bookmaker has suspended betting on the Queen announcing her abdication by the end of the year after a large gamble was placed in the Windsor area."
£200 is enough to shift 3/1 to 1/2? I wonder if the mystery punter was seen tying up their corgies outside the shop before entering...
Abdication would be quite the turn around from the previous supposed position of HM, and her apparent character on ideas of faith and duty. What about odds on not abdicating but setting up a regency? A slight but important difference if she were to go the Pope Benedict route of not being physically or mentally up to the task, but not thinking it right to stop beign head of state.
It would probably require an Act of parliament, I don't think such a regency is compatible with the previous acts.
"A leading bookmaker has suspended betting on the Queen announcing her abdication by the end of the year after a large gamble was placed in the Windsor area."
£200 is enough to shift 3/1 to 1/2? I wonder if the mystery punter was seen tying up their corgies outside the shop before entering...
Abdication would be quite the turn around from the previous supposed position of HM, and her apparent character on ideas of faith and duty. What about odds on not abdicating but setting up a regency? A slight but important difference if she were to go the Pope Benedict route of not being physically or mentally up to the task, but not thinking it right to stop beign head of state.
It would probably require an Act of parliament, I don't think such a regency is compatible with the previous acts.
I note from your link that Her Majesty would need to reign until 17 October 2034 (on which date she would be 108 years and 179 days) in order to become the longest reigning monarch in world history.
On that day she would surpass Sobhuza II, who reigned as Paramount Chief and later King of Swaziland from 10 December 1899 to 21 August 1982, becoming Paramount Chief at the age of 4 months upon the death of his father.
Are any leading bookmakers taking bets on Her Majesty achieving this record?
Or would I need to pay them £200 to get the odds and the bet published in a leading newspaper?
"A leading bookmaker has suspended betting on the Queen announcing her abdication by the end of the year after a large gamble was placed in the Windsor area."
£200 is enough to shift 3/1 to 1/2? I wonder if the mystery punter was seen tying up their corgies outside the shop before entering...
Abdication would be quite the turn around from the previous supposed position of HM, and her apparent character on ideas of faith and duty. What about odds on not abdicating but setting up a regency? A slight but important difference if she were to go the Pope Benedict route of not being physically or mentally up to the task, but not thinking it right to stop beign head of state.
It's questionable whether a permanent regency is possible under the terms of Section 2 of the Regency Act 1937 which treats the need for a regency as being temporary.
Comments
The botched and farcical attempts to keep all this quiet and low profile for years have self-evidently failed. Rennard doesn't seem too pleased that it's all coming out now, does he? Nor for that matter does Clegg, but clearly it's their problem so they either come to an 'arrangement' very soon or this will be firmly round Clegg's neck from now on.
Now that is what I call politicalbetting. And there is no such thing as a sure thing.
Webster stated that there was a less than 50% chance of a beyond reasonable doubt decision, not that there was no chance. If the LD party wants to fight, then the relavent women will have to testify. That will be a lot of dirty linen being very publically washed.
A better strategy would be to play a longer game. When passions have cooled all round, a way through could be found and he might well find more sympathy from more quarters, enabling a quiet return without any of the melodrama that he's stirring up, to no one's benefit except the opponents of the Lib Dems.
Just the procedure...
People who think this won't impact at this point I can't help feeling are a little delusional. For the man/woman in the street here they are probably looking at this and thinking
"If I did that at work and the evidence was as strong I would be collecting a P45 within a couple of weeks"
Harman attacking both the Lib Dems and Rennard at the same time ?
In comparison, the rule of the Mob is a boring, placid affair...
That in turn makes it very tricky indeed for Nick Clegg, who seems to be powerless to do anything much, even if it were clear what to do.
It is indeed a funny old world; of all the issues the LibDems could have imploded over, this one seems almost comically unexpected.
£200 is enough to shift 3/1 to 1/2? I wonder if the mystery punter was seen tying up their corgies outside the shop before entering...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/10584478/Betting-suspended-on-Queen-stepping-down.html
And hearing the incidents in court may bring others out to testify.
If Rennard wants revenge, he should first dig two (political) graves.
http://news.sky.com/story/1198035/lord-rennard-statement-in-full
Rennard would probably have to exhaust the internal appeals procedure before being entertained by the Courts...
He retains the whip in a party which he has split and of which a significant number of members find him distasteful to say the least? How is that a good place to be for him? Personally as well as or rather than politically?
I'm afraid, analagously to Mitchell, he must just suck it up and realise that that's politics.
He would do better to quietly and conscientiously devote himself to some particular political or social cause until he is deemed to have completed his penitence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25814537
ie If she abdicated just after breaking the record that might look bad as if she had held on to get the record.
So the gracious thing would be to abdicate before she breaks the record.
Then surely first half of next year is out due to the GE - which would mean this year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_in_Britain_by_length_of_reign
For a bit...
Either a regency or abdication would set a precedent that Charles could follow in time...
On that day she would surpass Sobhuza II, who reigned as Paramount Chief and later King of Swaziland from 10 December 1899 to 21 August 1982, becoming Paramount Chief at the age of 4 months upon the death of his father.
Are any leading bookmakers taking bets on Her Majesty achieving this record?
Or would I need to pay them £200 to get the odds and the bet published in a leading newspaper?