Lib Dems can't decide whether they support or oppose the Government

By Harry Phibbs
^{Follow Harry on Twitter}

Tim Farron MP, the President of the Liberal Democrats, says that his colleagues are like cockroaches. He means the comparison to be positive, telling The House magazine:

“We’re a bit like cockroaches after a nuclear war, just a bit less smelly: we are made of sterner stuff."

For many Tories, using the term "cockroaches" to describe their coalition partners would be mild . So often Lib Dem Ministers behave as if collective responsibility doesn't apply to them.

The Business Secretary Vince Cable is at it again this morning in a Guardian interview which he uses to attack the Government on spending cuts. He says:

"The proposals for the one-year spending review, as we understand it, is for 85% spending cuts versus 15% tax rises. Certainly as a Liberal Democrat I would question that. There should be a better balance."

Instead he wants an extra £15 billion of spending on capital projects. He also says that if there are any more cuts they shouldn't go on his department:

What happens if Nick Clegg resigns?

By Peter Hoskin
_{Follow Peter on Twitter}

I’m not saying that Nick Clegg will resign. Nor that the allegations surrounding Lord Rennard and his party, as dispiriting as they are, necessarily yet warrant a resignation. But the past week has certainly raised the prospect of blood further down the tracks. Mr Clegg’s appearance on LBC radio this morning didn’t create the impression of a man who is in control of his own defence – let alone of his own destiny.   

So what would happen if he did resign? The first point to make is that it would, most likely, fray the ties that bind the Coalition together. Relations between the Tory and Lib Dem leaderships may no longer be all roses and chocolates, as they were at the start of this Government, but Mr Clegg is still – as I’ve written before – a natural ally for David Cameron. He remains one of the most effective advocates of coalition itself, and of this Coalition’s policies. He remains a venomous critic of Labour and of their policies. He is an adhesive helping the whole thing stick together.

When it comes to other senior Lib Dems, something similar could be said of Danny Alexander and David Laws. Norman Lamb, too, is someone who might do easy business with the Tories. And perhaps, to a much lesser extent, there are Ed Davey and Jo Swinson.

The Three Golden Rules that have guided the Liberal Democrats over the Rennard claims

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter

• Rule One: Faced with the certainty of scandal today or the possibility of scandal tomorrow, choose the latter.  Delay.  Procrastinate.  Dither.  Buck-pass.  Put one's head in the sand, and hope that the problem goes away.  Above all, try to insulate the party as much as possible.  The Liberal Democrats seem to have followed this rule to the letter.  To be fair, not following it would have required establishing a formal investigation into Rennard (which would have required his resignation as the party's Chief Executive).  This would have plunged the party into disrepute and scandal.  This, in turn, would have raised questions within the party about Nick Clegg's "judgement" and "maturity".

• Rule Two: You are good people and your opponents are bad people - so a scandal, by definition, can't happen to you.  The exemplars of this rule were New Labour, whose war against "Tory sleaze" seems to have convinced its leadership and MPs that they really were better people than their opponents.  This may explain why Tony Blair is widely believed to have told his party that it must be "whiter than white": what he actually said was that "we must be whiter than white".  At any rate, it turned out not to be whiter than white, as the following names may help to demonstrate: Peter Mandelson, David Blunkett, Jo Moore, Elliot Morley, Jim Devine, Margaret Moran, Denis MacShane...

• Rule Three: If you are a minor party or a left-wing one (or both), Rule Two especially applies.  Just as the Liberal Democrats believed that they could both make promises they couldn't possibly keep and prepare for a possible Coalition, so they also seem to have believed that since they were a minor party, the media would never take an interest in the Rennard affair.  This explains why they have no procedure in place to deal with it, and are now at sixes and sevens.  They may also have under-estimated the culture change about sex and harrassment.  As we also know, there is no sexism on the left: see the Comrade Delta SWP crisis or, to strike a less serious note, the Draper-MacIntrye correspondence.

P.S: Please note that only Rule Three does not apply to the Conservative Party.

Nick Clegg first learnt of Lord Rennard concerns five years ago

After a terrible Sunday press Nick Clegg has issued this statement (via Coffee House):

"The allegations made on Channel 4 concerning Lord Rennard last Thursday were extremely serious and distressing to the women involved. It is critical they are investigated thoroughly and dealt with properly and they will be.

But I would like to make one thing crystal clear. I did not know about these allegations until Channel 4 informed the party of them shortly before they were broadcast. I have today spoken to one of the women in the broadcast who I respect and admire and who confirmed that she had never raised the issue with me.

I am angry and outraged at the suggestion that I would not have acted if these allegations had been put to me. Indeed, when indirect and non-specific concerns about Chris Rennard’s conduct reached my office in 2008, we acted to deal with them.

My Chief of Staff at the time, Danny Alexander, put these concerns to Chris Rennard and warned him that any such behaviour was wholly unacceptable. Chris Rennard categorically denied that he had behaved inappropriately and he continues to do so. He subsequently resigned as Chief Executive on health grounds.

As my office only received concerns indirectly and anonymously, as those involved understandably wanted to maintain their privacy, there was a limit to how we could take this matter forward following Chris Rennard’s resignation. It is incorrect to state that there was any other separate inquiry by my office or anybody in it.

I recognise from the Channel 4 broadcast that there are legitimate concerns that issues raised with the party were not handled as well as they should have been. In particular the suggestion that a complaint was made but was not dealt with as a formal complaint. I am therefore determined that we carry out a thorough investigation into our procedures and how we applied them at the time to ensure we have a full and clear picture of what happened and the lessons that we need to learn. This review will be independently chaired.

A separate investigation into the specific allegations about Lord Rennard will take place under our disciplinary procedure. It is essential that this is carried out with due process and for that reason I cannot provide a running commentary on it. But I am absolutely determined that both these investigations will be carried out thoroughly and comprehensively. These investigations may well reveal flawed procedures, and clearly the women concerned feel they were not properly listened to. But I totally reject the insidious suggestion that my office or I are responsible in any way for a deliberate cover up.

The full truth of what happened and what failed to happen and who said what to whom will be revealed by these investigations.

But in the meantime, I will not stand by and allow my party to be subject to a show trial of innuendo, half-truths and slurs. The important thing is that we respect the women who have come forward and do everything to get to the truth. That is what will now happen."

Ten women claim Lib Dems' campaign chief molested them. When did Nick Clegg know?

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

Lord Rennard is one of the most significant Liberal Democrats of the last generation - rivalling Ashdown, Campbell and Clegg for importance to the party's fortunes. He was the man who masterminded the party's election strategy and helped build the machine and tactics that saw a huge increase in the number of Lib Dem MPs and its success in by-elections. It is, therefore, understandable that the party's high-ups reacted nervously when a series of women told them that Lord Rennard had acted inappropriately towards them. Let's be clear that Lord Rennard is facing allegations and nothing is proven but TEN women have come forward to Channel 4 News and made allegations. Tim Farron is claiming that he only heard about the allegations on Wednesday night. Really, Mr Farron? These allegations have been alive in the Westminster village for quite some time. Many of Mr Farron's colleagues, including MPs Norman Lamb, Paul Burstow and Jo Swinson had been made aware of them. And what about Mr Clegg? What did he know and when? Like Farron the Lib Dem leader is claiming that he knew nothing. As Mark Littlewood Tweeted; That denial of knowledge had better be "100% true". Quite.

This morning's Daily Mail believes that Clegg's denial stretches all credibility and splashes with the allegations on its front page. It writes:

"The Deputy Prime Minister has been dragged into the sex scandal surrounding a top Liberal Democrat accused of molesting women. Amid mounting claims of a cover-up, it emerged Nick Clegg’s private office was made aware of the claims as long as five years ago. Aides to the Lib Dem leader refused to say how much he knew about the allegations that former party chief Chris Rennard had groped a string of female activists. But last night, evidence was growing that senior party officials ran an organised campaign to silence the women and shut down an internal investigation."

The Lib Dem leadership is getting some very good advice from its own backyard. Stephen Tall of LibDemVoice has described the party's response - an internal review led by Tim Farron - as "inadequate". Angela Harbutt at Liberal Vision also sets out what the party must now do, including "a full investigation into the actions of Paul Burstow, Jo Swinson and Ros Scott" and other senior Lib Dems who were told about the allegations but apparently did little. Any failure by the Lib Dem leadership to launch a full investigation will only increase suspicions that the party leadership has a lot to hide.

Lib Dem President Tim Farron says the Tories could "go off to the far right"

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

A Wikipedia summary of far right ideology:

"The far right is commonly associated with persons or groups who hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views.The most extreme-right movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority."

Lib Dem President Tim Farron speaking on the Week in Westminster today:

"From an entirely partisan point of view, I rub my hands together with glee and think well, David Cameron, if you want to go off to the far right, you’ll find there are very few votes there. You only win elections in the centre ground, and David Cameron seems to be completely vacating it."

There are two ridiculous points made here. Firstly, the idea that David Cameron or the Conservatives would "go off to the far right". It is so utterly un-serious that it hardly merits any response. The second point is that Mr Farron implies there is no ideological space between "the centre ground" and "the far right". One can either be in the centre or the "far right" in Mr Farron's world.

Mr Farron periodically pops up to make these outrageously facile statements. He once said Thatcherism was an "organised wickedness". Goodness knows where Mrs Thatcher is on Mr Farron's farcical ranking of right-wing politics - and indeed what that says about his view of the British people who elected her thrice.

David Cameron is right to resist Nick Clegg's drugs intervention

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

Nick Clegg has chosen today to launch an attempt to change Britain's drugs laws. The attempt has failed. David Cameron said, during a press conference in Brussels, that Mr Clegg is entitled to hold a view on the Lib Dems' plans for their next manifesto. That neatly bats away any notion that the Coalition will change current drugs laws. Mr Cameron said:

"I personally don't support a royal commission. In my view there's always a danger, as someone said, that they can take minutes and last for years. I am very happy to debate and discuss drug policy. I think the coalition government has taken a series of good steps. The government, I think, has got a good record on these things and there is some good evidence that drug use and drug abuse is falling."

Cameron is right not to follow Clegg's path.

Mr Clegg used an overly dramatic and inaccurate term in his interview with the Sun today. He said: "We are losing the war on drugs on an industrial scale." The real "war on drugs" primarily relates to actions carried out by the Mexican government against large armed drugs gangs. Some of the south western states of the US are also affected. Britain is not. If Mr Clegg wants to protest against the policies of the Mexican and American government, he is free to do so. But he should not pretend British drugs laws are anything to do with it. In reality, we gave up any pretense of a "war on drugs" in Britain decades ago. 

Nick Clegg continues to insult his opponents. This time he says Conservatives have an "irrational phobia" of property taxes.

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

After the botched and misjudged attack on Conservatives after the Autumn Statement, Nick Clegg has again attacked the Conservatives over taxes targeting the wealthy. In his "Letter from the Leader" email, available on Mark Pack's blog, the Deputy Prime Minister describes the "fair and balanced package" the heroic Lib Dems managed to achieve by fighting against the nasty Tories.

There was one paragraph in his email to Lib Dems that will particularly raise eyebrows. He wrote:

"Finally, we fought for our party policy of mansion tax. But the Conservatives have an irrational phobia against asking people who live in £2 million plus properties from chipping in a bit more when everyone else is making their contribution. So instead we agreed to ensure the richest pay their fair share by limiting pension tax relief for millionaires and increasing our efforts on tax avoidance."

I'm afraid, Mr Clegg, it is not irrational to oppose wealth taxes. Just because Tories in Downing Street and in Parliament don't want to introduce a tax on properties, does not mean they start shaking in fear at the thought of wealth taxes. It is a perfectly sane and respectable viewpoint, with plenty of economic and moral force behind it.

Mr Clegg tries hard to be taken seriously, but when he lets the mask slip, and he uses hyperbole more easily found in letters to the Guardian, or in Polly Toynbee's column, he marks himself out, yet again, as practising a deeply un-serious brand of politics. Why can nobody disagree with him without them being morally or psychologically suspect? Why must he insult people and viewpoints that differ from his? Why is he incapable of being civil with his opponents?

Lib Dems say the Tories only want tax cuts for the wealthy... or don't they?

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

Guido Fawkes reported earlier this afternoon that a press release from Lib Dem HQ went out after the Autumn Statement, which read:

"Conservatives tax cuts for the richest

The only tax cuts the Conservatives support are ones for the very rich. At the General Election, their priority was to cut inheritance tax for millionaires. In the Coalition, Liberal Democrats have blocked these plans and instead we are cutting taxes for millions."

A version of the same quote also appeared on a news story on the official Lib Dem website, but has since been deleted. See screenshot capturing the text before it was deleted:

Why was it deleted? Well, the Lib Dems now say this was an old briefing, sent by mistake:

Earlier Lib Dem briefing saying Tories only support tax cut for rich was sent out in error by party HQ is incorrect and was an old briefing.

— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) December 5, 2012

Nick Clegg thinks Eurosceptics are "insular", "chauvinistic" and "short-sighted". Why must he insult his opponents?

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

A video has been released (via Bloomberg's Rob Hutton), of a private dinner for businessmen held by Nick Clegg at the Lib Dem conference. In his remarks, Clegg describes Eurosceptics - or perhaps Euro-realists - as "insular", "chauvinistic" and "short-sighted". It is far from the first instance of him using childish and silly terms to describe opponents - earlier this month he called opponents of gay marriage "bigots".

Why can nobody disagree with him without them being morally suspect? Why can he not disagree with people in a civil manner? Why must he insult people and viewpoints who differ from him? This is another example of Clegg practising a deeply un-serious brand of politics.