Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » I think Clegg will survive the Rennard crisis but if he doe

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited January 2014 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » I think Clegg will survive the Rennard crisis but if he doesn’t watch out for Norman Lamb, the LD John Major

I’ve been getting a number of requests for my view on whether Clegg will survive the Rennard crisis and what my thoughts are on a likely successor.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    I have been thinking in the last few days that the outcome of this battle / crisis / situation will be political (i.e. that Clegg will win and that Rennard will be out) rather than legal (i.e. that Rennard will be cleared and re-instated) because the elected element will triumph over the unelected - regardless of the fact that Rennard has been wronged by false accusations and by an ultra-vires demand for a fake apology. Who stays in the party depends on who can get on with each other, not on who is right or wrong about specific things.

    Therefore Clegg's position will be strengthened (even though he is bang out of order) and the question of leadership change will not arise.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Norman Lamb is an anagram of B normal, man
  • John's take rings true, which leaves the question what will Clegg and Co. Having been triumphant, have left?

    Some of the longest standing donors, party activists and supporters (including in the business community) are looking at this and deciding to 'take a break for a while'. These are people who, quite reasonably in my opinion, take a pragmatic view which is nevertheless likely to significantly impact on, for instance, the Euro elections.

    That does not include, of course, those for whom this crisis has become a crisis of conscience. leading them to conclude that the party is simply not a place where people who believe in due process, as a principal, should be.

    The bitterness engendered by these events will handicap the party for years to come. Reducing the ability to win by-elections, to put it mildly, which those of us who have been around for a long time know means the party is in deep trouble.

    From a betting perspective, a radically reduced Liberal Democrat presence in the Commons after the next election must surely make a Labour victory more likely does it not?

    Finally, if the UK's unashamedly pro European party is reduced to, say, a third of its current size in the commons, It's ability to resist the drive to 'Brexit' must also be reduced.

    A butterflies wings and all that.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    This doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would force Clegg into a rushed resignation, but I suppose it might increase the case for him to stand down towards the end of the parliament.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    OT, for people interested in The Future, I made this:
    http://www.coindesk.com/reality-keys-bitcoins-third-party-guarantor-contracts/

    From the betting point of view the effect will be like having an automated Peter the Punter, except that:
    - It doesn't need to hold money for you to prevent the other party from welching.
    - You could still get the money without it given the cooperation of the other party.
    - It doesn't need to know who you are.
    - It doesn't need to know anything about your bet.
  • I thought the Lib Dems above all else believed in the rule of law. Will they be putting in their next manifesto that people found not guilty in court have to apologise to the people they have been found not guilty of committing acts against? If the libdems no longer believe in the rule of law, exactly what is the point of them?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    I thought the Lib Dems above all else believed in the rule of law. Will they be putting in their next manifesto that people found not guilty in court have to apologise to the people they have been found not guilty of committing acts against? If the libdems no longer believe in the rule of law, exactly what is the point of them?

    I am not sure where you got the LibDem "rule of law" idea from.

    You could check with Michael Brown for more details if required?

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/01/lib-dem-donor-michael-brown-jail
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    Surely Clegg's best bet now is to tell Bridget Harris, the woman who, according to some at least sources, is threatening to sue to stop messing about and either do so or shut up. She should at least state that she is consulting a firm of solicitors, which, AFAIK, she hasn't yet done.
    If, as it appears, she's a LD supporter, then she's doing the party no favours.

    To be fair, Rennard has said something like "If I have upset anyone I'm sorry".
  • Norman Lamb will remain loyal to Nick Clegg. The two are inseparable in this coalition. Since day one he has supported the Tories and attacked Labour. Indeed every coalition vote Lamb has gone along with supporting the Tories. It won't be 'nice guy' Norman who sticks the knife in.

    In fact, Lamb has been involved in the Rennard scandal himself. One of the victims confided in Norman Lamb. How he's managed to escape media attention on this when it was initially reporting in the Guardian I'm unsure.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    "Lamb, like John Major in November 1990, is not widely known"
    What??? John Major in November was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I'd say that was pretty damn well known.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469

    Surely Clegg's best bet now is to tell Bridget Harris, the woman who, according to some at least sources, is threatening to sue to stop messing about and either do so or shut up. She should at least state that she is consulting a firm of solicitors, which, AFAIK, she hasn't yet done.
    If, as it appears, she's a LD supporter, then she's doing the party no favours.

    To be fair, Rennard has said something like "If I have upset anyone I'm sorry".

    The last thing Clegg should be doing is telling a woman to shut up! That'd go down very well ...

    There should be another reason why the women are owed an apology. Some people in Rennard's camp, and some on here, accused the women of having a political campaign against him wrt the Eastleigh by-election.

    This has been proved not to be the case. That allegation should be withdrawn immediately.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    The LDs have been the party of sanctimony for 20 years - unravelling fast and often now.
  • @Charles - Re: your post in the last thread. I am up around Stuttgart and the Black Forest (lots of driving!), so can't make a drink in Munich tonight, I'm afraid.

    As for the Mittelstand and comparisons with the UK, read the following and weep. It's the Daily Mail, I know, but it rings so true:

    Selling British businesses and assets for short term shareholder value and calling it “Inward Investment” is not the answer.
    Mergers and acquisitions are no match for organic growth strategies; neither is paying the largest dividends as a percentage of profits of all developed economies.
    The UK has an abundance of entrepreneurs but cannot emulate the Mittelstand – the small and medium businesses that are the backbone of the German economy.
    All too often starved of adequate bank finance, those that make it over the first hurdles are soon driven into the arms of private equity or the stock market and too many are swallowed up and disappear.
    Lord Bamford, who chairs JCB, his family firm, said to me not long ago: ‘If my Dad or I had gone to the stock market for money, we would not be here any more.’
    His words should haunt British politicians. If the UK wants to reduce its dependence on the City and get properly into the international race and not with an arm tied behind its back, it should do something about growing more SMEs into JCBs. It’s the real economy, stupid!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-2542232/Will-British-economy-overtake-Germany-Pigs-fly.html#ixzz2r0xiuf77

    Your family firm is the exception not the rule. We need a lot more like yours, but the way things work in the UK does not encourage it.

  • I can't see how Clegg would have to resign unless there is some Shocking New Revelation that he was somehow involved. Politically this is embarrassing rather than fatal. And on suspending Rennard on a charge of bringing the party into disrepute, again that's a political judgement for the leader to make so I struggle with where Rennard could sue the party.

    However let's step back from the detail. For this to have become a political crisis is an appalling failure of Cleggs leadership, which seemed desperate for the whole thing to quietly go away. Anyway, bringing the party into disrepute. A party which explicitly lied to the electorate and conspired internally to do so, which lied to its own party members about its intentions to do so, which has seen year on year collapses in votes which has collapsed local representation so that LibDems have gone from being a substantial minority on a council's ruling group to having no councillors in 3 years, with a corresponding collapse in party members and an electoral strategy for the general election which reportedly resembles siege defence of their remaining bastions.

    Forget Rennard, shouldn't Nick Clegg suspend Nick Clegg for bringing the party into disrepute?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    All we need now is for a female researcher or two to announce that staff at Channel 4 had behaved inappropriately.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    FPT

    RodCrosby said:

    Oh, and one for Bloggers, Journos and Newspapers, etc...

    Describing an individual as "expelled", "suspended", etc when subsequently the individual succeeds in having the domestic tribunal's verdict overturned as void, may leave the publishers open to a suit for defamation.

    See Birne v National Sporting League Ltd (1957)

    Could make MacAlpine look like a kid's teaparty...

    Reported in The Times (11 April 1957). How on earth did you find that precedent?
    With some difficulty. But I knew that where there was a wrong, there must be a remedy.

    The wrong was that after Round I of my legal adventures, and bringing the bad news to my dumbstruck opponents that they must bear the entire costs personally, they were reduced to writing a begging letter to the whole membership.

    Unfortunately, they couldn't resist filling it with malicious rubbish, such as

    I had been expelled [nope, I had been wrongfully expelled, as you have just agreed in a court order]
    I had conspired to injure the club by going to law. [Nope, I sued named individuals, not the club, you left me with no option, you were told in advance, you could have behaved differently, settled earlier, etc]
    I was continuing to 'threaten the club' with further legal action. [Nope, see above, Neminem laedit qui jure suo utitur]

    So my libel lawyer wrote to them that if they didn't circulate another letter withdrawing and apologising for these malicious falsehoods they would be doing the same at the High Court in the Strand, with the usual consequences...
    Oh, and there was a four figure bill attached to his letter.

    They left me alone at that point. ;-)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,016
    I must say that I am perplexed by the Webster conclusions in relation to this matter which seem to have done the party few favours. He seems, so far as we can tell without the report, to have found the complaints of the women "broadly credible" but concluded that there is insufficient evidence to "convict" beyond a reasonable doubt.

    In Scotland because of the need for corroboration we developed what is known as the Moorov doctrine. In simple terms this means that if various complainants allege that the same modus operandi is used on various occasions then they can corroborate each other and allow a conviction.

    If the 4 women in this case were "broadly credible" then the fact that they were apparently all alleging the same mode of behaviour should have been sufficient to find the charges against Rennard proven. If they were not then the apologies issue is completely moot. It appears to me that Webster's reluctance to reach a conclusion one way or another (possibly because of the threat of legal challenge) has caused this mess.

    Lord Rennard has never been charged by the criminal authorites with anything but there is a lot of behaviour that is not acceptable in a work or social activity that falls short of the level of seriousness that is required by the criminal law. I am in no position at all to judge how "broadly credible" the women were but those that were tasked with this have failed to do their job one way or another.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited January 2014
    Best wishes to Ozzie and Ricky - hope they and their family members are all ok?

    On thread - surely it's open for Opik?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    'In a crisis go for the grey haired man.'

    That's right. Just like the Tories went for Douglas Hurd.
  • Alternative view is nearly 90% want to stay in the same job after 5 years...

    Lord Ashcroft‏@LordAshcroft47 mins
    Jessica Lee MP steps down: 11 per cent of Tory women elected in 2010 have decided to leave Parliament http://bit.ly/1f7Xei4
  • I thought the Lib Dems above all else believed in the rule of law. Will they be putting in their next manifesto that people found not guilty in court have to apologise to the people they have been found not guilty of committing acts against? If the libdems no longer believe in the rule of law, exactly what is the point of them?

    This post is either ignorant or mischievous. I have served on a jury that tried a man accused of exactly what Rennard is accused of. There were two charges, one of which we convicted him of and the other we acquitted him of. We acquitted him because the prosecution had not, in our opinion, made out its case - not because we believed him to be spotless of all sin.

    The possession of power - or even merely opportunity - is simply too much of a temptation for some men. And the criminal law is a blunt instrument, made blunter by those who suppose verdicts are findings of fact.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    Mental health my@rse:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2543082/Kettering-General-Hospital-refuses-release-report-girl-17-died-routine-operation-endanger-mental-health-staff.html

    The solution is simple: the report should be anonymised. And the management who made the decision not to release the report, on the face of it, should be retrained or fired.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited January 2014
    As political anoraks, for myself I prefer a cape, we at PB tend to micro analyse political issues to the nth degree. And why not as it may influence betting on political futures.

    However for the great unwashed - all non PBers - I would suggest the issue now broadly comes down to Clegg asking Rennard to apologize for any unwitting poor behaviour toward the women concerned. Is this a bad position for Clegg to hold, I'd have thought not ? .... and as the perhaps future Broxtowe MP on the previous thread noted Rennardgate has seen a 3 point YouGov bounce for the LibDems.

    Talk of Clegg resigning is ridiculously fanciful. From the start of the Coalition pundits have completely underestimated the determination of Clegg and Cameron to see this project through to May 2015 and both men have endured hits and had to negotiate the tricky waters of two diverse parties working together. To my mind it's been remarkable how solid the government has been.

    As for Norman Lamb, he's an excellent constituency MP and thoughtful politician who's been extremely loyal to Clegg and the Coalition but he's most unlikely to be a serious contender to succeed Clegg.

    ........................................

    @fitalass at 1251am

    Noted and agreed. Apologies I didn't reply early as I was in the land of worthy nodders.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    RodCrosby said:

    'In a crisis go for the grey haired man.'

    That's right. Just like the Tories went for Douglas Hurd.

    Although, to be fair, John Major was quite grey, even in 1990.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited January 2014
    @DavidL

    Webster misdirected himself on several levels.

    He appeared to apply the wrong test. He actually found OTBOP for Rennard, but seemed to dress it up as the exact opposite.

    He had no business, as Prosecutor, purporting to make findings of fact (acting as a Judge.)

    He had no business directing Rennard to do anything (and listening to him last night he seemed to back-pedal, leaving the LDs latest disciplinary actions sunk at the very moment of launch)
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    rcs1000 said:

    RodCrosby said:

    'In a crisis go for the grey haired man.'

    That's right. Just like the Tories went for Douglas Hurd.

    Although, to be fair, John Major was quite grey, even in 1990.
    I think John Major was grey from the very moment he left the womb :

    "Oh mother that was a quite remarkable experience, remarkable and do you know I feel in years to come I may recount this journey from the rear seat of a motor car .... quite remarkable ... any news of the test match ?"

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    'For Lord Rennard to be expelled from the party for refusing to apologise for something he maintains he has never done and which has never been proved against him really would be an injustice. Democracy is messy. But rules and safeguards should not be overridden for political expediency.'
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lord-rennard-analysis-a-battle-between-rules-and-political-expediency-9073337.html
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    Clegg's not going anywhere. The tougher he sounds on Rennard the better it will play to LDs and non-LDs alike. Most unfortunately just a sniff of that kind of thing is not going to gain much sympathy right now with seemingly every BBC legend of yore now in the dock over alleged sexual offences.

    As I asked last night, though, what exactly does a victory for Rennard look like? He stays in a party of which a significant number of members loathe him?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,962
    Good morning, everyone.

    Bah, Berdych beat Ferrer. Maybe I shouldn't back Spaniards anymore.
  • TOPPING said:

    Clegg's not going anywhere. The tougher he sounds on Rennard the better it will play to LDs and non-LDs alike. Most unfortunately just a sniff of that kind of thing is not going to gain much sympathy right now with seemingly every BBC legend of yore now in the dock over alleged sexual offences.

    As I asked last night, though, what exactly does a victory for Rennard look like? He stays in a party of which a significant number of members loathe him?

    Well said that man.

    Each of the parties has now had three "scandals" that have not made the blindest bit of difference to VI, no matter how much those on here scream about it and wish it to be so?

    Anyone remember Falkirk? Ashcroft?

    Thought not.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,779

    Alternative view is nearly 90% want to stay in the same job after 5 years...

    Lord Ashcroft‏@LordAshcroft47 mins
    Jessica Lee MP steps down: 11 per cent of Tory women elected in 2010 have decided to leave Parliament http://bit.ly/1f7Xei4

    5 years is currently the longest time I have been in one job... It's also perfectly natural to take up a position, and then decide you want to do different things, or have different priorities after a few years.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited January 2014
    What Ashcroft scandal ? Utter piffle.
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    JackW said:


    "Oh mother that was a quite remarkable experience, remarkable and do you know I feel in years to come I may recount this journey from the rear seat of a motor car .... quite remarkable ... any news of the test match ?"

    how did you get hold of the edwina tapes?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @dugarbandier

    Naughty !!
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    @TOPPING

    Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
    Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
    Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
    'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
    But he that filches from me my good name
    Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed.

    Othello, Act 3, Scene 3
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    RodCrosby said:

    @TOPPING

    Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
    Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
    Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
    'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
    But he that filches from me my good name
    Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed.

    Othello, Act 3, Scene 3

    yeah well that didn't end too well for the Moor now did it...
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,565
    I haven't commented anywhere on this as I haven't had the stomach but a couple of thoughts:

    1-the threat to Clegg's leadership would have been if he'd gone outside the rules and dismissed Rennard, suspended him personally, or taken legal action. Clegg has followed LD rules however daft and that's why he is safe.

    2-Rennard would resign if he had a shred of common sense; there is no way back and it's best for him now let alone anyone else. CR will be persona non grata in local parties across the country.

    3-in my view Tim Farron has had a bad war this time. As president he's the link between the leadership and membership, and he's failed to prevent civil war this week. First email to members was yesterday, far far too late. I'm less likely to vote for him as leader now.

    4-Norman Lamb could well be the choice of grey suits, but a revolting party won't listen to the suits at the moment and there would be a contested leadership if it came to it. Not sure Norman would do very well there, probably because he'd actually make a good leader.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Alternative view is nearly 90% want to stay in the same job after 5 years...

    Lord Ashcroft‏@LordAshcroft47 mins
    Jessica Lee MP steps down: 11 per cent of Tory women elected in 2010 have decided to leave Parliament http://bit.ly/1f7Xei4

    5 years is currently the longest time I have been in one job... It's also perfectly natural to take up a position, and then decide you want to do different things, or have different priorities after a few years.
    Member of Parliament ought perhaps to be a calling, a vocation, not an extended gap year.

    At party level, it does suggest a certain carelessness in the selection process. It may also be that Cameron's reluctance to reshuffle has come home to roost. If backbenchers see no hope of promotion, then £60k for a job with no prospects starts to seem like a life sentence for anyone with talent.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469

    TOPPING said:

    Clegg's not going anywhere. The tougher he sounds on Rennard the better it will play to LDs and non-LDs alike. Most unfortunately just a sniff of that kind of thing is not going to gain much sympathy right now with seemingly every BBC legend of yore now in the dock over alleged sexual offences.

    As I asked last night, though, what exactly does a victory for Rennard look like? He stays in a party of which a significant number of members loathe him?

    Well said that man.

    Each of the parties has now had three "scandals" that have not made the blindest bit of difference to VI, no matter how much those on here scream about it and wish it to be so?

    Anyone remember Falkirk? Ashcroft?

    Thought not.
    Ashcroft wasn't a scandal: it was an attempted smear. As can be seen from the way he has been quickly rehabilitated.

    Falkirk, on the other hand, was a first-rate scandal that shows that Labour is the *real* nasty party. I mean, it almost took down a massive industrial concern and employer.
  • Alternative view is nearly 90% want to stay in the same job after 5 years...

    Lord Ashcroft‏@LordAshcroft47 mins
    Jessica Lee MP steps down: 11 per cent of Tory women elected in 2010 have decided to leave Parliament http://bit.ly/1f7Xei4

    5 years is currently the longest time I have been in one job... It's also perfectly natural to take up a position, and then decide you want to do different things, or have different priorities after a few years.
    Well said - Exactly my point.
  • TOPPING said:

    Clegg's not going anywhere. The tougher he sounds on Rennard the better it will play to LDs and non-LDs alike. Most unfortunately just a sniff of that kind of thing is not going to gain much sympathy right now with seemingly every BBC legend of yore now in the dock over alleged sexual offences.

    As I asked last night, though, what exactly does a victory for Rennard look like? He stays in a party of which a significant number of members loathe him?

    Well said that man.

    Each of the parties has now had three "scandals" that have not made the blindest bit of difference to VI, no matter how much those on here scream about it and wish it to be so?

    Anyone remember Falkirk? Ashcroft?

    Thought not.
    Ashcroft wasn't a scandal: it was an attempted smear. As can be seen from the way he has been quickly rehabilitated.

    Falkirk, on the other hand, was a first-rate scandal that shows that Labour is the *real* nasty party. I mean, it almost took down a massive industrial concern and employer.
    Well that is just your own biases talking. Labourites would say Ashcroft was a scandal, Conservatives not. None of the three are scandals in the classic sense - insofar as the only people scandalised by them are a handful of political geeks.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,962
    Quite so, Mr. Jessop.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    2015 General Election ARSE "JackW Dozen" Announcement :

    Northampton North has been added to the previously selected Broxtowe and Watford for the "JackW Dozen" - 13 marginal seats that will help determine the result of the 2015 GE :

    Northampton North 2010 Result :

    Con 13,735 .. 34.1% .. +4.4 .. Michael Ellis

    Lab 11,799 .. 29.3% .. −9.4 .. Sally Keeble

    LD 11,250 .. 27.9% .. +1.0 .. Andrew Simpson
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    edited January 2014

    Alternative view is nearly 90% want to stay in the same job after 5 years...

    Lord Ashcroft‏@LordAshcroft47 mins
    Jessica Lee MP steps down: 11 per cent of Tory women elected in 2010 have decided to leave Parliament http://bit.ly/1f7Xei4

    5 years is currently the longest time I have been in one job... It's also perfectly natural to take up a position, and then decide you want to do different things, or have different priorities after a few years.
    It is noted that all 4 Tory female MP`s leaving Parliament are from marginal seats.

    Jump before being pushed is what am thinking.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited January 2014

    TOPPING said:

    Clegg's not going anywhere. The tougher he sounds on Rennard the better it will play to LDs and non-LDs alike. Most unfortunately just a sniff of that kind of thing is not going to gain much sympathy right now with seemingly every BBC legend of yore now in the dock over alleged sexual offences.

    As I asked last night, though, what exactly does a victory for Rennard look like? He stays in a party of which a significant number of members loathe him?

    Well said that man.

    Each of the parties has now had three "scandals" that have not made the blindest bit of difference to VI, no matter how much those on here scream about it and wish it to be so?

    Anyone remember Falkirk? Ashcroft?

    Thought not.
    Falkirk was never going anywhere with the public, despite the best efforts of Tory astroturfers. Vice versa for Ashcroft. Falkirk was one faction screwing another and everyone assumes rich people have got a few quid tucked out of sight of the taxman anyway.

    What makes Rennard different is the gender politics: it might play badly with lady voters and LibDem activists.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Polly’s 2p on Rennard – and her solution is ‘women-only shortlists and quotas’. Go figure..!

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/21/lord-rennard-why-sexual-harassment-matters?CMP=twt_gu
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626

    TOPPING said:

    Clegg's not going anywhere. The tougher he sounds on Rennard the better it will play to LDs and non-LDs alike. Most unfortunately just a sniff of that kind of thing is not going to gain much sympathy right now with seemingly every BBC legend of yore now in the dock over alleged sexual offences.

    As I asked last night, though, what exactly does a victory for Rennard look like? He stays in a party of which a significant number of members loathe him?

    Well said that man.

    Each of the parties has now had three "scandals" that have not made the blindest bit of difference to VI, no matter how much those on here scream about it and wish it to be so?

    Anyone remember Falkirk? Ashcroft?

    Thought not.
    Ashcroft wasn't a scandal: it was an attempted smear. As can be seen from the way he has been quickly rehabilitated.

    Falkirk, on the other hand, was a first-rate scandal that shows that Labour is the *real* nasty party. I mean, it almost took down a massive industrial concern and employer.
    Well that is just your own biases talking. Labourites would say Ashcroft was a scandal, Conservatives not. None of the three are scandals in the classic sense - insofar as the only people scandalised by them are a handful of political geeks.
    The Falkirk Scandal was a scandal by any serious definition of the word.

    The fact that it didn't resonate with the Labour voting population, or impact VI to any significant margin, says more about the attitude we have to the political establishment than it does about the innate scandalous nature of the incident.

    In decades past it would have signalled the end of Ed's leadership.

    I'm not saying that this particular incident was any worse than other "scandals" that have befallen other parties, but it does highlight how things have changed.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469

    TOPPING said:

    Clegg's not going anywhere. The tougher he sounds on Rennard the better it will play to LDs and non-LDs alike. Most unfortunately just a sniff of that kind of thing is not going to gain much sympathy right now with seemingly every BBC legend of yore now in the dock over alleged sexual offences.

    As I asked last night, though, what exactly does a victory for Rennard look like? He stays in a party of which a significant number of members loathe him?

    Well said that man.

    Each of the parties has now had three "scandals" that have not made the blindest bit of difference to VI, no matter how much those on here scream about it and wish it to be so?

    Anyone remember Falkirk? Ashcroft?

    Thought not.
    Ashcroft wasn't a scandal: it was an attempted smear. As can be seen from the way he has been quickly rehabilitated.

    Falkirk, on the other hand, was a first-rate scandal that shows that Labour is the *real* nasty party. I mean, it almost took down a massive industrial concern and employer.
    Well that is just your own biases talking. Labourites would say Ashcroft was a scandal, Conservatives not. None of the three are scandals in the classic sense - insofar as the only people scandalised by them are a handful of political geeks.
    Absolute rubbish. Falikirk / Grangemouth was orders of magnitude larger, involved more people, and caused your party's leader to try and fundamentally change the long-standing connection between his party and the unions (a pledge it now looks as though he might be backing down from).

    Sensible Labour supporters realised this. Stupid ones went "look, squirrel!"
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,962
    Mr. L, astroturf(ers) refers to fakes or propagandists. There was a very serious issue at Falkirk, and if it never got anywhere that was more due to the failure of the media to be competent than anything else. Intimidating people at their homes and almost causing significant economic damage to the whole country over a union's idiocy is no small matter.
  • I remember that people said the Reverend Flowers story/Co-op Bank problems would have no effect for Labour.

    The Co-operative Group is to cut its near-£1m annual donation to the Labour Party as a result of the problems at its banking arm.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10581850/Co-op-to-end-1m-annual-donation-to-Labour.html
  • Polly’s 2p on Rennard – and her solution is ‘women-only shortlists and quotas’. Go figure..!

    That piece is an absolute disgrace, and is verging on the libellous. The claim that 'all we are left with is the impression that one man's evidence seems to have carried more weight than four women complainants, sharia style' is particularly disingenuous.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469

    Mr. L, astroturf(ers) refers to fakes or propagandists. There was a very serious issue at Falkirk, and if it never got anywhere that was more due to the failure of the media to be competent than anything else. Intimidating people at their homes and almost causing significant economic damage to the whole country over a union's idiocy is no small matter.

    It amuses me that somehow Falkirk was astroturfing, yet Labour's smear of Osborne over the first-class ticket - as thoroughly debunked on several levels - was serious. Add in any other number of similar incidents, the most serious of which were McAlpine and Mitchell.

    As I've said passim, Labour is the real nasty party.
  • On topic my next Lib Dem book contains the following.

    Vince, Tim Farron, Lamb, Huhne, Carmichael and Danny Alexander.

    I have absolutely no idea what I was smoking when I backed Danny Alexander.

    I think Chris Huhne has a better chance.
  • Mr. L, astroturf(ers) refers to fakes or propagandists. There was a very serious issue at Falkirk, and if it never got anywhere that was more due to the failure of the media to be competent than anything else. Intimidating people at their homes and almost causing significant economic damage to the whole country over a union's idiocy is no small matter.

    It amuses me that somehow Falkirk was astroturfing, yet Labour's smear of Osborne over the first-class ticket - as thoroughly debunked on several levels - was serious. Add in any other number of similar incidents, the most serious of which were McAlpine and Mitchell.

    As I've said passim, Labour is the real nasty party.
    It's not quite that simple. Labour has the nasty activists (and not just in Falkirk), but the Tories pass the nasty legislation, e.g. the bedroom tax without looking to see if the smaller flats were there for people to move into.

  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782
    edited January 2014
    tpfkar said:

    I haven't commented anywhere on this as I haven't had the stomach but a couple of thoughts:

    1-the threat to Clegg's leadership would have been if he'd gone outside the rules and dismissed Rennard, suspended him personally, or taken legal action. Clegg has followed LD rules however daft and that's why he is safe.

    2-Rennard would resign if he had a shred of common sense; there is no way back and it's best for him now let alone anyone else. CR will be persona non grata in local parties across the country.

    3-in my view Tim Farron has had a bad war this time. As president he's the link between the leadership and membership, and he's failed to prevent civil war this week. First email to members was yesterday, far far too late. I'm less likely to vote for him as leader now.

    4-Norman Lamb could well be the choice of grey suits, but a revolting party won't listen to the suits at the moment and there would be a contested leadership if it came to it. Not sure Norman would do very well there, probably because he'd actually make a good leader.

    Thanks for your thoughts, and appreciate that it can't be particularly pleasant for ordinary members either way with all this dirty linen being washed in public. What are your thoughts on the impact on activists / members? Likely to be less involved / not renew membership in due course or water off a ducks back 'all parties have issues - it is now past us'?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited January 2014

    Mr. L, astroturf(ers) refers to fakes or propagandists. There was a very serious issue at Falkirk, and if it never got anywhere that was more due to the failure of the media to be competent than anything else. Intimidating people at their homes and almost causing significant economic damage to the whole country over a union's idiocy is no small matter.

    It amuses me that somehow Falkirk was astroturfing, yet Labour's smear of Osborne over the first-class ticket - as thoroughly debunked on several levels - was serious. Add in any other number of similar incidents, the most serious of which were McAlpine and Mitchell.

    As I've said passim, Labour is the real nasty party.
    It's not quite that simple. Labour has the nasty activists (and not just in Falkirk), but the Tories pass the nasty legislation, e.g. the bedroom tax without looking to see if the smaller flats were there for people to move into.

    That nasty legislation was passed with the support of the Lib Dems.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780

    Polly’s 2p on Rennard – and her solution is ‘women-only shortlists and quotas’. Go figure..!

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/21/lord-rennard-why-sexual-harassment-matters?CMP=twt_gu

    The LDs are likely to lose all of their seven current female MPs at the next GE. Five are in ultra marginals and of the remaining two, they are LD-Lab contests which doesn't bode well for the LDs. In one of these (Cardiff) Lab is the bookies favourite, and the other (Hornsey and Wood Green) has a similar margin. The LDs have selected women to contest Berwick and Hazel Grove where sitting MPs are standing down and loss of incumbency effects will put the seats at risk. I'd expect the Conservatives to retake Berwick whilst the LDs may just hold on in Hazel Grove.

    So in a scenario where the LDs might end up with 30 or so MPs - a moderate but not complete collapse - they may well have 1 or conceivably 0 female MPs.

    Could this conceivably be a party that selects female MPs on merit without putting any barriers (hidden or otherwise) in their way? Since you dismiss Toynbee's solution and suggest no alternative, you seem to think that.
  • Mark Field follows Douglas Carswell in criticizing government economic strategy:

    "The Coalition’s primary stated objective on taking office was the elimination of the UK’s structural deficit within a five-year term. In this it has palpably failed. Collectively, we are set to borrow £190bn more during the course of this parliament than planned at the time of the June 2010 emergency Budget."

    "This tying up of capital and labour in non-productive activity has engendered a false sense of security and boosted short-term employment levels, but it augurs ill in the teeth of fierce global competition in the decades ahead."

    "A sustainable household recovery cannot feasibly emerge from a diet of never-ending cheap credit and a new housing boom. Whilst it may be politically canny to shower more future public spending on pensioners in preference to investing in younger voters, it is not the route towards a more competitive economy. Indeed it has been a long-held fear of mine that the most talented of our younger generation will react to their raw deal simply by leaving these shores, probably never to return."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/10583026/Ultra-low-interest-rates-carry-a-cost-and-its-starting-to-rack-up.html

    If the MP for the City and Westminster can see the problems it suggests the Osborne cheerleaders are being willfully blind.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    Polly’s 2p on Rennard – and her solution is ‘women-only shortlists and quotas’. Go figure..!

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/21/lord-rennard-why-sexual-harassment-matters?CMP=twt_gu

    Could this conceivably be a party that selects female MPs on merit without putting any barriers (hidden or otherwise) in their way? Since you dismiss Toynbee's solution and suggest no alternative, you seem to think that.
    No I don't.
  • Mr. L, astroturf(ers) refers to fakes or propagandists. There was a very serious issue at Falkirk, and if it never got anywhere that was more due to the failure of the media to be competent than anything else. Intimidating people at their homes and almost causing significant economic damage to the whole country over a union's idiocy is no small matter.

    It amuses me that somehow Falkirk was astroturfing, yet Labour's smear of Osborne over the first-class ticket - as thoroughly debunked on several levels - was serious. Add in any other number of similar incidents, the most serious of which were McAlpine and Mitchell.

    As I've said passim, Labour is the real nasty party.
    It's not quite that simple. Labour has the nasty activists (and not just in Falkirk), but the Tories pass the nasty legislation, e.g. the bedroom tax without looking to see if the smaller flats were there for people to move into.

    That nasty legislation was passed with the support of the Lib Dems.
    Indeed it was.

  • Mr. L, astroturf(ers) refers to fakes or propagandists. There was a very serious issue at Falkirk, and if it never got anywhere that was more due to the failure of the media to be competent than anything else. Intimidating people at their homes and almost causing significant economic damage to the whole country over a union's idiocy is no small matter.

    It amuses me that somehow Falkirk was astroturfing, yet Labour's smear of Osborne over the first-class ticket - as thoroughly debunked on several levels - was serious. Add in any other number of similar incidents, the most serious of which were McAlpine and Mitchell.

    As I've said passim, Labour is the real nasty party.
    NONE of them are serious. That's my point. The first class ticket thing was another sideshow.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Reading between the lines

    The women's accusations didn't come up to the standard of proof, not even on the balance of probabilities. [the test that the rules and guidelines mandate the Prosecutor to apply]

    But saying that straight would of course unleash the harpies of hell down on our heads.

    So it was fudged to placate them. "Applying the formula X% * Y% * SQRT[FA] finds your allegations 'broadly credible' [i.e. not necessarily utter bunkum] and therefore Rennard was guilty of [insert preferred Orwellian crime, not on the charge-sheet], and ought to apologise (if he wishes)..."
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,567



    ...Anyway, bringing the party into disrepute. A party which explicitly lied to the electorate and conspired internally to do so, which lied to its own party members about its intentions to do so, which has seen year on year collapses in votes which has collapsed local representation so that LibDems have gone from being a substantial minority on a council's ruling group to having no councillors in 3 years, with a corresponding collapse in party members and an electoral strategy for the general election which reportedly resembles siege defence of their remaining bastions.

    Forget Rennard, shouldn't Nick Clegg suspend Nick Clegg for bringing the party into disrepute?

    Lol, there's a lot in that. It's a charge which could probably have been laid against most leaders of most parties at one time or another, but Clegg is certainly going for gold in the discipline. Like Mike I can't see him going before the election, but the probability of his going afterwards must now be very high. Outside the seats that the LibDems hold, the party seems now down to a few loyalists desperately delivering thousands of Focus leaflets each and hoping for the best.

    Norman Lamb is an old friend from the time we were both on the Treasury committee - he's level-headed, reasonable and not obviously ideological - I'd struggle to place him as an Orange Booker or radical or whatever. He's the sober choice, pleasant on TV and in person, and would do the job of steadying the ship very well. But if there's been an electoral massacre (at least in terms of share of vote) then, as tpfkar hints, those may not be the qualities the members will look for first.

    The discussion of job-hopping is interesting. From personal experience (my own and others I know), it's not easy to switch from being an MP to something else if you've had more than a 5-year gap, even if you were very successful in a former career - you're almost certainly out of touch with it now (unless you've kept it up as a second job, to hisses of disapproval from the media). Since there is only one Parliament, you can't just switch jobs as you might from Oracle to Microsoft - you need to change to a new career. My IT career was long gone, so I hastily reinvented myself as a voluntary sector policymaker, a translator and a lecturer for foreign delegations and between the three of them ended up doing well - but at age 60 I was aware that I'd been lucky.

    That cliff-edge existence (at least in marginal seats) does affect MP attitudes. Most short-term MPs do have lucrative career options - I've nearly always earned more when I wasn't an MP and so have many others. If you don't think you'll be promoted to Minister, pay is near-frozen and pensions are reduced, you need to decide if idealism and serving the cause are enough for the long haul.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633


    http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3292/More-support-than-opposition-for-bedroom-tax-but-policy-divides-opinion.aspx

    "More of the public support than oppose the reduction of housing benefit for under-occupying social housing tenants, according to an Ipsos MORI poll conducted for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) published today.


    a plurality (not a majority) support the policy both in principle and after a more detailed briefing of what it involves;"
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited January 2014

    On topic my next Lib Dem book contains the following.

    Vince, Tim Farron, Lamb, Huhne, Carmichael and Danny Alexander.

    I have absolutely no idea what I was smoking when I backed Danny Alexander.

    I think Chris Huhne has a better chance.

    I'm on Huhne at 14/1 - a bet placed when it looked as though the charges might be dropped. I'm now ready to concede that it could be a loser

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Mr. L, astroturf(ers) refers to fakes or propagandists. There was a very serious issue at Falkirk, and if it never got anywhere that was more due to the failure of the media to be competent than anything else. Intimidating people at their homes and almost causing significant economic damage to the whole country over a union's idiocy is no small matter.

    It amuses me that somehow Falkirk was astroturfing, yet Labour's smear of Osborne over the first-class ticket - as thoroughly debunked on several levels - was serious. Add in any other number of similar incidents, the most serious of which were McAlpine and Mitchell.

    As I've said passim, Labour is the real nasty party.
    NONE of them are serious. That's my point. The first class ticket thing was another sideshow.

    I think views in Scotland may differ on whether the loss of 8% of its manufacturing capacity over Labour seat fixing is "serious" or not.....then there's the "fundamental reform" of the Labour-Union links....or is that trivial too?

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,962
    F1: sounds like Caterham will have two new drivers. Van Der Garde's off to become a reserve driver for Sauber (job share with Sirotkin?) and Pic's also lost his seat.

    Heard rumours that Kobayashi and someone else could drive for them.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    The art in all these long-term leadership markets is to be on all the possible contenders at long odds.

    I'm not on Farron because he's always been too short.
  • Re. Lamb, I thought 'Bruiser' Carmichael was the man to watch? Surely a few weeks and several entirely inadequate media performances haven't turned him into an also-ran already?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    With all the hopes of the Lab/Lib/Cons, that UKIP - will, would, should - implode, it seems that the L/dems, while not exactly imploding, are going to suffer a disaster, as first one and then probably more of the groped women, start to take legal action.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25820928

    If they do, then this story will run and run all the way, perhaps, to the 2015 GE.
  • The art in all these long-term leadership markets is to be on all the possible contenders at long odds.

    I'm not on Farron because he's always been too short.

    Indeed I'm on Cable at 16/1, Lamb and Alexander at 25/, Huhne at 12/1, Carmichael at 33/1

  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782

    The art in all these long-term leadership markets is to be on all the possible contenders at long odds.

    I'm not on Farron because he's always been too short.

    Surely that is heightist Mr Smithson... ;-)
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited January 2014

    Since there is only one Parliament, you can't just switch jobs as you might from Oracle to Microsoft - you need to change to a new career.

    This is where the whole thing is excessively parochial. If you've got experience as an MP in the UK, you should be way ahead of the competition when it comes to getting a job as an MP in Switzerland or Denmark.

    What's really amazing is that large countries appoint completely inexperienced people to top jobs, like Prime Minister. If you think you might be good at running a large country, you should be expected to prove yourself with a successful stint as Prime Minister of a smaller country first.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    MikeK said:

    With all the hopes of the Lab/Lib/Cons, that UKIP - will, would, should - implode, it seems that the L/dems, while not exactly imploding, are going to suffer a disaster, as first one and then probably more of the groped women, start to take legal action.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25820928

    If they do, then this story will run and run all the way, perhaps, to the 2015 GE.

    Oh fear not - Ukip are not missing out on the implosions...

    From today's Glasgow Herald :

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/ukip-send-scots-chairman-for-anti-sectarianism-counselling.23232791

    "THE UK Independence Party have referred their interim Scottish chairman to a leading ­anti-sectarianism charity after he described a local authority as being for "gays, Catholics and Communists"."
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Toenails has a good précis of l'affair Rennard for those who have not been paying attention:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25808399
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited January 2014
    Iff Clegg does go because of Rennard, would Simon Hughes become the straight safe choice?
  • Since there is only one Parliament, you can't just switch jobs as you might from Oracle to Microsoft - you need to change to a new career.

    This is where the whole thing is excessively parochial. If you've got experience as an MP in the UK, you should be way ahead of the competition when it comes to getting a job as an MP in Switzerland or Denmark.

    What's really amazing is that large countries appoint completely inexperienced people to top jobs, like Prime Minister. If you think you might be good at running a large country, you should be expected to prove yourself with a successful stint as Prime Minister of a smaller country first.
    Start in Luxemburg and work your way up...

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I have some long odds contenders in this race, including Charles Kennedy and Steve Webb. Sadly, neither look like seeing their odds shorten any time soon.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    UKIP Bexley
    @UKIPBexley
    http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/10950551._/?ref=twtrec

    No comment on the story itself, but if this was a UKIP Cllr it would be front page news!
  • Simon Hughes is 25/1 with Shadsy.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469

    Mr. L, astroturf(ers) refers to fakes or propagandists. There was a very serious issue at Falkirk, and if it never got anywhere that was more due to the failure of the media to be competent than anything else. Intimidating people at their homes and almost causing significant economic damage to the whole country over a union's idiocy is no small matter.

    It amuses me that somehow Falkirk was astroturfing, yet Labour's smear of Osborne over the first-class ticket - as thoroughly debunked on several levels - was serious. Add in any other number of similar incidents, the most serious of which were McAlpine and Mitchell.

    As I've said passim, Labour is the real nasty party.
    It's not quite that simple. Labour has the nasty activists (and not just in Falkirk), but the Tories pass the nasty legislation, e.g. the bedroom tax without looking to see if the smaller flats were there for people to move into.

    And when Labour did it for private tenants, that was not 'nasty'?

    All governments produce legislation that disadvantages one section of society to the advantage of another: sometimes those disadvantages are slight; in others they are major. That can only be stopped if you believe in the magic money tree.

    I mean, are you really saying Labour is faultless on this? For instance, who signed the lamentable ATOS?

    And as for personal nastiness, you can't beat the 'Ginger Rodent' comment. A nasty comment that was actually scripted, and was not even off-the-cuff. What happened to the person who uttered it?

    If you go about calling other people 'nasty', you really have to ensure that you are not nasty.
  • Man City are 5/1, 10/1 and 14/1 to score exactly 4 goals, 5 goals or 6 or more goals against West Ham tonight respectively.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/league-cup/west-ham-v-man-city/total-away-goals
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited January 2014
    TGOHF said:

    MikeK said:

    With all the hopes of the Lab/Lib/Cons, that UKIP - will, would, should - implode, it seems that the L/dems, while not exactly imploding, are going to suffer a disaster, as first one and then probably more of the groped women, start to take legal action.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25820928

    If they do, then this story will run and run all the way, perhaps, to the 2015 GE.

    Oh fear not - Ukip are not missing out on the implosions...

    From today's Glasgow Herald :

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/ukip-send-scots-chairman-for-anti-sectarianism-counselling.23232791

    "THE UK Independence Party have referred their interim Scottish chairman to a leading ­anti-sectarianism charity after he described a local authority as being for "gays, Catholics and Communists"."
    See my post @ 9:41AM. All parties have their weirdo's , I'm betting your party have dozens.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Man City are 5/1, 10/1 and 14/1 to score exactly 4 goals, 5 goals or 6 or more goals against West Ham tonight respectively.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/league-cup/west-ham-v-man-city/total-away-goals

    Isn't a small West Ham win more likely than a hammering by City? Man City have no need to exert themselves and West Ham will be playing for pride.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    On topic my next Lib Dem book contains the following.

    Vince, Tim Farron, Lamb, Huhne, Carmichael and Danny Alexander.

    I have absolutely no idea what I was smoking when I backed Danny Alexander.

    I think Chris Huhne has a better chance.

    I'm on Huhne at 14/1 - a bet placed when it looked as though the charges might be dropped. I'm now ready to concede that it could be a loser

    Surely the Constance Briscoe revelations boost Huhne here. I wonder if he can find a constituency for a triumphant return to parliament?
  • antifrank said:

    Man City are 5/1, 10/1 and 14/1 to score exactly 4 goals, 5 goals or 6 or more goals against West Ham tonight respectively.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/league-cup/west-ham-v-man-city/total-away-goals

    Isn't a small West Ham win more likely than a hammering by City? Man City have no need to exert themselves and West Ham will be playing for pride.
    Possibly, taken a slice of the 13/2 on West Ham, but Man City just look irresistible going forward, whereas you get the feeling even my Mum could score against West Ham.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,962
    F1: Joe Saward sounds impressed with Haas' prospects of forming a proper American F1 team:
    http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/gene-haas-and-formula-1/
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited January 2014
    rcs1000 said:

    On topic my next Lib Dem book contains the following.

    Vince, Tim Farron, Lamb, Huhne, Carmichael and Danny Alexander.

    I have absolutely no idea what I was smoking when I backed Danny Alexander.

    I think Chris Huhne has a better chance.

    I'm on Huhne at 14/1 - a bet placed when it looked as though the charges might be dropped. I'm now ready to concede that it could be a loser

    Surely the Constance Briscoe revelations boost Huhne here. I wonder if he can find a constituency for a triumphant return to parliament?
    Brighton Pavilion seems ideal, as Labour and the Greens slug it out, Chris Huhne can come through the middle.

    I can see Chris Huhne becoming quite the gay icon.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    UKIP have other nutters in their hierarchy:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2542638/Women-children-worth-big-City-firms-Nigel-Farage-claims.html

    Interesting to see that the Mail is quite happy to give Nigel Farage a kicking when it suits them.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    Since there is only one Parliament, you can't just switch jobs as you might from Oracle to Microsoft - you need to change to a new career.

    This is where the whole thing is excessively parochial. If you've got experience as an MP in the UK, you should be way ahead of the competition when it comes to getting a job as an MP in Switzerland or Denmark.

    What's really amazing is that large countries appoint completely inexperienced people to top jobs, like Prime Minister. If you think you might be good at running a large country, you should be expected to prove yourself with a successful stint as Prime Minister of a smaller country first.
    Start in Luxemburg and work your way up...

    So, you're saying we should try and be a bit more like Manchester City, and look around the world to find and 'sign' the best politicians.

    An interesting approach...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469

    F1: Joe Saward sounds impressed with Haas' prospects of forming a proper American F1 team:
    http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/gene-haas-and-formula-1/

    Apparently di Resta's admitted he's not got a seat in F1, and has returned to the DTM for Mercedes.

    It's a shame: I really rated him. He deserved another chance, more so that Perez IMHO.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    Wouldn't the obvious choice for an interim, 2014-15 leader - should one be necessary - be Cable, in the way that Howard was for the Tories in 2003?

    The problem with Lamb, for Farron, Davey and all those of that generation is that he too is of it. If he were to get the gig, who knows how long he might be there. He'd also be vaulting over them in terms of seniority. There'd be legitimate questions about whether he could establish his authority: a serious concern were Rennardgate to topple Clegg. By contrast, Major was already Chancellor of the Exchequer: a much more formidable launchpad.

    Cable is someone who the party could certainly unite around, who could provide clear yellow water at the election from both other major parties and who the media would take seriously as leader, and who could be expected to depart the stage gracefully in 2015/16. Whether that makes his odds good value is a different question.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    antifrank said:

    UKIP have other nutters in their hierarchy:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2542638/Women-children-worth-big-City-firms-Nigel-Farage-claims.html

    Interesting to see that the Mail is quite happy to give Nigel Farage a kicking when it suits them.


    People who take a year or two off earn less than those who don't, what a surprise!

    I didn't read that article as being critical of Farage at all, let alone a kicking, it just reported what happened.

    Depends on your viewpoint I suppose
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,962
    Mr. Jessop, whilst Di Resta's not up there with Grosjean or Hulkenberg I agree he fully deserved a decent seat in F1. A combination of lack of money and a willingness to immediately blame the team when things went wrong probably didn't help.

    The Hulkenberg/Perez lineup will be interesting to watch, as will the Ferraris and Mercedes.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,565
    Lennon said:

    tpfkar said:

    I haven't commented anywhere on this as I haven't had the stomach but a couple of thoughts:

    1-the threat to Clegg's leadership would have been if he'd gone outside the rules and dismissed Rennard, suspended him personally, or taken legal action. Clegg has followed LD rules however daft and that's why he is safe.

    2-Rennard would resign if he had a shred of common sense; there is no way back and it's best for him now let alone anyone else. CR will be persona non grata in local parties across the country.

    3-in my view Tim Farron has had a bad war this time. As president he's the link between the leadership and membership, and he's failed to prevent civil war this week. First email to members was yesterday, far far too late. I'm less likely to vote for him as leader now.

    4-Norman Lamb could well be the choice of grey suits, but a revolting party won't listen to the suits at the moment and there would be a contested leadership if it came to it. Not sure Norman would do very well there, probably because he'd actually make a good leader.

    Thanks for your thoughts, and appreciate that it can't be particularly pleasant for ordinary members either way with all this dirty linen being washed in public. What are your thoughts on the impact on activists / members? Likely to be less involved / not renew membership in due course or water off a ducks back 'all parties have issues - it is now past us'?
    Hi Lennon.
    Remaining Lib Dem members are tough, and very tribal. So I don't see many members going over this. Where it hurts is that the party which prides itself on equality and dealing with sexism has been shown to be absolutely useless when it really comes to it. Talking the talk but not living it out. I think it will affect some swing voters but won't overplay it; it takes a genuinely big scandal to change voting behaviour en masse as discussed in this thread, and it's more about denting morale and stopping any campaigning going on; no-one is discussing mental health which was the plan for this week.

    Finally thanks for the invite to the Pirate Party the other day. I may not be a very good Lib Dem but I'm sure I'd make a lousy pirate :)
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    Since there is only one Parliament, you can't just switch jobs as you might from Oracle to Microsoft - you need to change to a new career.

    This is where the whole thing is excessively parochial. If you've got experience as an MP in the UK, you should be way ahead of the competition when it comes to getting a job as an MP in Switzerland or Denmark.

    What's really amazing is that large countries appoint completely inexperienced people to top jobs, like Prime Minister. If you think you might be good at running a large country, you should be expected to prove yourself with a successful stint as Prime Minister of a smaller country first.
    Start in Luxemburg and work your way up...

    Exactly. Speaking of which I rate Ed Miliband quite a lot higher than the consensus, but everyone must agree Labour would be better off with Helle Thorning-Schmidt.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited January 2014

    Since there is only one Parliament, you can't just switch jobs as you might from Oracle to Microsoft - you need to change to a new career.

    This is where the whole thing is excessively parochial. If you've got experience as an MP in the UK, you should be way ahead of the competition when it comes to getting a job as an MP in Switzerland or Denmark.

    What's really amazing is that large countries appoint completely inexperienced people to top jobs, like Prime Minister. If you think you might be good at running a large country, you should be expected to prove yourself with a successful stint as Prime Minister of a smaller country first.
    Start in Luxemburg and work your way up...

    Exactly. Speaking of which I rate Ed Miliband quite a lot higher than the consensus, but everyone must agree Labour would be better off with Helle Thorning-Schmidt.
    Didn't you also rate Gordon Brown quite a lot higher than the consensus, and he led Labour to less than 30% of the vote.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    Since there is only one Parliament, you can't just switch jobs as you might from Oracle to Microsoft - you need to change to a new career.

    This is where the whole thing is excessively parochial. If you've got experience as an MP in the UK, you should be way ahead of the competition when it comes to getting a job as an MP in Switzerland or Denmark.

    What's really amazing is that large countries appoint completely inexperienced people to top jobs, like Prime Minister. If you think you might be good at running a large country, you should be expected to prove yourself with a successful stint as Prime Minister of a smaller country first.
    Start in Luxemburg and work your way up...

    Exactly. Speaking of which I rate Ed Miliband quite a lot higher than the consensus, but everyone must agree Labour would be better off with Helle Thorning-Schmidt.
    Didn't you also rate Gordon Brown quite a lot higher than the consensus, and he lead Labour to less than 30% of the vote.
    This is true. But you agree with me on Thorning-Schmidt, right?
  • Since there is only one Parliament, you can't just switch jobs as you might from Oracle to Microsoft - you need to change to a new career.

    This is where the whole thing is excessively parochial. If you've got experience as an MP in the UK, you should be way ahead of the competition when it comes to getting a job as an MP in Switzerland or Denmark.

    What's really amazing is that large countries appoint completely inexperienced people to top jobs, like Prime Minister. If you think you might be good at running a large country, you should be expected to prove yourself with a successful stint as Prime Minister of a smaller country first.
    Start in Luxemburg and work your way up...

    Exactly. Speaking of which I rate Ed Miliband quite a lot higher than the consensus, but everyone must agree Labour would be better off with Helle Thorning-Schmidt.
    Didn't you also rate Gordon Brown quite a lot higher than the consensus, and he lead Labour to less than 30% of the vote.
    This is true. But you agree with me on Thorning-Schmidt, right?
    I do, but then I do realise, with Dave as PM and her as Leader of the Opposition, the number of selfies will increase exponentially and poor Barack Obama is going to get into even more trouble.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    Morning all :)

    I've confined my comments on Rennard so far to my blog safe in the knowledge that no one will read them there.

    I've been a Party member for over 30 years (joined the Liberal Party (as was) in 1980). Compared to the events of the merger and tuition fees, this is the proverbial "little local difficulty". I imagine there have been times when Nick Clegg (and indeed Charles K, Paddy and even David Steel) would have wished to have had the option of a more Stalinist style of leadership but that's democracy for you.

    Many in the Party (and especially among the 1997 intake of MPs) owe Chris Rennard a great deal. Along with Norman Lamont and Paddy Ashdown, he probably did more to re-invigorate the nascent LDs after the merger debacle - we were polling worse in 1989-90.

    I won't pretend I have any insight into Rennard - I've probably stood in the same room as him three or four times at Party Conferences and he was admired if not worshipped by a generation of successful local activists - I used campaigning tips from him when I was politically active in the 80s and 90s. That said, the statement yesterday read as that of a broken man or a man broken by events. I would wish him to withdraw into the shadows and take care of his own health and life and in that aspect I wish him well.

    The Party has not dealt with this well but it's not the only institution of late which has struggled with issues like this. It has to do better and be seen to do better. I've been to enough Party Conferences (and I suspect it's the same in other parties) to know they are surreal situations where the normal bounds of personal behaviour can be stretched and broken. The point is that belonging to any political party should be enjoyable if not necessarily rewarding. I've delivered enough leaflets along streets in the rain to question my own sanity on numerous occasions and I suspect others on here will understand that but ultimately it should be about doing something you believe in with like-minded (rarely) people.

    However, the experience should be positive - I know couples who got together through both being Party members (and after all, that's what the Conservative Party was for in the 50s and 60s) and that's fine but in all things there is a negative side and whatever your own personal morality, as a servant of the Party (and even as an ordinary member) you owe it to the Party to make the experience of membership for all as positive as possible. After all, you want more people to join - conveying a positive image is perhaps the start of that. The main parties (and increasingly UKIP too) all look tainted and tarnished. That's probably because they have people in them - you may only want the saints to join but the sinner can believe in your political goals (or think they do) and pay their sub as well and I refer you to the case law of Beggars vs Choosers..
This discussion has been closed.