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…
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Police PR blunder raises alarm
Chancellor must take blinkers off and pay attention to industry
My tweets
So is Skem' to get linked to Merseyrail? It's still a wait and see
Dundee Bipolar Group meetings
Goodbye Mr Derek
Paul Barker
Ian
richard underhill
nigel hunter
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?
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.