|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 13, 2015 6:53:37 GMT
I saw a tweet earlier today about some Trafford Labour councillor becoming an Independent followed by a reply saying that he had had the whip withdrawn. Can't remember the name though Hmmmm....I wonder who that will prove to be. I've had a quick look and can't see any mention of it. The Trafford Labour councillors are a mixed bunch these days, some who are really, really good and some I wouldn't trust to find their a*** with both hands. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,748 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 13, 2015 8:05:55 GMT
I note that comments on Liberal Democrat Voice indicate a petition is being got up for a special conference, and a proposal that the Lords representation on the Federal Executive should be removed..... It's quite a kerfuffle, albeit a very polite one. I support suspending the Lords Party. Rennard is a cancer in our party, it beggars belief that so many people still have loyalty to him. NB, I know there are large numbers of our Lords Party who are absolutely horrified by this decision by their peers. The problem is that it goes against the whole principles of justice to punish a person who has not been found guilty of something, and what should be one of the core beliefs of a Liberal Democrat that a person is innocent until found guilty, and not declare a person guilty on accusation. Find him guilty of something, then punish him. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 13, 2015 8:48:57 GMT
I saw a tweet earlier today about some Trafford Labour councillor becoming an Independent followed by a reply saying that he had had the whip withdrawn. Can't remember the name though Hmmmm....I wonder who that will prove to be. I've had a quick look and can't see any mention of it. The Trafford Labour councillors are a mixed bunch these days, some who are really, really good and some I wouldn't trust to find their a*** with both hands. Seems it was Ian Platt (Bucklow) but this took place over a month ago. Not sure why a Tory councillor for Broadheath was tweeting about it yesterday |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 13, 2015 10:46:14 GMT
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,005
|
Post by Khunanup on Nov 13, 2015 11:25:50 GMT
I support suspending the Lords Party. Rennard is a cancer in our party, it beggars belief that so many people still have loyalty to him. NB, I know there are large numbers of our Lords Party who are absolutely horrified by this decision by their peers. The problem is that it goes against the whole principles of justice to punish a person who has not been found guilty of something, and what should be one of the core beliefs of a Liberal Democrat that a person is innocent until found guilty, and not declare a person guilty on accusation. Find him guilty of something, then punish him. He threatened to sue the party if he didn't get his own way, that's bringing it into disrepute. That's why he should have been chucked out. Apart from anything else, our Lords party thinking it'd be a good idea to elect Rennard to a position like that knowing about the bad publicity around him and the kind of message it sends is ever so slightly concerning... |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Nov 13, 2015 12:34:53 GMT
The problem is that it goes against the whole principles of justice to punish a person who has not been found guilty of something, and what should be one of the core beliefs of a Liberal Democrat that a person is innocent until found guilty, and not declare a person guilty on accusation. Find him guilty of something, then punish him. He threatened to sue the party if he didn't get his own way, that's bringing it into disrepute. That's why he should have been chucked out. Apart from anything else, our Lords party thinking it'd be a good idea to elect Rennard to a position like that knowing about the bad publicity around him and the kind of message it sends is ever so slightly concerning... He threatened to sue the party for not following the principles of natural and Liberal justice that is why those who attempted to do so should have been suspended from the party . |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 13, 2015 14:27:41 GMT
He threatened to sue the party if he didn't get his own way, that's bringing it into disrepute. That's why he should have been chucked out. Apart from anything else, our Lords party thinking it'd be a good idea to elect Rennard to a position like that knowing about the bad publicity around him and the kind of message it sends is ever so slightly concerning... He threatened to sue the party for not following the principles of natural and Liberal justice that is why those who attempted to do so should have been suspended from the party . Indeed so. Rennard hasn't been found guilty of anything. I'm surprised that so many in the Lib Dems seem keen to hound him when their attitude to convicted criminals would be different. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 13, 2015 14:47:27 GMT
If someone in Rennard's position were the defending party's candidate in a byelection and Rennard was running the campaign, do you think he would take the view that it would be wrong to mention it?
|
|
|
|
Post by cuthbertbede on Nov 13, 2015 15:24:45 GMT
Not a defection but Katherine Bavage has resigned as Member of the Lib DEms and FE member over Rennard I note that comments on Liberal Democrat Voice indicate a petition is being got up for a special conference, and a proposal that the Lords representation on the Federal Executive should be removed..... It's quite a kerfuffle, albeit a very polite one. It's an entirely predictable and avoidable kerfuffle at that. The fact that it emanates from that most illiberal and anti-democratic of bodies, the House of Lords, is unsurprising. If the upshot of this is that that unaccountable body ends up with less influence in the party (without going down the Trudeau route), then that will be a good thing. Oh, and the petition has apparently reached the required levels, so… |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,005
|
Post by Khunanup on Nov 13, 2015 16:11:55 GMT
He threatened to sue the party for not following the principles of natural and Liberal justice that is why those who attempted to do so should have been suspended from the party . Indeed so. Rennard hasn't been found guilty of anything. I'm surprised that so many in the Lib Dems seem keen to hound him when their attitude to convicted criminals would be different. Many of us within the party believe the investigation was flawed at best, completely compromised at worst, that to threaten to sue the party you want to be desuspended from is unacceptable behaviour and would have resulted in permanent expulsion if it was just about anyone else, that Rennard didn't make the apology he was asked to make and that quite frankly the man has no shame at all. If he can't be expelled then it is monumentally stupid for our House of Lords party to nominate such a divisive figure as their FE rep, leaving aside the brass neck of Rennard to even put himself forward for that position. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 13, 2015 17:54:42 GMT
Indeed so. Rennard hasn't been found guilty of anything. I'm surprised that so many in the Lib Dems seem keen to hound him when their attitude to convicted criminals would be different. Many of us within the party believe the investigation was flawed at best, completely compromised at worst, that to threaten to sue the party you want to be desuspended from is unacceptable behaviour and would have resulted in permanent expulsion if it was just about anyone else, that Rennard didn't make the apology he was asked to make and that quite frankly the man has no shame at all. If he can't be expelled then it is monumentally stupid for our House of Lords party to nominate such a divisive figure as their FE rep, leaving aside the brass neck of Rennard to even put himself forward for that position. The other side of that is that if the investigation was flawed, then the suspension was incorrect and lifting it was the correct thing to do. The man wasn't found guilty (despite what people seem to believe, he's not Mike Hancock and look at how long the Lib Dems stuck by him). There's no point apologising if you don't believe you've done anything wrong and, in fact, trying to make a man who hasn't been found guilty and probably doesn't believe that he has done anything wrong is fundamentally illiberal: it's like the rather pathetic apologies you get asked to make at school. I never had the Lib Dems down as witch hunters and this leaves a rather poor taste in the mouth. Actually, that last part is untrue. I'm pretty sure that those who gleefully applied Rennard's tactics have witch hunted in their leaflets. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 13, 2015 17:57:05 GMT
If someone in Rennard's position were the defending party's candidate in a byelection and Rennard was running the campaign, do you think he would take the view that it would be wrong to mention it? He'd go to town on it. And then deny it. |
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Nov 13, 2015 18:03:27 GMT
Khunanup - your posting is both defamatory band offensive. You are a disgrace to the party. By the way there cannot be too "large numbers" of the Lords party who are "absolutely horrified" - actually I have not found one but no doubt Lord Razzall and his partner are two - since only 26 voted against Chris Rennard.
There seem to be a few members of our party who need to learn the meaning of Liberalism which amongst other things means that if there is no evidence against someone, they are innocent, full stop.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,770
|
Post by john07 on Nov 13, 2015 19:17:57 GMT
Khunanup - your posting is both defamatory band offensive. You are a disgrace to the party. By the way there cannot be too "large numbers" of the Lords party who are "absolutely horrified" - actually I have not found one but no doubt Lord Razzall and his partner are two - since only 26 voted against Chris Rennard. There seem to be a few members of our party who need to learn the meaning of Liberalism which amongst other things means that if there is no evidence against someone, they are innocent, full stop. Even if the person concerned is a creepy slime ball? Just asking. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 13, 2015 19:23:39 GMT
Rennard and his supporters have shown a level of political naivety so staggering that they should all be the kicked out of the House of Lords on the grounds that they are too thick to serve on a parish council let alone sit in the national legislature. It doesn't matter what the facts are or what the investigation did and didn't prove. This isn't a court of law, it is politics, and when it comes to politics Rennard is damaged beyond repair. This might not be fair but it is the cold, hard political reality.
Were I a Lib Dem activist I would be beside myself with rage that these pompous old fools are willing to damage the party so much while being free from the consequences of their own deplorable stupidity.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,297
|
Post by maxque on Nov 13, 2015 21:07:00 GMT
Khunanup - your posting is both defamatory band offensive. You are a disgrace to the party. By the way there cannot be too "large numbers" of the Lords party who are "absolutely horrified" - actually I have not found one but no doubt Lord Razzall and his partner are two - since only 26 voted against Chris Rennard. There seem to be a few members of our party who need to learn the meaning of Liberalism which amongst other things means that if there is no evidence against someone, they are innocent, full stop. So if a LD lord says on every tribune than people should vote for Labour, he shouldn't be expelled, right? After all, it's not a crime to ask people to vote for Labour. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,005
|
Post by Khunanup on Nov 13, 2015 21:30:23 GMT
Khunanup - your posting is both defamatory band offensive. You are a disgrace to the party. By the way there cannot be too "large numbers" of the Lords party who are "absolutely horrified" - actually I have not found one but no doubt Lord Razzall and his partner are two - since only 26 voted against Chris Rennard. There seem to be a few members of our party who need to learn the meaning of Liberalism which amongst other things means that if there is no evidence against someone, they are innocent, full stop. I'm not a disgrace to our party Tony, Chris Rennard is. Threatening to sue the party was indefensible and something I'm sure neither you or I would ever contemplate. My opinion has not changed about Rennard from long before the investigation into his conduct began, he is a man who's reputation both within and now without the party is ropey to say the least. With that in mind, and with the many excellent member of the Lords party who could do the job, why elect someone who at the very least polarises opinion within the party (as our own comments are showing) to the extent that some people openly will not be in the same room as him and who's appointment was almost guaranteed to lead to negative publicity outside the party? |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,748
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 13, 2015 22:30:40 GMT
There seem to be a few members of our party who need to learn the meaning of Liberalism which amongst other things means that if there is no evidence against someone, they are innocent, full stop. Even if the person concerned is a creepy slime ball? Just asking. Yes, even if they're a creepy slime ball. If Ian Brady was accused of shoplifting, and there was no evidence to suppose the accusation of shoplifting, he is still innocent of the accusation of shoplifting. Being a creepy slimeball does not come into it. I really hope that the sort of people who believe that accusation=guilt are never allowed to sit on anything like a licensing board. When I was a whip I insisted members attend licensing training before I put them on the licensing board, and the training made it clear that you could only make decisions based on found facts, not on accusation or suspicion. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 13, 2015 23:11:33 GMT
But JG, do you think his appointment was really a sensible move? Just asking? Do you think all your inner true believer LD women accusers were all fantasists and liars and he alone is the truthteller? If so, why do you think they all did it? These are not young ignorant girls looking to criminal compensation and pickings from the press, but your own staffers! They were ALL liars???
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Nov 14, 2015 16:48:23 GMT
"Creepy slime ball" may or may not be defamatory. But if all elected politicians at any level were vetoed for being "creepy slime-balls" quite a few would have to go. The democratic point is that if I vote for someone that I think is a fine upstanding person but is thought by a political opponent to be a creepy slime-ball, that is a matter of opinion. Not a reason for rejecting the result of a democratic election.
The only thing that Chris threatened to sue the party over was when the party refused to abide by its own rules by refusing to allow him to see the report that was the basis of the proposals to discipline him. In the end they gave in and it became clear that the report exonerated him. I would do the same - what would you do if it happened to you?
But whether or not Chris Rennard is a "disgrace" is a matter of opinion. It is not the opinion of a majority of the Liberal Democrat peers and who represents them on the FE is their (our) decision.
|
|
