So, how did Michael Crick do?

Exhibit A:

“I hear from a well-placed source that the list of peers, with about 55 names from across the party spectrum, will be published on Wednesday 1 December.”

The list was published on Friday 19 November with 54 names from across the party spectrum, so not bad at all.

Exhibit B:

“A normally astute and well-informed Lib Dem observer reckons the following people are in line to be among the expected 15 new Liberal Democrat peers:

* Brian Paddick (2008 London Mayoral candidate and former senior Metropolitan Police officer)
* Sal Brinton (Parliamentary candidate in Watford in 2005 and 2010)
* Dee Doocey (member of the London Assembly since 2004 but standing down in 2012)
* Judith Jolly (West Country party stalwart)
* Susan Kramer (ex-MP for Richmond Park)
* Jonathan Marks (legal expert)
* Monroe Palmer (chair of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel)
* Julie Smith (Cambridge academic and chair of Liberal International British Group)
* Ben Stoneham (No.2 at Cowley Street, Clegg’s operations director before the election)
* Neil Sherlock (speech writer to successive Lib Dem leaders – Kennedy, Campbell and Clegg, also a big donor to Clegg’s office, and husband of recently ennobled Kate Parminter)
* Ian Wright (big donor to Clegg’s office).”

There were indeed 15, but of Crick’s list only 7 were appointed yesterday. Not quite so good Michael…

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

10 Comments

  • Not bad though.

  • He forecast 55. There were 54.

    He forecast 15 Lib Dems. There were 15 Lib Dems.

    He suggested 12 names. He got 8 right.

  • Does anyone still think there will be an elected second chamber before, or even soon after 2015 and if so will large donors and political has-beens still predominate?

  • The question should be less about Michael Crick, though.
    Is it a good sign or a bad sign that his ‘normally astute and well-informed LibDem source’ got more than half of the names wrong?

  • david thorpe 20th Nov '10 - 2:40pm

    the legislation for a second chamber election in 2015 is being worked on isnt

  • @Maria

    “…got more than half of the names wrong?”

    How do you work that out?

  • Mark Pack states: 15 names, of those 7 correct.
    I assume that this means that 8 were wrong?

  • How depressing that we should be packing our legislature with these people. We really are setting the bar rather low with some of them. It seems like failure to get elected, trying to buy influence by making donations and acting as a bag carrier to party officials are the main criteria for being ennobled. Mind you, I went to school with a hereditary peer and he was a real “Tim nice but dim” character – charming, but thick as two short planks.

    It all illustrates how badly the HoL needs reform, NOW!

  • @Maria

    Michael Crick suggested 12 names. He got 8 of those right.

    Mark Pack missed an addendum off, but even if you take the list of 11 in Mark Pack’s article, it means Michael Crick got 7 out of 11 correct . So, he didn’t get “more than half of the names wrong” as you have assumed, he actually got more than half of the names right! Or 7 right and 4 wrong, if you prefer.

  • He forecast 55. There were 54.
    He forecast 15 Lib Dems. There were 15 Lib Dems.
    He suggested 12 names. He got 8 right.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarFormer Dem 12th Aug - 1:06pm
    Peter Watson I always interpret that emoji as a flirtatious wink, myself! You're right about VAT, but that targeted everyone, whereas changes like child benefit...
  • User AvatarCatherine Jane Crosland 12th Aug - 12:59pm
    Frustrated, perhaps you could help your local party to become more aware that diversity and inclusivity should include making sure disabled people are able to...
  • User AvatarPaul Holmes 12th Aug - 12:55pm
    @ Catherine. Why would we want to get away from a form of campaigning that has been proven over and over and over again to...
  • User AvatarAndrew Toye 12th Aug - 12:50pm
    In the party’s internal committee ballots, members are asked to choose from a large number of candidates for a large number of vacancies and to...
  • User AvatarLib Dem Mum 12th Aug - 12:41pm
    Good idea Catherine 💞
  • User AvatarPaul Holmes 12th Aug - 12:26pm
    @Roger Lake. The problem however with the recent Guardian article, as with our forthcoming Conference Motion, is that it is all aspirational wishful thinking with...