On Thursday, LDV reported that Chris Rennard was elected to represent the party’s House of Lords group on the Federal Executive.
Since then, a petition has been submitted to the party by the group ‘Rock the Boat – Lib Dems against Sexual Harrassment’. The petition calls for a Special Party Conference to debate a Constitutional amendment to remove the seat on Federal Executive reserved for a nominee from the Lords group. The petition has been declared valid as it includes over 200 signatures of members from at least 20 different local parties.
On Friday Rock the Boat issued a press release explaining the action they had taken, but given the events in Paris they, and Lib Dem Voice, delayed giving it much publicity. You can read the press release, which gives the background to their action, here.
Federal Conference Committee (FCC) has now received the petition and will be making the necessary arrangements. A special conference will be held under the new One Member One Vote (OMOV) rules, so all members will be entitled to attend and vote.
From the Constitution:
The Conference shall normally meet twice a year, for a week in the early autumn and a weekend in the early spring; additional meetings may be summoned upon the requisition of the Federal Executive or the Federal Policy Committee or the Conference itself or 200 members, in not fewer than 20 local parties . A meeting may be cancelled by the Federal Executive in exceptional circumstances.
Comments on this post are now closed. Debate continues here..
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Back on the campaign trail
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
Have resignations led to a rethink?
nigel hunter
Chloe
Abrial Jerram
117 Comments
I am appalled on three counts, 1) that Chris Rennard, not withstanding that none of the allegations against him were proved, thought it was a good idea for the party fior him to stand to be on the FE; 2) that the Lib Dems peers ignored the entirely predictable hue and cry that would result form electing him as their representative; and 3) that so many members feel that it is a good idea to wash our dirty linen in public (again) and that we as a party have the resources and time to waste on a special conference to debate this,
Have fun, children. Waste funds on a “special conference” and tear yourselves apart.
Well done to all involved for making the party into a farce. Either expel him or drop the issue, don’t turn horrible allegations into a political matter.
Wow. What are exceptional circumstances?
This issue is a festering wound and it needs to be lanced one way or another. It is not simply going to go awaw, because there are fundamental principles at stake. Can I ask what will happen if the motion is upheld? Will Chris Rennard be unable to take his place on FE or will it only apply to future appointments?
Leon, if the first two things on your list had not taken place, there would be no need for the third. There is still time for the Lords to see sense.
@Leon – the third point, though, was taken very reluctantly. The members proposing this aren’t inexperienced members – they are members of long-standing who are well aware of the potential costs of a Special Conference. Towards the end of the week there were strong efforts being made to try to avoid the need for a conference, and whilst as yet these have been unsuccessful I’d expect they will continue.
I agree that Lord Rennard was ill-advised by those (if anyone) he spoke to before doing this, and I’d question the political nous of the Lords who voted for him and now feign surprise at the reaction. It’s almost as if they were deliberately thumbing their nose at Tim Farron in particular. But what else can we do?
How much will this costs – and how many more employees at HQ will have to be made redundant? Why could this not wait until the March Conference?
This is utter madness. Who are these people that are willing to put the very future of this party in peril – and for what? A party that claims to believe in democracy being called to a special conference of all members just because some people do not like the result of a legitimate democratic election under the party’s constitution? You don’t like the result? Ha – abolish the election! Have these people looked at themselves and asked where they are living? In Alice’s Wonderland or in the real world?
And we call ourselves Democrats?
And how come just 200 party members out of 50,000 can call a conference of the whole party on a whim? What constitutional amateurism has allowed such a thing? Have they any idea at all how much this will cost – in money and in feeding ourselves to the national media?
So we are going to meet, tear ourselves apart, just because some angry people cannot accept the result of extended due process, and continue to believe that an accused person must be guilty because someone accused them of being guilty, in spite of repeated inquiries that found “no case to answer”? And then cannot accept the result of a democratic election? And we call ourselves a Liberal party?
I cannot believe that this nightmare is taking place. Surely the people who have instigated this call are indeed the people who are guilty of bringing the party into disrepute. Rock the Boat? It’s about to sink.
Tony Greaves
I thought my calendar had gone wrong and it was April 1st.
Utterly incomprehensible that anyone thinks this is a good idea
I would be very surprised if we hadn’t set funds aside for a Special Conference this year anyway. Just, instead of approving a coalition deal, we’re debating the behaviour of our Lords group.
I was one of the signatories & I would be quite happy to see the special conference cancelled if a compromise could be arranged, if, for example The Peers withdrew their appointment & held another vote with all the Peers voting this time.
Presuming the special conference goes ahead, I dont see any need to go over the whole Rennard affair again, we can just discuss the proposed change itself. There is an argument that the present arrangement is one-sided becuase we dont really have any control over “Our” Peers. If they do stuff we dont like there is really nothing we can do about it, they cant be deselected like MPs.
Sarah – they might have budgeted for a Special Conference but even if they had done that money would have already been used to deal with our financial problems.
The thing is Paul that the wording of the call for the conference doesn’t mention names, it talks about the Lords election rights. If CR stood down that would alter the current situation but surely not the principle. Or are you saying that this is all about getting at one individual but being phrased as a general constitutional issue.? And to suggest that the conference doesn’t talk about the details of the situation?? Completely unrealistic. Anyway, once a request is in it is not at all clear that any individual or small group can withdraw it as surely it belongs to all the signatories.
I seriously despair that there are people who think that
a. this is a good use of time/resources
b. this will help the party in any way.
It is no good people now saying “oh if CR/the Lords do something now this can be stopped”. A constitutional request is just that and surely those involved thought this through??
I am appalled that this has been suggested and frankly if/when the conference goes ahead this is one activist who will no longer donate or lift a finger for a party that is deluded enough to think this is a priority.
The request for a special conference could still be withdrawn by the submitters and indeed, as the person who submitted the petition, there is nothing I’d like better, providing another resolution is found by then.
Unfortunately, the Lords have put us in this position which is costing us members, bringing us bad publicity and perpetuating a deeply harmful party culture through the signals it sends out. Believe you me, I’d be much happier if we’d never been put in this situation in the first place – but sadly apparently we cannot trust the judgement of our peers as a group that far.
@Keith, as much as I think Rennard should not have stood & the Lords should not have selected him, there is no question that the rules were followed & Rennard & his fellow Lords acted within the Party Constitution.
If we now decided to call an special Conference to amend election rules because we don’t like the results they give, at time when we should all be working for the by-election in Oldham and on the Euro Referendum, we are making ourselves look ridiculous.
By all means table a motion to the Spring Conference (in less than 4 months time) asking for the change in our constitution but please recind the call fpr a special conference and the waste of time & money involved.
Adam Casey: the allegations against Chris Rennard were not “horrible”, they were serious but relatively minor in the scale of such things. And they were dealt with and as Helen Morrisey said in her report he now had the same status and rights as any other member and should be treated as such by the other members.
Sarah Noble: sorry but you are not living in the real world. The party (like the other opposition parties) is in a serious financial position. There is NO “budget for a special conference”.
Paul Barker: there is a very important democratic principle here. You do not threaten people with abolishing a position they have elected someone to just because you don’t like the person they have elected. But if you want to help to destroy the party, I can’t help you.
Tony Greaves
As a party member, whose patience and loyalty has been sorely tested over the past year or so, I cannot for the life of me see what can be gained from what amounts to a witch hunt. The Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrats have much to thank Lord Rennard for. Whether or not he abused his position for nefarious activities was, as far as I can remember, never proven. It would appear that, by nominating him, our peers were happy with the findings of the enquiry and wanted to move on. So that should be the end of the matter. But, being the Lib Dems, it won’t be, will it?
Question: how many female Lib Dem peers voted for Rennard. Any? We are a male dominated party and far from being radical in such matters appear to the public as male, male, male. Somehow we have to eradicate this problem, which is one that will haunt us forever unless dealt with now. For once I disagree with Tony Greaves.
This is a very bad idea, the HoL group have held a valid election and everyone should accept the result, by all means write to HoL members if you feel strongly, the election to FE is annual as far as I know .
200+ party members might have called for this conference, but it’s 44 members of the Lords who’ve caused the need for it.
Rather than a Special Conference can’t these matters be brought up at the next Federal Conference (in this instance the Spring Conference) as, while I get the reason for why this conference has been called, the time, energy and money this will cost can be better spent on other things – such as the upcoming Oldham by-election.
While I may just be speaking for myself here, I know I wouldn’t be able to afford to attend yet another conference in person. Can we use this opportunity to explore new methods (satellite conferences. video links etc) and then perhaps we can employ them to other conferences too
The allegations were “relatively minor in the scale of such things”.
And this is the whole problem with the House of Lords. In the 21st century sticking your hand down the back of someone’s dress or groping them IS in fact not minor at all but a major problem. Especially when the result is numerous talented people being forced out of politics due to a culture which utterly fails to treat them with respect as human beings.
Nobody who thinks such allegations are “relatively minor” should, in my opinion, even sit in the House of Lords – let alone be able to elect a representative to the party’s governing body.
Unless I’m completely misunderstanding what is about to happen, we are have a special conference because some people in the party (a) will not accept the result of due process under the constitution and (b) will not accept the result of an election held under the rules of the constitution. If it simply the case that some members do not like the idea of our peers electing a representative to the Federal Executive, why could a constitutional amendment not wait until the Spring Conference?
Paul Hunt
And yes, it is very much the case that this has been triggered by Chris Rennard being appointed to FE which is why a special conference is being called. If the Lords hadn’t made such a damaging decision then the constitutional amendments could probably wait until spring conference.
But as it is, this brings the judgement of Lib Dem peers sharply into question and highlights the severe cultural disconnect between them and the party membership as a whole. That is why there is such a sense of urgency over this and why we cannot afford to wait until spring conference to try and fix this. Lord Rennard being appointed to FE has already cost us members and if he takes his place on it then it will cost us many more members and do the party untold damage.
Thank you George for all you are doing. It says it all that Tony Greaves thinks that the issues here are “relatively minor in the scheme of things”.
If is a fact that given our appalling General Election performance, the Lib Dem House of Lords team have a level of responsibility within the Party which goes well beyond niceties and constitutional correctness. You may agree that it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut but what you cannot hide from is the fact that a substantial chunk of our Party members feel that this is an issue which cannot be sidestepped. Essentially, if the Lib Dem Lords do not step back than the Party is, in their mind, better off without the Lords .For about half of the current House of Lord Lib Dem reps I would agree. They are lightweight creatures of patronage who bring nothing much to the party. But the other half would be a great loss to us.
George Potter – all that is your opinion, but many others seem to feel your judgement and that of the rock the boat people is questionable and disconnected from many of the membership. You may have your special conference, but I think it’s odds on you will lose. The independent QC couldn’t even find enough evidence to refer this matter to a disciplinary panel, the peers were well within their rights to vote the way they did.
OK, so we’re all agreed. We all agree that this is madness, it is illiberal, it is farcical, it is going to cause great harm. Oh, except that we don’t agree on who “started it”.
We really do have to go back to the playground – because that’s the level of our debate right now – to resolve the issue. When Sue comes running and crying that Jason pulled her hair, the good teacher first finds out the facts. When the quiet lad standing on the fringe of the huddle explains that Sue had spent the last five minutes sneering at Jason and calling him smelly, the good teacher knows who to discipline.
To stand for a contested internal election, in which a small gang of playground favourites can get together and stick two fingers up at their opponents within the Party, is the provocative act which “started it” in this case.
It is not a question of anyone having a “right to rehabilitation”. You could say that failed leaders like Iain Duncan-Smith and Ed Miliband might claim some sort of right to rehabilitation. Well, when IDS was kicked out of the Tory leadership, he wasn’t so stupid as to go around stirring up trouble within his party and pushing his claim for a big role in the Party. He waited patiently for the next election, and was rewarded for his patience. Ed Miliband seems to be adopting a similar approach.
Sadly, Chris Rennard has shown a good deal less political sensibility than IDS and EdM. That’s not a very high benchmark to fail to meet!
Ruth, it’s just the same as an Italian pinching a woman’s bottom, don’t you know? ? Why are the little ladies getting worked up about a bit of touch and feel? 😉
This special conference will do huge damage to the party, I think everyone is agreed on that.
Is there any chance that one side or the other could back down?
To Chris Rennard. Chris, if you said you wouldn’t take your seat on the Federal Executive until after the Spring Conference, I’m sure a lot of members would be very grateful.
To George Potter. George, likewise, if you made the gesture of withdrawing the request for a special conference, so that discussion could be delayed to the Spring conference, irrespective of what Chris does, I’m sure a lot of members would be very grateful.
If this special conference goes ahead, it’s going to make a serious situation massively worse, whatever the decision of that special conference.
Please, please. Which ever side does it. Would someone please back away from this confrontation?
As I understand it, the previous rules meant that it would take 200 conference reps to call a special conference.
In implementing OMOV, conference chose not to increase this bar. It was the democratic decision of the most recent conference to allow any 200 members to call a special conference.
Those arguing that the party in the Lords have acted in a by-the-book way in exercising their democratic rights, should be aware that those petitioning for a special conference have done the same.
We could all keep exercising all of our rights. Or the Lords party could think about their behaviour again.
@malc
You may think we’re out of touch with the party membership but the fact it took us less than 24 hours to get the signatures needed is an indication of how many members are concerned about this issue – so we can’t be that out of touch.
I’ll also point out that I’m now a quarter century old which means I was born after the Cold War ended and the Berlin Wall came down. The average age of a peer in the House of Lords is 69.
Nobody can deny that there’s a huge generation gap on this issue – and given the average age of the 20,000 new members who joined after May is 30 then many, many members are much closer to my generation than that of the generation of Lib Dem peers.
I can well believe that 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago what was tolerated was different. Groping and sexual harassment might well have been the kind of thing which was shrugged off and which women were expected to deal with. So I can understand that some people of that era might find it hard to adapt to the mores of the 21st century.
But we’re not in that era anymore. People of my age don’t want to live in a society or be active in a party where that kind of attitude, that kind of tolerance to the violation of others’ bodily autonomy, prevails. We don’t want a politics where women are constantly marginalised and pressured out. We don’t want a politics where old men run the show. This is the 21st century and our politics and our party should reflect that.
Because ultimately it is absolutely WRONG that someone should be expected to put up with sexual harassment without objection. It is WRONG that perpetrating it should be seen as some sort of minor character flaw to be overlooked in the same way you’d overlook a tendency to get too loud when inebriated. Liberals should be defending the rights of people to bodily autonomy, the rights to participate in politics and the right not to be made to feel unwelcome by the archaic attitudes of the establishment.
And if the Lords were as keen to defend those rights as they are to stick up for the behaviour of creepy, lecherous old men (speaking generally here and not about any individual in particular) then perhaps we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.
George Kendall, good comment.
To Chris Rennard: All George is asking of you is that you agree to defer taking up your seat until the Spring Conference can determine this issue, one way or the other. You can and should make that agreement conditional on the cancellation of the proposed Special Conference.
Can you accept that?
This is utter madness. This witch-hunt gets uglier by the day.
George Potter – I think it is a mistake to assume that attitudes to this issue are age-related. I signed the petition and am older than the average age of peers! Yes, it is true that sexual harassment was not taken seriously by society when I was young, which is why so many historic cases have only come to light in recent years. But that doesn’t mean that I, or any other women, thought it was right at the time.
So I would expect there to be more of a tendency for support to be gender-related rather than age-related. Of course, the peers’ vote was a secret ballot so we cannot know who voted for whom, unless they tell us.
George Potter – ‘Nobody can deny that there’s a huge generation gap on this issue.’
Can you elaborate on this? And what exactly is, ‘this issue,’ in that sentence?
‘the rights to participate in politics and the right not to be made to feel unwelcome by the archaic attitudes of the establishment.’
What about the attitudes of others? Put another way, why start and stop that at, ‘the establishment.’
To be clear, I’m not getting at you here – genuinely interested for a number of reasons.
I agree (as so often) with George Kendall. In any other party, right or wrong, Chris Rennard would have agreed to stand down ‘for the good of the party’ long, long ago. So this would never have erupted. If there’s any way of lowering the temperature, that has to help – and George’s suggestion is a practical way to avoid the expense of a special conference and come to an agreement before March.
I think all involved think the party is in a rosier state than it is – the very survival of the Lib Dems is uncertain after this year’s elections, the loss of funds and staff, and upcoming boundary changes. We simply do not have the luxury to indulge ourselves as we once did. We are fighting for our existence.
I would like to call on all the signatories, including Mary Reid and Paul Barker to make a specially large donation to contribute to the costs of the special conference. By my calculation £300 per signatory might be sufficient.
Perhaps the special conference would also like to address the rule that allows 0.3% of the membership to force a special conference.
@Tony Greaves – we have never met, but your views used to be ones which I could respect. You could be relied on to give the radical, liberal view on policy, and as someone key in the development of pavement politics vital in the growth of the parties in the 1980s and 90s. During the coalition years, you were a frequently highly critical “friend” of the coalition, putting points of view on things which others could not.
Sadly, though, it’s clear that you and others have lost contact with many in the party on this. Did you really think that, in voting for Lord Rennard, people would just sit back and think “oh well, it must be OK then?” Did you really not understand the strength of feeling amongst a significant number of people in the party, who know the party’s processes well enough as to how to proceed? Did you really think it would be OK to vote for someone whom your own leader has said there would be no place for in his party, or do you really hold both the membership of the party who voted for that leader, and the leader himself, in such disregard that, frankly, you don’t give a stuff about that party democracy thing any more?
I hope I’m wrong, certainly on that last point. Because if I’m not, then, frankly, I don’t believe that there’s a place for you in this party any more, Tony. And I would be both happy and sad about that.
“And how come just 200 party members out of 50,000 can call a conference of the whole party on a whim? What constitutional amateurism has allowed such a thing? ”
I don’t know. But you were a voting rep at conference so the answer may will be staring back at you from a mirror.
I do not know why Chris Rennard feels he has anything useful to contribute to the Lib Dems from now on. In his heyday his own election campaigning material was itself very brutal towards any candidate of another party where there was a whiff of a scandal. So he should know more than most how the other parties – if they thought we were important enough – will turn the scandal of his alleged behaviour against us if he decides to risk making himself a high profile media story which he has now done. I cannot comprehend how he thinks it is worth trying to resurrect his political career when the price for doing so is to remind the general public of the allegations made against him.
I am also baffled by the 40 House of Lords Liberal Democrats who by their decision to back Chris Rennard consider it more important to try and settle old scores than consider the unity and morale of the wider party. Thanks to them the party is once again tearing itself apart. Not only that, they are giving the party the reputation that we do not consider the issue of sexual harassment to be serious, which for a Liberal party I find totally bizarre.
Well as far as I am concerned it is not OK. I urge Chris Rennard and his supporters to back down for the good of the party.
I’m sorry but I have to say this : BRAVO George Potter!!
Ridiculous to waste members subscriptions and donations. Innocent until proven guilty? This has become no more than a witchunt.
George Potter – I agree with much of what you say, except that you tend to think this is a generation thing which I don’t. All right minded people are against “sexual harassment and groping” or “politics where women are being constantly marginalised and pressured out”. However, the fact remains that Lord Rennard has being investigated by the police, by the party and by an independent QC and none could prove that he’s been guilty of any of these things. Whether you like it or not in this country we are innocent until found guilty. Just because you don’t like the decision does not make it fair for you and others to try and hound him out of office. I hope you and your well less than 1% of members realise how much damage you are doing to the party. At the moment 95% of the population would have difficulty naming one elected LibDem official, on the other hand you have some of the best known and respected peers and these are the very people you are attacking.
I’d just like to clarify, I’m not taking sides. I’m not asking just one side to back down. I’m asking either side to back down. It doesn’t matter which.
The disaster of this special conference could be avoided if just one side is willing to defer the issue until the Spring Conference.
I feel uncomfortable putting it this bluntly, but surely it is in both sides interests to be the first to back down. If they do, there will be relief in the wider party, and some gratitude.
That would mean, when this issue is finally discussed at the Spring Conference, it’d probably help your cause if you were the ones seen to have the wider party’s interests at heart.
@Martin: I’ll make the point again, as I fear it is lost in the thread above.
It was the democratic will of the Liberal Democrats at the most recent conference to introduce OMOV. This changed the requirement of a special conference from 200 voting reps to 200 members. Conference democratically debated this change and passed it.
There was a democratic debate. This was a known change – see Mark Pack’s post here where he actively addresses this: http://www.markpack.org.uk/68347/omov-the-fe-has-submitted-a-mess-to-conference-so-lets-sort-it-out/
This change did not slip in under the radar.
It is the democratic will of the party that 200 members can call for a special conference. This has now happened.
@malc
The fact is that the process which investigated Rennard was incredibly flawed and failed all parties concerned. However, the QC’s report did find that the claims were “broadly credible” and that Rennard had caused the women severe distress.
Due process has been followed and, like it or not, Rennard now has every right to participate in the party as an ordinary member.
However, that doesn’t alter the fact that it was grossly irresponsible of the Lords to appoint him as their representative to FE given the findings of the QC. Just because someone is a member doesn’t mean they’re a good choice to serve on FE – look at Lembit Opik if you have any doubt on that subject (sorry Lembit!)
And that’s what we’re saying. By all means Rennard has every right to participate in the party but that really doesn’t make it okay for him to sit on FE given the message that sends out. Particularly when he’s only there because of the votes of a body of unelected peers who are completely unaccountable to party members in a way that all our other parliamentarians are. That’s the issue here.
@Mary Reid
Obviously I’m not saying that all people are over a certain age don’t have a problem with sexual harassment!
But I do think that, as a general rule, younger people tend to be less tolerant of it and older people tend to be more tolerant of it. There’s definitely a big gender divide as well though!
What I meant, however, is that I can understand, sort of, how some Lib Dem peers could struggle to understand how bad appointing Rennard to FE looks and how damaging the signals it sends out are. However, that doesn’t excuse them from failing to understand when there are so many members who could have told them otherwise and it certainly doesn’t excuse certain noble lords in this thread who seems to think that what Rennard was accused of is something which half the male Lib Dem peers did!
As another signatory to the petition, I’d like to express solidarity with George.
The trouble “not now, we’ve got a byelection going on” is that there’s never a good time to disrupt the party. But frankly, this party has a diversity problem, and our Lords group has just chosen this particular moment to shout at the top of their lungs: “We don’t get it!”. This is a fight that had to be picked.
To the “nothing was proven”, “rule of law” people: I’m a liberal, too. I believe that criminal sanctions should have to meet a criminal standard of proof, because they entail the removal of some fundamental rights. I hate to break it to you, folks, but membership of the Liberal Democrats, and standing for senior positions in the party, are not fundamental rights. As such, I do not believe our disciplinary procedures are appropriate in requiring a criminal standard of proof, and I believe that a balance of probabilities test (as would be common in many other organisations) is a much more appropriate way to go about things.
Given Alistair Webster QC’s findings that…
… I have my own views on what the likely outcome of such a test might have been, but I accept that due process required that the rules in existence were the ones which were followed, and as such, Chris Rennard is still a member of the party, though I consider it a matter of great regret that some of the complainants in his case are not.
Nevertheless, a strict legalistic interpretation of what is required of a person has never been sufficient in political public life for someone to be seen to be doing the right thing. This is a fact which, where our opponents are concerned, I’m sure our Lords, and indeed Lord Rennard himself, understand very well indeed. In Rennard’s case, I would have said that that reality required that he now keep a low profile, as all sensible political operators involved in a scandal have traditionally done.
If our Lords have not the political judgement to see that this is a really stupid thing to do, then the membership will have to do it for them. It is a virtue of our constitution that it allows the membership such protections.
I have to support George Potter and Geoffrey Payne in this .It is clear the party in the country has moved on .it is with great sadness to see that their lordships feel it is more important to support an old college who was once an asset to the party but has now become a liability .We are building for the future of Liberal Democracy and do not want to take old baggage with us into that future.
George – I don’t agree with some of the savage attacks that have been made on a man that hasn’t been found guilty of anything and I have no idea why anyone thinks a Special Conference will do any good. That said it’s great to see a young man fight for what he believes in so knock yourself out – but I still think you have absolutely no chance of winning!
PS If I was a LibDem Peer no way would I have voted for Rennard, but I would have accepted the result.
All the folk complaining that 200 is not enough, if George and others keep collecting signatures how many are enough for you?
I cannot believe that so many supposed liberals are so quick to renounce the principle of innocent until proven guilty and are willing to launch yet another campaign of spite and vindictiveness against a person who, under that principle, has been found innocent.
You ought to be ashamed of yourselves
65-year-old here. OK, to some extent it’s a generation thing. In my youth, it was normal to call people queers. It was sadly commonplace for men to tease and embarass women about sex, and expect them to take it “in good part”. Come to that, it was sadly commonplace for some men to tease other men in much the same way, too.
Nowadays, you can’t do that. But it’s OK to slag off white van man, who is an ignorant racist chav, so he is fair game. We are now perfect people. It’s a meritocracy now, so the people we demonise or harass nowadays are the people who deserve it, right?
Well, anyway, I dare say there may be many noble lords who can uneasily recall a past history of occasionally teasing or bantering with young women, and who think “there but for the grace of God go I”. I would ask them to ask themselves a few questions. Did you do the teasing in the course of conducting a job interview, or from a position of direct authority? Did you not only try your chances a bit, but carry on trying in the face of disinterest or worse? Because if you didn’t, then there but for the grace of God you certainly did not go!
Well reading this lot I come to the that in spite of some good Liberal common sense from a few, a significant number of people in this party are now politically deranged. If that is not the case, they are certainly not Liberals. Perhaps this is not a Liberal party any more, but just some kind of centrist populist outfit. In which case perhaps that can be made quite clear so those of us who wish to stand by our Liberal principles can go off and do something else with our lives?
For my part I have set out here and elsewhere why I think what is happening is the work of an illiberal mob, a witch hunt of people who appear not to understand the basics of democracy, of due process, of fairness to individuals, of innocence in the absence of proven guilt, of respect for other members and sections of the party (and indeed of any understanding of the crucial role that the Lords group is making at present). What is happening is irrational, vindictive and politically stupid. But it seems that nothing can stop it.
This is therefore the last I have to say here on these matters. Carry on and (not just “rocking the boat” as you are proud to proclaim) you will bring the party down and sink it for good. You will deserve your fate.
Tony Greaves
Tony Greaves
I agree with Mary – leave agism out of this. The generations differ, but let’s focus on the issue.
A special conference is a bit much, but I’d support getting rid of the Lords seat anyway. For me it’s not just because I disagree with the decision.
I’m not a member, but I like to contribute to the debate.
The phrase “Truth or Consequences” comes to mind. Some of you will understand what I mean.
Caron: Yes, but I’m not convinved that, the gnashing of the Lord Greaves’s teeth notwithstanding, we are facing imminent armageddon.
I wonder who determines if a matter is truthful? Only those who believe in a person’s guilt?
As things progress this all seems to be getting closer and closer to the old ducking stool where if a woman was suspected of being a witch or a scold she was ducked. One variation was where “ducking was inflicted without the chair. In this instance the victim’s right thumb was bound to left toe. A rope was attached to her waist and the ‘witch’ was thrown into a river or deep pond. If the ‘witch’ floated it was deemed that she was in league with the devil, rejecting the ‘baptismal water’. If the ‘witch’ drowned she was deemed innocent.
Some commenters here would seem to be modern supporters of this approach of no win justice.
Personally, I believe the phrase “Innocent until proven Guilty” is much more pertinent, and liberal.
I think the special conference is about far more than one person and far more even than the principle of making the Lords in some way accountable to the party membership. It’s about laying out our values as a party. It’s about confronting our reputation for not taking the issue of female equality seriously.
We have a lamentable record of female representation in parliament and we repeatedly botched investigations into complaints of sexual harrasment.
The party has to show that it takes these issues seriously. Tim appointed a gender balanced cabinet and made clear during his leadership campaign that he saw no role for Rennard going forward. The Lords had the constitutional right to elect whoever they wanted to represent them in FE, but I’d have thought they also had a responsibility to think about the context and what message electing Rennard would send to members of the party who don’t think we’ve put our house in order and to members of the public who feel the same way. They had a responsibility to think about what the media would do with such a story.
The party’s challenge is to demonstrate that it cares about historic and ongoing problems and is changing. Innocent or not, putting their old mate back in a position of power does not suggest that the Lords get this. A special conference is one way, albeit an expensive one, to demonstrate that not everyone in the party is happy with the relaxed attitude the Lords have demonstrated with regards to dealing with these issues.
George Potter
I remember when the Berlin Wall was built and you are wrong about what you believe about in days gone by.
It was not acceptable to touch people years ago. In fact touching them in a certain way could result in a prosecution for indecent assault. I notice no such prosecution was made against Lord Rennard.
The final outcome of all this will be a defamation case.
200 is a far too small number to call a special conference.It should be at least 2000 and anyway at short notice many members will be unable to attend leading to its outcome to be called into question.
Truth or Consequences is an excellent way of summing up the whole thing Caron.
Now, has everyone on this thread either made 10 phone calls for Jane Brophy in Oldham West or visited it in person yet? 😉 #keepingourfocus
Nothing good can come of this special conference. The organisors “Rock the Boat” and the 200+ signatories are indulging in political “self-harm”. Despairs!!!
@Caron
A Zygon invasion?
Given that it looks as if we will have to have a special conference, would it be practicable to hold it on the afternoon immediately preceding the party’s spring conference ? This would meet the requirement that a special conference should be held but would both save money and be more convenient for those in the party’s rank and file membership who might wish to attend both it and the spring conference..
Rennard was naive to stand. At least I hope that is all it was. The Lotds were naive to elect him. At least I hope that is all it was. And the callers of this conference are being naive and self indulgent. No more donations to the Party from me if this issue is not resolved by either Rennard seeing sense and standing down or the self-righteous brigade postponing discussion until Spring Conference.
Oh and that 200 members – not even voting reps – can trigger a special conference is absurd and a recipe for entryists to bankrupt the Party. If there is to be such a conference , perhaps it might correct this ludicrous provision.
Most of the people writing on this thread would be wise to stand back and ask themselves whether they truly understand the values of Liberalism. Regrettable though it my be the due processes of the party that were in force at the time decided that there was no case for CR to answer. As a Liberal I accept that. No, I’m not saying that the allegations weren’t broadly credible because I know at least of the complainants personally, what I’m saying is that there are many cases within and without the party whose outcome I disagree with, but that our system of justice is such that the result is accepted and that double jeopardy is not part of our system. Once we move away from this then we are no longer Liberals.
In effect, the decision to hold a special conference is to apply double jeopardy. The conference is being called to retry CR and declare him guilty, because people refuse to accept the original verdict. There are several things I would say about this:
1. The conference will not advance the party’s approach to such accusations in the future, because the rules have already changed.
2. If the proposal is passed we will permanently alienate the party in the Lords and given current parliamentary arithmetic that would be the height of folly. Who would then be leading the fight against the Tories?
3. The position of CR within the party and the Lord’s group will be unchanged, because the conference has no power to deal with disciplinary matters.
4.The party will waste valuable time and resources at a time when fighting back following our appalling defeat in May 20105 should have priority
5. If the proposal is lost (and I suspect it will be – it will require a 2/3 majority) nothing will have been gained and the party will have been made to look foolish.
6. If a derisory number of people turn up to the conference the result – whatever it is – will be wholly unrepresentative of the party.
Can I appeal to those on both sides of this argument to think again. There is a great deal more to lose than you think.
@simon foster. I have been twice so far to Oldham and am going again on Wednesday. I strongly urge everyone else to do the same
Tony Greaves asks many questions in his comments, including, “Who are these people that are willing to put the very future of this party in peril – and for what?” – The answer might well be – The members of the House of Lords who thought that it was a good idea to elect Chris Rennard to the FE.
He then adds, that those behind this “witch hunt” appear not to understand the basics of democracy.
The irony is that the basics of democracy are now the concerns of a small group of un-elected Peers who think it is democratic for them to be able to elect a member to the FE on 44 votes.
As if that was not bad enough, more than half of Tim’s parliamentary spokesmen/women come from that same unelected group. Is it any wonder that the future of the party is at risk.
All we need now is a decision to hold the special conference in Oldham West, in order to help at the by-election.
Given the issues surrounding him, if Rennard were to apply to become a candidate for a parliamentary election would he be adopted? If not, because of these issues, why was it appropriate for the Noble Lords to appoint him to Fed Exec? Surely it is reasonable for the Party to expect the same standards of probity to apply to such an important internal appointment. It is clear from the content of this debate that whilst two ‘judges’ came to no concrete conclusion as to any guilt, the ‘jury’ is still out. Rennard should recognise tha he is ‘damaged goods’ and stand down. The jury(all of it) can then come in at Spring Conference and deliver it’s verdict on the various constitutional issues this debacle has raised. Top of the list should be the accountability of the Lords to the party. They cannot expect representation on Fed Exec and remain unaccountable.
The problem is that Alistair Webster left some grey areas. He at the same time said that the “beyond reasonable doubt” burden could not be met but also said the women’s claims were ” credible” . Rennard’s supporters said at the time, and on the record, that the accusations were so commonplace that half the men in the House of Lords had done the same in all likelihood (so that’s ok then) and that it was akin to an Italian pinching a woman’s bottom (they saw nothing wrong in that) and now they say ” he has done nothing wrong” to quote Greaves on another thread here. But that’s not what Webster said – so already history is being re-written.
To reduce this to ” innocent until proven guilty” is to miss the point – what does it say about you Lib Dems if you validate those sort of views towards sexual harassment? And after ignoring them and brushing it all under the carpet for so long? Doubtless because it was never ” the right time” or ” it would destroy the Party”. Because that’s the message you’d be sending out.
leave all of the sexual harassment claims out of this and ask, is a man who brought the party into disrepute by threatening to sue it if internal workings did not go his way fit to serve on it’s executive?
Lord Greaves – if you are so aggrieved by the workings of the party, I don’t think many tears would be shed if you departed.
To repeat myself, I was one of those who voted for The Special Conference & I would be very happy for it to be cancelled, if a reasonable cpmpromise can be arranged. I still think we need to adopt a semi-detached relationship with The “Libdem” Lords, because we cant apply any real discipline to them & because of the massive gulf between their Politics & that of the wider Party, but that could wait till a regular conference if The 44 hadnt brought things to a crisis.
It is a pity that the Peers did not apply a simple set of questions to their support of Lord Rennard, as would any employer interviewing staff. 1. Is this person likely to enhance the status of the body to which he has applied.2.Does he have the widespread support of those he would be working with and attempting to influence.
3.Would he be a person who would enhance the reputation of the body for whom he worked.
Sensitive analysis of the questions would not have any employer in advancing the application. This leads to to a clear understanding that the Peers had other agendas at play, which could have been varied .
It was a wrong decision but to spend a fortune,in Liberal terms, to hold a conference is equally wrong.
Let the Body to which he has been appointed deal with it. They have many ways to make it clear what their attitude is to the appointment
Manfarang
” ……was not acceptable to touch people years ago. In fact touching them in a certain way could result in a prosecution for indecent assault.
If only it were that simple, we would not be having so many historical cases coming out decades after the event. In very many cases, the victims were told they just had to put up with it. Even when they complained to the police, they were ignored.
If the York Rally was turned into a Special Conference would this be constitutional and cheaper than any other option?
Chris Rennard is to the Lib Dems what Lance Armstrong is to cycling. He is an embarrassment to the Liberal Democrats and his continued involvement demeans the party.
For people saying that Lord Rennard has been found not guilty, you are incorrect. The Lib Dems are not a judicial institution so the Guilty/Not Guilty analogy is an inappropriate comparison to make. The burden of proof (which for a non judicial institution was ludicrously high) was not met, but Alisdair Webber said the complaints were “broadly credible”. In most of other institutions this would have been more than enough for expulsion. Sadly our disciplinary processes were not up to scratch (a fact that pretty much everyone on all sides accepts). This has left the party in a difficult position. Especially since Lord Rennard has only offered a pretty substandard apology.
For those saying we should respect the democracy of the Lords in holding a properly constituted election, I say the Lords should accept the properly constituted decision of a greater number of members who disagree with their decision. This matter can be resolved by Lord Rennard standing down from the FE.
As a party we must do all we can to make sure that the Liberal Democrats is a safe place for women. The involvement of Lord Rennard in the internal running of the party would send a message that runs contrary to this vital responsibility.
This issue has been rumbling on for years and I am sick and tired of the party losing good and longstanding members who feel, understandably that they cannot remain in a party that commits to protecting women from sexual harassment publically, while apparently failing to act on credible allegations internally.
We must now act to deal with this issue. And this is the Ideal time to deal with this matter. The media pretty much pay no attention to us, we are 4 and half years from a General Election and most of the public are ignoring politics post General Election. If we don’t take actions now it could explode again as an issue during say an important and winnable by-election.
We spent five years in Government making compromises and look where it got us, we can’t afford to make compromises with regards to gender equality, its what we preach, it’s what we stand for and it is not good enough not to have our own house in order over this matter.
Phyllis, I think you will find that Webster said that the women concerned were themselves ‘broadly credible’ rather than their statements. Accordingly Reynard apologised for having affected the women’s perception of how he had behaved in their presence, while at the same time maintaining that he did not act with the intentions that the women had perceived.
It is possible for everyone to be ‘broadly credible’ but have conflicting accounts of what may have happened.
What a waste of time and money!
If Renard did not foresee this mess when he stood as Lords Rep then he is politically inept and naive.
If he did foresee it then he thinks his personal position more important than the reputation and electability of the LIbDems.
Ditto for all those who voted for him.
Yes the principle of being not proven guilty is important, but on the other hand so is having a voice for Liberalism in Britain which is credible with the voters .
I remember when the hubris of David Owen put Liberalism back a decade….
I got really excited by the headline, because it inferred someone would take the kid to school, do my work, pick the kid up and cook dinner so that I could travel hundreds of miles to argue about if Rennard should be allowed on the FE. On reading the fine print I see that’s not the case; which is disappointing, because I had nothing better to do.
On the Lords side – anyone that can’t see CR is a liability needs glasses. On the “Rock The Boat” side – anyone that can’t see that having a “special conference” to dispute the election of an individual to an internal party post is overkill needs to get their life priorities ironed out. Surely it’s a matter that can wait until the next conference, then perhaps normal folk can save up some money, get babysitters and actually attend, rather than it being a meeting of people with too much time on their hands.
I am suspicious of claims that ‘the Lords’ thrusted this on us unaware. As in any elections there will have to be a consent and understanding on both sides. The electors and the one to be elected. The fact that both sides found themselves so short of political feelings is indeed surprising.
I specifically did not say ‘political sense’. Sense implies reasoning and it is true that Lord Rennard was not found guilty hence should be innocent. Feelings are different and have been in a political arena since times immemorial; indeed we have an apt proverb to apply to the current situation: Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.
Caesar did say he knew nothing about his wife’s adultery. But that was not the point. He also said that he would not allow his wife’s suspected behaviours to sully his status, reputation, and prestige. (Plutarch’s Life of Julius Caesar). And before we slang the people applying the above proverb to the current situation remember that the saying has been used by Martin Luther King Jr., Buddha, Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Dalai Lama, Martin Luther, Sai Baba, Margaret Thatcher – perhaps not all of them Liberal Democrat idols – to justify their actions. It certainly illustrates that in public life the ‘suspected behaviour’ is as valid as ‘innocent until proven guilty’. We ignore that to our peril. (And that goes for both sides of the argument.)
Hold the special conference in Oldham!
There does seem a certain irony in folk on here arguing that because the party’s democratic processes were used in electing the Lords rep on the FE, that the democratic processes of the party should be invalid in questioning that decision.
While the workings of the party are ludicrously labyrinthine, they are designed with checks and balances in mind. You can’t pick and choose which bits of the process suit you and tell those interested in other parts to ignore them. It’s all of it or none of it.
Of course, if you want to change those processes – there are ways to do that. Like calling a special conference for example…
Why is what Rennard is alleged to have done considered so bad that it deserves a political death penalty, whereas burning down a precious collection of rare cacti that someone has spent a lifetime developing is not?
If I had gone through what CR has gone through, I would have dropped out of all political activity long ago. The rights and wrongs are not the point, but the perceptions are, and, as someone who cares about my Party at least as much as CR, the best thing for the Party is to recognise that you are yesterday’s man and stand aside.
for a Lord to claim a ‘democratic right’ is entirely odd(Lord Greaves). As a party that believes in reform of the Lords to become a democratic body, (and, if memory serves me right, some of our Lords voted against change when they had the chance), surely there should be no automatic place for a representative of the Lords on any of our committees. OMOV should mean OMOV, so the only way for Lords to be elected should be if the membership votes for them
@ Paul Barker; What sort of “reasonable compromise” do you have in mind? Would you like the Peers to half-elect Chris Rennard?
Ok, I agree with those who think this is an absolute train wreck and people on both sides of this issue should step back and have a good think about the interests of the Liberal Democrats… More and more we must appear to outsiders as the “Popular Front of Judaea” rather than a Party with any ambition for government.
1) I have a question for constitutional experts: the motion calls for removal of the power of the Peers to elect a member of FE. It would be very unusual for such change to be retrospective, so can it have any effect at all on Chris Rennard?? If not, then I fear this motion is more along the lines of “Back down Chris Rennard or we will badly hurt the Party”. If that is the intention then can the signatories please make that clear to us all?
2) If I had been a Peer I would have seen this coming and done my best to discourage Rennard from standing, and would not have voted for him whatever his qualities. I hope he will swallow his pride and stand aside for the good of all. Even though regardless of what he is accused of he clearly feels he has been treated shabbily by the Party… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25814565
3) I think the motion is a BIG mistake anyway. Of course we all wish the Lords were elected, but they are not. Tim has selected many of his front bench team from amongst their membership, and in this Parliament they are an absolutely key part of of our campaigning capability. Furthermore they include many former MP’s and a number of active current councillors, and the fact that they are not young and may judge matters in different ways from 25 year olds should certainly not mean that their views have no value. They need to be integrated into the rest of the Party and cancelling their seat on the FE would be a huge shot in the foot.
4) the fact that 200 ordinary members can call a special conference is just absolutely crazy and the fact that conference voted for it does not make it any better. 5% of the membership should be the minimum requirement. That would give people time to think about the wisdom of the thing while they were collecting signatures..
I recently sent a donation in response to a financial appeal from the party. Unfortunately it’s too late to stop the cheque but I won’t be sending another any time soon. I blame Rennard and what is the ‘old boys club’ in the House of Lords for this mess.
I kind of wish there was some decisive action like removing peers from the FE that would resolve this crisis and enable the party to draw a line under the whole situation and make it go away and enable a modern, democratic party to move into the future resolved to treat its members of whatever sexuality, gender or age as equals, but it doesn’t appear that there is; removing peers will only deepen the crisis, in my view.
Andrew McCaig’s point about how can this be made retrospective is right on the money.
Hypothetically, would another way forward be to place Lords membership of party committees under the same restrictions as MPs with reagrds to other committees, and increase Lords representation on the exec to the same level as MPs – possibly with one for England, one for Wales and one for Scotland in the same way as with MPs?
That way, one person would not be the sole ‘representative’ of the Lords on the exec.
That is what is personally distasteful to me, that one person who does not (and some would say cannot) hold the trust of the party (and clearly not the whole party in the Lords) should be nominally the ‘sole’ or ‘main’ link between FE and Lords (although obviously Baroness Brinton being president muddies that) at a time when the Lords offer this party its largest presence in Parliament and have proven that they can be effective in that regard and will be needed in future.
Phyllis 16th Nov ’15 – 11:41am…..If only it were that simple, we would not be having so many historical cases coming out decades after the event. In very many cases, the victims were told they just had to put up with it. Even when they complained to the police, they were ignored………….
So very true; the phrase, “All he did was to spank a few bare bottoms”, comes to mind…
Another train-wreck – but this time it’ll be televised. At least at this time of mass-murder we’re showing the public that we’re focusing on the really important issues in the world.
There are a few ways this could all end, some less damaging to the party than others. At least one would be fatal to the party. None of them involve Chris Rennard remaining on the FE.
Tim Farron has yet again shown weak Leadership.
Phyllis
The essential elements that the Crown (Police) has to prove are:
that the accused assaulted the complainant, and that the assault was indecent, and
that the assault was without the consent of the complainant, and
that the accused knew that the complainant was not consenting, or he/she realised that there was a possibility that the complainant was not consenting but he/she went ahead anyway, or he/she did not even think about whether the complainant was consenting or not — in other words, he/she did not care whether the complainant was consenting.
The Police must prove every one of these elements. You can only find [the accused] guilty if the Police/Crown proves each of these matters beyond reasonable doubt.
A law lecturer once pointed out that many sex cases seemed to involve people with a certain surname.
@Andrew McCraig
My understanding is that constitutional amendments take effect from the moment the conference which passed them ends. On that basis removing a position on FE would take effect the moment the special conference ended. If it were creating a position, however, then that position would probably just be left vacant until the next regular set of elections.
The press and media are full of Syria and Paris.
new hashtag needed/ #fighteachother
I only hope that all Lib Dem members taking time to write in this article have put clear views to the Governance Review which had a deadline today?
Federal Executive needs abolishing anyway, to be replaced by something more pertinent and closer to our activists, members and supporters across the entire country not merely the south, with odd bits stuck on as a geographical elastoplast….
Here’s a chance to rid yourselves of this dubious and meretricous bunch and construct something meaningful, purposeful and genuinely representative.
Too many of these posts are engaging in the ongoing argument about the rights and wrongs of the Rennard case. Surely the real immediate issue is this demand for a special conference. Here I am firmly on the side of those who decry this for all the reasons set out above by so many experienced and impeccably liberal members.. There has been no satisfactory answer to the question repeatedly raised – why can this not be dealt with at the March 2016 conference? Andrew McCaig’s point about any change not applying retrospectively knocks on the head the only possible argument for a conference (when – in December?) – that it could stop the current entry of Chris Rennard into the Federal Executive.
The constitution says ” A meeting may be cancelled by the Federal Executive in exceptional circumstances.” It is indeed unfortunate that this power lies in the hands of the very body in the eye of this storm and clearly it would be proper for Rennard to stand aside from any consideration of this matter. Given that, I think it would be perfectly valid for the FE to decide that a conference on this specific issue should be deferred until March at which point it can take place in tandem with the regular party conference. This would save considerable money and avoid demanding of the membership that they travel from all over the country in the middle of the winter for something for which no-one in this thread has been able to establish has time urgency of this degree. On the other hand, by regarding this business – clearly of real and genuine importance – as the subject of a contemporaneous conference and not swallowed up by the general March conference there would be no question of the Conference Committee or other machinery messing about with the motion which would be put.
Obviously it would be even better if George Potter et al would avoid the FE having to act by themselves putting forward this solution to a potentially highly harmful situation with which surely by now they must feel some discomfort.
I have read Tony Greaves’ comment on the 15th at 11:50 and then allowed myself to mull over it for some time.
“a significant number of people in this party are now politically deranged”…..”What is happening is irrational, vindictive and politically stupid”…”What is happening is the work of an illiberal mob”.
I think it is a very liberal attribute to accept that some people may have a very different outlook from oneself and that they may have a grievance which needs to be heard and resolved. It is a liberal attribute to be accomodating to others’ views. There are obviously very strong feelings on this and they will not go away by calling those who hold those views (on one side of the argument) “politically deranged”, “irrational”, “vindictive”, “politically stupid” and “an illiberal mob”. I think such name-calling is a rejection of others’ real concerns and is, in itself, illiberal.
I think some deep breaths need to be taken….We should listen to each other and respect each others’ views, and try to accommodate each other, not name-call.
I am beginning to despair of the Liberal Democrats, the party I joined at its inception and kept faith with even during the dark and terrible years of the so-called “coalition”.
Once the carnage was over, there were two ways for the party to go. One. Rebuild. Elect a new leader and get out there and proselytise the party’s aims and values. Two. Retreat into the bunker and fight among ourselves. Sadly, it seems that far too many of us have opted for the latter.
I was naive enough to believe that after the election, the free-market fundamentalists would pack their bags and join the Tories. But no. They are still here alienating the few voters we have left. These are the folk who want to cover the countryside with solar farms and Noddy-houses and say this is what liberalism is all about. Little wonder our once formidable rural support has evaporated. Then during the leadership election, another destructive faction, the militant atheists, showed their teeth. How many of our remaining supporters did they alienate? I dread to think. And now we have the anti- Chris Rennard faction causing mayhem. Do they care how much harm their “special conference” will do to the party? I suspect and fear that that is the least of their considerations. I thought natural justice and the rule of law were liberal principles. Well, not if the hate figure is Chris Rennard. Oh, and a couple of posts up from me we have a sweeping, non-specific jibe at the leader. If these people are not part of the solution, then they must be part of the problem.
I highly recommend the fascinating series of talks by Martin Webster about the self-destruction of the National Front (they are on Youtube). The far right in Britain is not a dismal failure because few people agree with their policies, it is because they are more interested in fighting each other than fighting their enemies. Well, great. I’m delighted that the far right behaves like that. But Liberal Democrats should know and do much, much better. The anti- Chris Rennard zealots are behaving exactly like the leaders of the National Front in the 1970s. They have to wake up and wake up fast, or there will be no Liberal Democrat Party left.
Denis Loretto – I’m not sure waiting until March is a good idea, do we want one of our set piece conferences, a few weeks before vital elections overshadowed by this issue?
Sesenco – What utter rubbish – First the person who can resolve this situation is Rennard himself by resigning , but he apparently is more important than the hundreds of people who have signed the petition /resigned from the party. Secondly the rule of law – He was criticised by the QC who investigated the matter for his conduct towards women. For a party who believes in progressive values this criticism really does prevent his involvement in the most important party body we have.
I also think your viewpoint that the current unpopularity of the party is down to groups of members supporting renewable energy, gay marriage and women’s right to personal autonomy is frankly ludicrous.
The last time I attempted to comment on this affair, I was (quite courteously, I may say) shown the gate by the LDV editors, who pointed out that my comments were far too specific. Perhaps the appropriate thing to do would be to say no more; but instead, I will try to make a somewhat vaguer point.
We no longer live in a time when the mere aura of authority is sufficient to invest the decisions of judges, arbiters, and commissions with the sacrosanctity of solid fact. This is not just because there is less respect for authority per se, but also because we have seen far too many such decisions fly in the face of the evidence, be engineered to protect the powerful, or be revoked some years down the line.
As such, it is no longer enough to say, “the decision has been made, live with it.” You cannot force people to acquiesce in the rightness of decisions that their instincts tell them (validly or invalidly, as the case may be) are wrong. And as such it becomes not a matter of bluntly asserting authority, but of a more delicate politics. Do you divide people by insisting, on the basis of authority, on a path which a substantial minority, or even a majority, feels is wrong? Or do you seek a compromise that will maintain unity in the long term?
I get the sense that there are some who are not very patient with that process of negotiation, and would rather just demand that rules are rules, decisions are decisions, and we should all get on. The alternatives are, no doubt, very messy, time-consuming, and complicated. But I do not see how they are avoidable. The last elections delivered the coup de grace to whatever pretensions to institutional authority the Party machinery retained. As such, the Party is not really in a good position to tell its members to shut up and get in line, and, even if this could be done, would alienate many and destroy more of the ground on which the Party is trying to stand. I do not see any choice other than to take the messy, complex route, and make something of it: take it as an opportunity to practice the kind of political outreach and negotiations that are necessary for the Party to rebuild itself, and also work on mending fences with all of its members.
I applaud the sentiment behind those who sought Rennard’s ouster; whatever his past good work, his position is completely untenable, and he should’ve gone quietly into the night in 2014. What 40 of his colleagues in the HoL were thinking in supposing that his return to the FE would be anything other than a fiasco I cannot begin to judge. Tony Greaves’ most intemperate, condescending and illiberal comments here show that at least one of their Lordships has taken leave of his senses. Perhaps Tony would be good enough to explain whether he voted for Rennard?
But I am concerned by the proposed constitutional amendment. The Lords are part of the parliamentary party, and at the moment an extremely important one in blocking Tory measures. This doesn’t sit easily with me as a fully-elected-by-STV Upper House supporter, but it is at the moment political reality. So any measure cutting the HoL out of the FE is in my view a bad idea, and the non-negligible costs of a special conference is problematic for the finances, though I appreciate that it is a price that may need to be paid.
What I would like to see is:
(a) Chris Rennard resigning from FE in recognition of the outcry that suggests that he does not command the moral authority to make a contribution as a member of FE;
(b) If Rennard refuses, then I’d like to see an agreement between the proposers of this motion and FCC to take this as a motion at Spring Conference to avoid the need for a special conference;
(c) if (a) or (b) cannot be agreed before 1 Jan 16, then FE should proceed with the special conference asap, and let the chips fall where they may.
Personally, I’m minded to vote against the motion in its current form, as I think the Lords should stay on FE. However, I’d happily back a motion making clear that Rennard does not enjoy the confidence of the membership, and that he should resign from FE if he can’t be sacked.
Several of our local members are bemused and some angry. They really do not understand how Peers can be so out of touch and why CR, who put so much into building and campaigning for the party, seems to be insensible to party members’ feelings. I agree – he was not found guilty of anything criminal, but there was found to be credible evidence of, being very generous, thoughtless behavior.
At conference I voted for OMOV but that also means we need a better method of voting, because neither the party nor members can afford to organise or attend special conferences.
We will all lose if a separate special conference is called, and I don’t think retrospective changes to constitution should be instigated or are Liberal, however frustrating it is that some seem to need glasses for political shortsightedness.
Not sure about LibDem rules, but if this extract from the Guardian is correct then god help whoever has to organise this, you could end up with a Christmas day conference – wouldn’t that be nice:
“Once the party’s conference organising committee has verified that all the signatures are from the party’s membership, it has to set a date for the conference within seven days to be held between 21 and 28 days after the notice.”
George: So what is the actual purpose of this “Special Conference”?
Is the problem that the LibDem peers have elected a representative from among themselves in a confidential ballot?
Is the problem that this representative also sits on the Federal Executive?
Is the problem that this representative happens to be Chris Rennard?
I’ve yet to understand what it is exactly you are hoping to achieve from this conference, ie. what will be different, or are you just wanting to “send a message”?
Everyone else! It would seem that there is a major omission in the Federal consititution, namely the word “quorum” does not appear. It does appear in the LibDem English Constitution and explicitly states that a quorum is “20 members (or one-fifth of the membership if less)”. It therefore seems that the Federal party has left the door wide open to any activist group to create havoc…
malc: The Guardian is guilty of sloppy journalism. Those are not the Federal Conference rules – I think they were picked up from one of the regional or state parties. The Constitution doesn’t actually set a specific time limit, but we’ve been told that waiting until Spring Conference is not an option.
This debate is getting terribly overheated. The first I heard of this was on Facebook. Amending fed constitution on this is sledgehammer tactics. A couple of weeks ago, all and sundry were praising the Lords for their stance on tax credits, noe they are know nothings. We positivly do not need this now. The media will pick up on navel gazing lib dems. But rennard needs to step back from post. Sanity please in post Paris world.
I can’t believe we are now planning a special conference. Sexual harassment is serious but CR has never been found guilty, therefore some are quite rightly viewing this as a witch hunt. People complain about the unelected Lords but the Party was very happy to try to make use of them on tax credits. Talk about double standards. And now, just because some members disagree with who the Lords chose as their FE rep, we have this ridiculous – and expensive – scenario. If the recent conference enabled 200 members out of 60,000 to call a special conference, something clearly went wrong. I see there are members leaving, or threatening to leave, over CR being elected to the FE. Has anyone considered the reverse of this – that members might leave because of the way this is now being handled? This whole situation is crazy. I suspect I shall shortly be writing my own resignation letter – not that anyone will care given that I’m a relatively new member as opposed to a longstanding activist, but to be honest this is probably the final straw. The world is facing serious problems right now and that should be our focus.
i’d much prefer that this is dealt with eg first thing Saturday at the March conference (if a compromise has not yet been reached). It’ll cost a lot to hold a special conference (which will annoy many of those who donate to us), and I worry it’ll have only a few attendees drawn mostly from the area in which it is held, wherever that is (due to the very little notice among other reasons),. Therefore I fear its decisions, whatever they are, would lack legitimacy, and in this context OMOV makes this much worse. The issues raised here are serious, but I think can wait 3.5 months (inc Christmas) if they are still live by then. A period of reflection will also help us come up with the right constitutional/policy changes rather than doing something in haste. Finally, it seems clear to me that 200 ordinary memebers from 20+ parties being able to call a special federal conference is wrong. Any special interest group with a few hundred members spread across the UK could join our party and cause a special conf, which is clearly crazy. I suggest a much much higher threshold, possibly based on local parties. regards, james
@Julie – I agree, and so would the organisers of the motion. The real issue is the kick in the teeth Rennard’s election is for Tim Farron, given his previous comments about Rennard, and for the members as a whole. The Lords as a whole, and as a party group, are accountable and answerable to no-one – they can’t be deselected, defeated in an election, and even withdrawing party membership or the whip is now virtually impossible because of some of the rulings related to Rennard’s case – and because of the election result they now have a disproportionate influence within the party. On a more political point, if the Lords couldn’t see the potential problems voting for Rennard would have then I would question whether they should be involved in political decision-making at any level, as the outcome was entirely predictable.
This was a concern which some members had previously – what the election has done is bring it to a head quicker than people would have liked. There is a lot of effort going on behind the scenes to try to avoid the conference, as nobody really wants it.
@Julie Maxon
Julie, please don’t go.
We need people like you. And the country does too.
With the election of Jeremy Corbyn, the Lib Dems, despite being devastated at the last election, may be key to the creation of a force that can challenge 20 years of Tory rule.
I know this thread is showing the party in a bad light, but online discussions, dominated by a few very angry people, tend to be far more heated and destructive than when party members meet in person.
You are 100% right that the threshold for a special conference should be far higher than 200 ordinary members. But we can fix that in due course.
In this case, a higher threshold might not prevent a special conference – I suspect, after a while, those proposing the conference might get the increased number. But in the time it took to gather those names, cooler heads might have prevailed.
I have asked a question and it has not been answered. Why is it that what Chris Rennard is alleged to have done is considered deserving of a political death penalty? I use that phrase because politics has been Rennard’s life, and what we are being told here is that he can no longer be permitted to participate in it.
Unless I have got it wrong, Rennard has not been accused of using threats of the sort “unless you go along with me, I’ll make sure your political career is wrecked” or “if you go along with me, I’ll make sure you are promoted politically”. If he had done, I would agree with his opponents here. Yet if one tries to point out that the accusations are of a form of harassment milder than can happen, one is attacked as being a horrible person who does not understand why sexual harassment is a bad thing.
The attacks made on Rennard here are on the basis that he is a strong alpha-male character. Is he? I don’t know him, so this is just supposition. Is he a shy, rather socially inept male, who finds solace in the structured activity of politics? There are a lot of people in the party like that, I know because I am one of them. An aspect of that is finding it difficult to interact with women, at times too shy, at others trying to break that and lurching too far the other way. If that’s what it is (and I really don’t know, but do those who assume it is the other way know?) does it really deserve the political death penalty?
Rennard was a key person in giving our party the sort of image it used to have, and there was a big move by some to make the party something different (more about right-wing economics and less about let-wing “protest”) to use the coalition to push it that way. Are we absolutely sure that the whipping up of the anti-Rennard case here has absolutely no links with people who oppose what he stood for politically and may be using it for that reason?
I am no longer regularly contributing comments to LDV because I have been driven out by a few people whose rigid assumptions, illogical conclusions, refusal to see two sides of a case, and personal attacks on me accusing me of being the opposite of what I really am sickened me. I see those people posting here, and doing the same thing when they side with the anti-Rennard campaigners.