Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Chris Rennard’s “Winning Here” – the requiem for the battered

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited February 28 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Chris Rennard’s “Winning Here” – the requiem for the battered Lib Dems or the handbook for another revival?

Thus Chris Renard then the LD director of campaigns and elections coaxed Paddy Ashdown into accepting his formula for winning the 1993 Newbury by-election. The humour and shrewdness about people’s motivation mark this first volume of his political memoirs (just published by Biteback): it never becomes a mere boastful catalogue of Rennard’s election trophies.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    First! Not like the Lib Dems......
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    Second. Still not like the Lib Dems........
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    and it was these problems which caused him to step down as the Party’s chief executive.

    Up to a point, Lord Copper.....

    Nick Clegg has admitted that the Liberal Democrats' former chief executive Lord Rennard did not resign from the party purely on health grounds, as the deputy prime minister had insisted at the weekend....

    During his weekly phone-in on LBC radio, Clegg said: "He left on health grounds but of course the issues of his inappropriate behaviour were in the background."


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/27/lord-rennard-health-nick-clegg

    Abuse of power is key to this whole issue. There is a world of difference between flirtation and sexual encounters between consenting adults with equal power, and the subtle yet sinister use of a powerful position to try to persuade others into sexual acts. That Lord Rennard remains in the party, showing no remorse or contrition, while many of the women involved have left, fills me with sadness and anger. When I hear suggestions that the women who spoke out should not be believed, or that they were somehow manipulated, it makes my blood boil.

    https://medium.com/@jo_swinson/sexual-harassment-a-chance-for-change-1e87a9db1581
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    A list of Lord Rennards conquests. Hmmmmmm.....

    Up next, we review "Harvey Weinstein - What a Guy!"
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617

    A list of Lord Rennards conquests. Hmmmmmm.....

    Up next, we review "Harvey Weinstein - What a Guy!"

    One wonders whether the Lib Dems would have handled "l'affaire Rennard" in the same way in the current climate....or remotely been given the chance to.....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584
    Ahem.

    Based on his Liverpool experience the Rennard approach in any election campaign was to find out the issues on voters’ minds and to deal with those issues rather than go on about constitutional reform which polling suggested was only of interest to a minute fraction of voters,
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,513
    edited February 28
    The problem for the Lib Dems now is that all parties now use the Renard approach to by election campaigns and, of course, there have been very few election us as MPs have become much healthier. Just one by-election has been sparked off in a Conservative held seat since 2001 because of the death or health of the incumbent MP
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617

    The problem for the Lib Dems now is that all parties now use the Renard approach to by election campaigns and, of course, there have been very few election us as MPs have become much healthier. Just one by-election has been sparked off in a Conservative held seat since 2001 because of the death or health of the incumbent MP

    Interesting point - strategically the LibDems (and before them the Liberals) kept their name in the papers and in the news through 'by-election upsets' going back to Orpington in 1962.....but fewer by-elections (a function of health and better party management - the parties showing elderly MPs the door before the Almighty does - Tories better than Labour?) means fewer upsets and less coverage for the LibDems.....which may make their life tougher.....
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,099

    and it was these problems which caused him to step down as the Party’s chief executive.

    Up to a point, Lord Copper.....

    Nick Clegg has admitted that the Liberal Democrats' former chief executive Lord Rennard did not resign from the party purely on health grounds, as the deputy prime minister had insisted at the weekend....

    During his weekly phone-in on LBC radio, Clegg said: "He left on health grounds but of course the issues of his inappropriate behaviour were in the background."


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/27/lord-rennard-health-nick-clegg

    Abuse of power is key to this whole issue. There is a world of difference between flirtation and sexual encounters between consenting adults with equal power, and the subtle yet sinister use of a powerful position to try to persuade others into sexual acts. That Lord Rennard remains in the party, showing no remorse or contrition, while many of the women involved have left, fills me with sadness and anger. When I hear suggestions that the women who spoke out should not be believed, or that they were somehow manipulated, it makes my blood boil.

    https://medium.com/@jo_swinson/sexual-harassment-a-chance-for-change-1e87a9db1581

    I hear where you're coming from Ms. Vance, but, to slightly misquote: "the evil that men do lives after, the political good is oft interred with his bones. So let it be with Rennard". My personal statement, as I used to tell everyone who worked for me, "I don't care what you do in your bedroom, so long as it is between consenting adults and is legal. But if I have to read about it on the front page of a Sunday paper, I will take action." Rennard's activities took him into the latter. However, this meme is about his political acumen and, as such he was a pretty sharp operator, and how he worked so successfully is worthy of discussion, especially comparing the leaderships of our present political parties and their recent respective attitudes to their constituency members....
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,637
    Is that Chris “Weinstein” Rennard?

    Funny how the actions of some can be forgotten, the words of others haunt them for a lifetime
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799

    The problem for the Lib Dems now is that all parties now use the Renard approach to by election campaigns and, of course, there have been very few election us as MPs have become much healthier. Just one by-election has been sparked off in a Conservative held seat since 2001 because of the death or health of the incumbent MP

    The problem for the LibDem now is they don't have popular alternative policies, have been rumbled as all-things-to-all-men when put into the Coalition they worked so hard for as an objective - and don't have inspirational leadership. This is why they have not profited from the death of UKIP as the None Of The Above option. Their exposure to being in Government has instead caused them to be included within The Above.

    They are all at sea, being crushed between two giant icebergs: those who are prepared to give Corbyn a go at power - Labour - and those who see only one viable option to prevent Corbyn getting power - Conservative.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645

    A list of Lord Rennards conquests. Hmmmmmm.....

    Up next, we review "Harvey Weinstein - What a Guy!"

    Scumbag though he is, Weinstein was a very good filmaker.

    Whether the means justifies the ends is one of the oldest questions, and is one where sentiment is changing.

    The absence of by elections makes the May Locals even more important to the LDs. After that pending disappointment we need to pension off Vince.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    "Certainly this book is generous to colleagues and friends, and suggests he is loyal and considerate in his personal dealings."

    Which suggests, to me, that the book is extremely untrustworthy. One of his victims is a long-standing friend of mine and he was anything but considerate towards her, especially when she spoke out against him.

    He may have been an effective campaigner but he's still an egotistical scumbag.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    And he smiled to gaze upon her
    Did that sly, bold Reynardine.....

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    Off topic, it looks like the beast from the east is going to cause severe disruption to Theresa May today.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,241
    Good start to the day - train cancelled. I'm on the next one, which I expect to get rather cosy by the time it reaches Leeds.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    On topic, surely the book should have borne the title Long Runs The Fox?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,208
    I have to admit that this made me laugh.

    "Last year, he said that driving trains was so easy "even a woman can do it" during a discussion on the public sector pay cap."

    It reminded me of the phone-in where someone suggested the greatest advance for women since female emancipation 100 years ago was sat-nav.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,392
    Putting the sex pest allegations aside, I suspect this would be an interesting read.

    Up until about 2012-13 I thought the Lib Dems were all but immortal wherever they'd managed to establish a parliamentary presence: very, very hard to shift.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?

    Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.

    Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,208

    Off topic, it looks like the beast from the east is going to cause severe disruption to Theresa May today.

    So it's not all bad.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    Roger said:

    Off topic, it looks like the beast from the east is going to cause severe disruption to Theresa May today.

    So it's not all bad.
    Snow news is good news?

    Oh, my thick fleece....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    edited February 28
    Foxy said:

    A list of Lord Rennards conquests. Hmmmmmm.....

    Up next, we review "Harvey Weinstein - What a Guy!"

    Scumbag though he is, Weinstein was a very good filmaker.
    ydoethur said:


    He may have been an effective campaigner but he's still an egotistical scumbag.

    How often are people who reach the top of their profession also pretty unpleasant human beings.....as Barry Norman observed of the old Hollywood warhorse, Joan Crawford 'easy to admire, but difficult to like'.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 843

    Putting the sex pest allegations aside, I suspect this would be an interesting read.

    Up until about 2012-13 I thought the Lib Dems were all but immortal wherever they'd managed to establish a parliamentary presence: very, very hard to shift.

    That makes the Tories something like smallpox...

    I remember being shocked when the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories... I suspect many people under 35 were. I think it altered a whole generations perception of the Lib Dems, though this may be one place were their heavily pro remain stance is a good idea if not successful in the short term electorally, it might over time change the view of the Lib Dems.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    ydoethur said:

    Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?

    Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.

    Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
    Ah....the Irish spin is that the NI-GB border (or lack of it) is an 'internal' UK matter and therefore not a 'joint-EU-UK' pledge.....I think Mr Hammond may have competition in the tin-eared stakes.....
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    ydoethur said:

    Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?

    Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.

    Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
    Which bit do you see as going back and lying?

    They think they have Britain over a barrel. They’re negotiating accordingly.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822

    Putting the sex pest allegations aside, I suspect this would be an interesting read.

    Up until about 2012-13 I thought the Lib Dems were all but immortal wherever they'd managed to establish a parliamentary presence: very, very hard to shift.

    That makes the Tories something like smallpox...

    I remember being shocked when the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories... I suspect many people under 35 were. I think it altered a whole generations perception of the Lib Dems, though this may be one place were their heavily pro remain stance is a good idea if not successful in the short term electorally, it might over time change the view of the Lib Dems.

    Why were you shocked? The Lib Dems weren’t an offshoot of Labour.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,392

    Putting the sex pest allegations aside, I suspect this would be an interesting read.

    Up until about 2012-13 I thought the Lib Dems were all but immortal wherever they'd managed to establish a parliamentary presence: very, very hard to shift.

    That makes the Tories something like smallpox...

    I remember being shocked when the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories... I suspect many people under 35 were. I think it altered a whole generations perception of the Lib Dems, though this may be one place were their heavily pro remain stance is a good idea if not successful in the short term electorally, it might over time change the view of the Lib Dems.

    I was 28 when that happened. I was pleased, not shocked, as it got Brown out of Downing Street, even though I'd have preferred a solid Tory majority.

    You don't speak for that generation anymore than I do.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    edited February 28

    ydoethur said:

    Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?

    Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.

    Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
    Which bit do you see as going back and lying?

    They think they have Britain over a barrel. They’re negotiating accordingly.
    Northern Ireland. They agreed Northern Ireland would be treated as part of the UK, now they appear in effect to be demanding it stay in the single market.

    PS - they are not negotiating, they appear to be trying to impose. That seriously ups the risk of rupture which would be blamed on them. This is not smart politics and up to now they have been quite deft about deflecting blame so I am surprised at the sudden descent.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,804

    Putting the sex pest allegations aside, I suspect this would be an interesting read.

    Up until about 2012-13 I thought the Lib Dems were all but immortal wherever they'd managed to establish a parliamentary presence: very, very hard to shift.

    That makes the Tories something like smallpox...

    I remember being shocked when the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories... I suspect many people under 35 were. I think it altered a whole generations perception of the Lib Dems, though this may be one place were their heavily pro remain stance is a good idea if not successful in the short term electorally, it might over time change the view of the Lib Dems.

    Why were you shocked? The Lib Dems weren’t an offshoot of Labour.
    Particularly under Clegg and the Orange bookers. Different story under Kennedy.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    The FT wonders if UK polls are wrong again:

    https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/02/28/2198997/are-the-uks-political-polls-wrong-again/

    Only in one direction, of course!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799

    Putting the sex pest allegations aside, I suspect this would be an interesting read.

    Up until about 2012-13 I thought the Lib Dems were all but immortal wherever they'd managed to establish a parliamentary presence: very, very hard to shift.

    That makes the Tories something like smallpox...

    I remember being shocked when the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories... I suspect many people under 35 were. I think it altered a whole generations perception of the Lib Dems, though this may be one place were their heavily pro remain stance is a good idea if not successful in the short term electorally, it might over time change the view of the Lib Dems.

    The Tories are nothing like smallpox, which has been eradicated apart from two samples, kept in government labs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_virus_retention_controversy
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 583
    Charles said:

    Is that Chris “Weinstein” Rennard?

    Funny how the actions of some can be forgotten, the words of others haunt them for a lifetime

    It is completely inappropriate for PB to be reviewing, and in effect promoting, an AUTObiography by a notorious sex pest. It is also a bad reflection on the LDs that he remains an active member of their party in the HoL.

    It is a pity for the LDs that their deputy leader is not (yet) in charge, as she stated in November 2017 that "I do not want Lord Rennard to continue as a member of the party. As far as I am concerned, he is not welcome."
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 843


    Why were you shocked? The Lib Dems weren’t an offshoot of Labour.

    The Lib Dems had presented themselves (at least to those not paying a huge amount of attention) as to the left of Labour for a long time, admittedly didn't require much effort. To jump over and go into coalition with the Conservatives caused a bit of a shock.


    I was 28 when that happened. I was pleased, not shocked, as it got Brown out of Downing Street, even though I'd have preferred a solid Tory majority.

    You don't speak for that generation anymore than I do.

    Considering what has happened to the Lib Dems and the fact I had voted Lib Dems previously I imagine it comes a bit closer to explaining what happened to them rather than younger people being pleasantly surprised Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories. Of course younger Tory voters might have been pleased, but that is a small section of younger people and not very helpful to the Lib Dems.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584
    Boris on Sky now.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,804
    tlg86 said:

    Boris on Sky now.

    What latin-edged hole is he digging for himself this morning?
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?

    Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.

    Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
    Which bit do you see as going back and lying?

    They think they have Britain over a barrel. They’re negotiating accordingly.
    Northern Ireland. They agreed Northern Ireland would be treated as part of the UK, now they appear in effect to be demanding it stay in the single market.

    PS - they are not negotiating, they appear to be trying to impose. That seriously ups the risk of rupture which would be blamed on them. This is not smart politics and up to now they have been quite deft about deflecting blame so I am surprised at the sudden descent.
    Do you not think Johnson's quite remarkable interventions yesterday regarding a hard border undermine the agreement over stage 1 of Brexit to a greater extent?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    daodao said:

    Charles said:

    Is that Chris “Weinstein” Rennard?

    Funny how the actions of some can be forgotten, the words of others haunt them for a lifetime

    It is completely inappropriate for PB to be reviewing, and in effect promoting, an AUTObiography by a notorious sex pest. It is also a bad reflection on the LDs that he remains an active member of their party in the HoL.

    It is a pity for the LDs that their deputy leader is not (yet) in charge, as she stated in November 2017 that "I do not want Lord Rennard to continue as a member of the party. As far as I am concerned, he is not welcome."
    In many ways what bugs me more is that the review is so one-eyed. If it had reviewed it as a serious piece of political commentary from a key political figure, but pointed out he is also a disgraced sex pest who has been suspended from the party at least once and is something of a pariah figure now, fair enough.

    But to read this, it seems like Lord Rennard is a nice guy who never put a foot wrong and that last sentence is just horrendous.

    It's like the crap the Richard III society come out with, but about living people one of whom doesn't merit the hagiography and whose victims may feel hurt if they see it.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?

    Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.

    Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
    Which bit do you see as going back and lying?

    They think they have Britain over a barrel. They’re negotiating accordingly.
    Northern Ireland. They agreed Northern Ireland would be treated as part of the UK, now they appear in effect to be demanding it stay in the single market.

    PS - they are not negotiating, they appear to be trying to impose. That seriously ups the risk of rupture which would be blamed on them. This is not smart politics and up to now they have been quite deft about deflecting blame so I am surprised at the sudden descent.
    The UK committed to ensure Northern Ireland’s businesses would retain the same unfettered access to the UK internal market. The EU did not.

    The EU has proposed a draft. It is up for negotiation, however it is presented. I expect they want the tantrums out of the way early.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 843



    The Tories are nothing like smallpox, which has been eradicated apart from two samples, kept in government labs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_virus_retention_controversy

    I was thinking more of its ability to wipe out other things it comes into contact with... although I can't imagine the Tories will have the same effect on the DUP.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?

    Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.

    Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
    Which bit do you see as going back and lying?

    They think they have Britain over a barrel. They’re negotiating accordingly.
    Northern Ireland. They agreed Northern Ireland would be treated as part of the UK, now they appear in effect to be demanding it stay in the single market.

    PS - they are not negotiating, they appear to be trying to impose. That seriously ups the risk of rupture which would be blamed on them. This is not smart politics and up to now they have been quite deft about deflecting blame so I am surprised at the sudden descent.
    The UK committed to ensure Northern Ireland’s businesses would retain the same unfettered access to the UK internal market. The EU did not.

    The EU has proposed a draft. It is up for negotiation, however it is presented. I expect they want the tantrums out of the way early.
    The point is it's not building on earlier negotiations but undermining them.

    Wouldn't you be a bit annoyed if in a pensions dispute the other side agreed a key point and then three months later published something that in effect retracted their agreement? And would you continue to assume they were acting in good faith, or just abandon negotiations and look to batter them good and hard?

    I say again the EU are behaving very irresponsibly and forfeiting the moral high Ground there for the taking.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?

    Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.

    Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
    Which bit do you see as going back and lying?

    They think they have Britain over a barrel. They’re negotiating accordingly.
    Northern Ireland. They agreed Northern Ireland would be treated as part of the UK, now they appear in effect to be demanding it stay in the single market.

    PS - they are not negotiating, they appear to be trying to impose. That seriously ups the risk of rupture which would be blamed on them. This is not smart politics and up to now they have been quite deft about deflecting blame so I am surprised at the sudden descent.
    The UK committed to ensure Northern Ireland’s businesses would retain the same unfettered access to the UK internal market. The EU did not.

    The EU has proposed a draft. It is up for negotiation, however it is presented. I expect they want the tantrums out of the way early.
    The point is it's not building on earlier negotiations but undermining them.

    Wouldn't you be a bit annoyed if in a pensions dispute the other side agreed a key point and then three months later published something that in effect retracted their agreement? And would you continue to assume they were acting in good faith, or just abandon negotiations and look to batter them good and hard?

    I say again the EU are behaving very irresponsibly and forfeiting the moral high Ground there for the taking.
    The EU didn’t agree what you think it agreed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?

    Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.

    Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
    Which bit do you see as going back and lying?

    They think they have Britain over a barrel. They’re negotiating accordingly.
    Northern Ireland. They agreed Northern Ireland would be treated as part of the UK, now they appear in effect to be demanding it stay in the single market.

    PS - they are not negotiating, they appear to be trying to impose. That seriously ups the risk of rupture which would be blamed on them. This is not smart politics and up to now they have been quite deft about deflecting blame so I am surprised at the sudden descent.
    Do you not think Johnson's quite remarkable interventions yesterday regarding a hard border undermine the agreement over stage 1 of Brexit to a greater extent?
    No. Because Boris is - fortunately - not involved in negotiations and nobody takes his threats of resignation seriously (think how May would love him to flounce out).

    Barnier is, however, even though he was the wrong candidate, appointed in the wrong way and clearly has no qualifications or skills other than the fact that he's a mate of all the key players in the EU. He genuinely appears to believe this is all smoke and mirrors and we are not actually going to leave. At least that's the only explanation I can think of for his behaviour.

    But what do you expect from a former French Minister of Agriculture?

    I have to get to work. Have a good day.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 583

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?

    Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.

    Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
    Which bit do you see as going back and lying?

    They think they have Britain over a barrel. They’re negotiating accordingly.
    Northern Ireland. They agreed Northern Ireland would be treated as part of the UK, now they appear in effect to be demanding it stay in the single market.

    PS - they are not negotiating, they appear to be trying to impose. That seriously ups the risk of rupture which would be blamed on them. This is not smart politics and up to now they have been quite deft about deflecting blame so I am surprised at the sudden descent.
    The UK committed to ensure Northern Ireland’s businesses would retain the same unfettered access to the UK internal market. The EU did not.

    The EU has proposed a draft. It is up for negotiation, however it is presented. I expect they want the tantrums out of the way early.
    The EU is rightly determined, on behalf of 1 of its remaining members, to ensure that the artificial border across Ulster remains (as it currently is) a mere administrative boundary line and does not revert to being a hard border. If the UK wishes to have a hard Brexit, that will not be permitted to apply to the 6 counties, so there would have to be an effective border for trade and people between GB and the 6 counties. Alternatively, the UK as a whole could stay in the CU +/- SM.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Charles said:

    Is that Chris “Weinstein” Rennard?

    Funny how the actions of some can be forgotten, the words of others haunt them for a lifetime

    It is completely inappropriate for PB to be reviewing, and in effect promoting, an AUTObiography by a notorious sex pest. It is also a bad reflection on the LDs that he remains an active member of their party in the HoL.

    It is a pity for the LDs that their deputy leader is not (yet) in charge, as she stated in November 2017 that "I do not want Lord Rennard to continue as a member of the party. As far as I am concerned, he is not welcome."
    In many ways what bugs me more is that the review is so one-eyed. If it had reviewed it as a serious piece of political commentary from a key political figure, but pointed out he is also a disgraced sex pest who has been suspended from the party at least once and is something of a pariah figure now, fair enough.

    But to read this, it seems like Lord Rennard is a nice guy who never put a foot wrong and that last sentence is just horrendous.

    It's like the crap the Richard III society come out with, but about living people one of whom doesn't merit the hagiography and whose victims may feel hurt if they see it.
    It's his memoirs. Perhaps he is fortunate and doesn't rememoir any of the bad bits of life, unlike those he inflicted his libido upon.

    Lord Rennard, Libido-Democrats.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,154


    Why were you shocked? The Lib Dems weren’t an offshoot of Labour.

    The Lib Dems had presented themselves (at least to those not paying a huge amount of attention) as to the left of Labour for a long time, admittedly didn't require much effort. To jump over and go into coalition with the Conservatives caused a bit of a shock.

    Considering what has happened to the Lib Dems and the fact I had voted Lib Dems previously I imagine it comes a bit closer to explaining what happened to them rather than younger people being pleasantly surprised Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories. Of course younger Tory voters might have been pleased, but that is a small section of younger people and not very helpful to the Lib Dems.
    I was a Lib Dem supporter in 2010.
    It's not always easy to remember how one felt back then but my recollection is:
    Wasn't thrilled about a coalition with the Tories - but felt optimistic and couldn't see how a Labour/LD coalition could work numerically, and was quietly impressed by some of what David Cameron was saying with his pledge on foreign aid/environment etc.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,241
    Hard Brexit, hard border, loss of DUP support, General Election, Jezza in number 10, soft Brexit or no Brexit at all.

    Is that the Brussels plan?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,907

    Putting the sex pest allegations aside, I suspect this would be an interesting read.

    Up until about 2012-13 I thought the Lib Dems were all but immortal wherever they'd managed to establish a parliamentary presence: very, very hard to shift.

    That makes the Tories something like smallpox...

    I remember being shocked when the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories... I suspect many people under 35 were. I think it altered a whole generations perception of the Lib Dems, though this may be one place were their heavily pro remain stance is a good idea if not successful in the short term electorally, it might over time change the view of the Lib Dems.

    The Tories are nothing like smallpox, which has been eradicated apart from two samples, kept in government labs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_virus_retention_controversy
    yet
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799



    The Tories are nothing like smallpox, which has been eradicated apart from two samples, kept in government labs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_virus_retention_controversy

    I was thinking more of its ability to wipe out other things it comes into contact with... although I can't imagine the Tories will have the same effect on the DUP.
    Perhaps Tories = Ebola better serves your purposes? Just when you think you've got them beaten....they break out again.....
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,250

    Hard Brexit, hard border, loss of DUP support, General Election, Jezza in number 10, soft Brexit or no Brexit at all.

    Is that the Brussels plan?

    The DUP will not die in a ditch for an open border with the Republic.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,267
    rkrkrk said:


    Why were you shocked? The Lib Dems weren’t an offshoot of Labour.

    The Lib Dems had presented themselves (at least to those not paying a huge amount of attention) as to the left of Labour for a long time, admittedly didn't require much effort. To jump over and go into coalition with the Conservatives caused a bit of a shock.

    Considering what has happened to the Lib Dems and the fact I had voted Lib Dems previously I imagine it comes a bit closer to explaining what happened to them rather than younger people being pleasantly surprised Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories. Of course younger Tory voters might have been pleased, but that is a small section of younger people and not very helpful to the Lib Dems.
    I was a Lib Dem supporter in 2010.
    It's not always easy to remember how one felt back then but my recollection is:
    Wasn't thrilled about a coalition with the Tories - but felt optimistic and couldn't see how a Labour/LD coalition could work numerically, and was quietly impressed by some of what David Cameron was saying with his pledge on foreign aid/environment etc.
    Agree; voted Lib/LD for years. However the savage cuts imposed on the weaker members of society, with, apparently. the support of the LD’s are taking me back where I started; Labour.
  • Putting the sex pest allegations aside, I suspect this would be an interesting read.

    Up until about 2012-13 I thought the Lib Dems were all but immortal wherever they'd managed to establish a parliamentary presence: very, very hard to shift.

    That makes the Tories something like smallpox...

    I remember being shocked when the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories... I suspect many people under 35 were. I think it altered a whole generations perception of the Lib Dems, though this may be one place were their heavily pro remain stance is a good idea if not successful in the short term electorally, it might over time change the view of the Lib Dems.

    Why were you shocked? The Lib Dems weren’t an offshoot of Labour.
    The Libs weren’t, but the Dems were.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799

    Hard Brexit, hard border, loss of DUP support, General Election, Jezza in number 10, soft Brexit or no Brexit at all.

    Is that the Brussels plan?

    Alternatively, Barnier is just a really shite negotiator. Hence the disquiet expressed by heads of state meeting to discuss Brexit, with him not in the room.

    Or its possible he is just used as a smokescreen, to obscure the real talks the grown-ups are having in the background....
  • daodao said:

    Charles said:

    Is that Chris “Weinstein” Rennard?

    Funny how the actions of some can be forgotten, the words of others haunt them for a lifetime

    It is completely inappropriate for PB to be reviewing, and in effect promoting, an AUTObiography by a notorious sex pest. It is also a bad reflection on the LDs that he remains an active member of their party in the HoL.

    It is a pity for the LDs that their deputy leader is not (yet) in charge, as she stated in November 2017 that "I do not want Lord Rennard to continue as a member of the party. As far as I am concerned, he is not welcome."
    Not yet and not ever. Swinson is shrill, as invisible as Vince, and doesn’t have a convincing ear for everyday politics. If Vince lasts a couple more years then Layla Moran will have it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: livefeed here, but it's quite wintry. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/formula1/43190406

    However, not as wintry as in Yorkshire, where it's snowing heavily (although, as of now, there's only an inch or so settled).
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 2,866
    What a douche bag!

    It was a Liberal Councillor who had helped Rennard’s disabled mother to get her widowed mothers’ allowance. Orphaned when nearly 17, Rennard then showed abnormal self-reliance in getting through sixth form and university.

    His party's record in government with the Tories has made life for people in those those circumstances far more difficult than when he was 17 in 1977.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    Even before publication, it is clear that EU positions the U.K. strongly objects to will be in the text. According to EU officials with knowledge of the bloc’s position and chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier himself, the document will contain clauses mandating that:

    — Northern Ireland will remain part of the EU customs union and maintain full regulatory alignment — effectively imposing a new trade boundary in the Irish Sea.

    — The European Court of Justice will retain legal authority to adjudicate any disputes that arise in relation to the withdrawal treaty, including any disagreements on citizens’ rights or the U.K.’s continuing financial obligations to the EU.

    — The Brexit transition period will end on December 31, 2020, on the final day of the EU’s current long-term budget plan.

    — During the transition, the U.K. will lose all voting rights and decision-making power but must comply with all existing EU laws and regulations — and any new rules adopted by the EU27 — with no recourse if it opposes some new policy.


    https://www.politico.eu/article/european-commission-brexit-legal-text-signals-greater-eu-urgency/
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,154

    rkrkrk said:


    Why were you shocked? The Lib Dems weren’t an offshoot of Labour.

    The Lib Dems had presented themselves (at least to those not paying a huge amount of attention) as to the left of Labour for a long time, admittedly didn't require much effort. To jump over and go into coalition with the Conservatives caused a bit of a shock.

    Considering what has happened to the Lib Dems and the fact I had voted Lib Dems previously I imagine it comes a bit closer to explaining what happened to them rather than younger people being pleasantly surprised Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories. Of course younger Tory voters might have been pleased, but that is a small section of younger people and not very helpful to the Lib Dems.
    I was a Lib Dem supporter in 2010.
    It's not always easy to remember how one felt back then but my recollection is:
    Wasn't thrilled about a coalition with the Tories - but felt optimistic and couldn't see how a Labour/LD coalition could work numerically, and was quietly impressed by some of what David Cameron was saying with his pledge on foreign aid/environment etc.
    Agree; voted Lib/LD for years. However the savage cuts imposed on the weaker members of society, with, apparently. the support of the LD’s are taking me back where I started; Labour.
    I wasn't old enough to vote in 2005 - but I know I couldn't have gone Labour after the Iraq War. I think Charles Kennedy's opposition was definitely a big factor pulling me to the Lib Dems, combined with parental influences.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Miss Vance, sounds rancid. Still, I'm sure Barnier was reassured by his pro-EU allies in the Commons.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,804

    daodao said:

    Charles said:

    Is that Chris “Weinstein” Rennard?

    Funny how the actions of some can be forgotten, the words of others haunt them for a lifetime

    It is completely inappropriate for PB to be reviewing, and in effect promoting, an AUTObiography by a notorious sex pest. It is also a bad reflection on the LDs that he remains an active member of their party in the HoL.

    It is a pity for the LDs that their deputy leader is not (yet) in charge, as she stated in November 2017 that "I do not want Lord Rennard to continue as a member of the party. As far as I am concerned, he is not welcome."
    Not yet and not ever. Swinson is shrill, as invisible as Vince, and doesn’t have a convincing ear for everyday politics. If Vince lasts a couple more years then Layla Moran will have it.
    800 vote majority though?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,241
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:


    Why were you shocked? The Lib Dems weren’t an offshoot of Labour.

    The Lib Dems had presented themselves (at least to those not paying a huge amount of attention) as to the left of Labour for a long time, admittedly didn't require much effort. To jump over and go into coalition with the Conservatives caused a bit of a shock.

    Considering what has happened to the Lib Dems and the fact I had voted Lib Dems previously I imagine it comes a bit closer to explaining what happened to them rather than younger people being pleasantly surprised Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories. Of course younger Tory voters might have been pleased, but that is a small section of younger people and not very helpful to the Lib Dems.
    I was a Lib Dem supporter in 2010.
    It's not always easy to remember how one felt back then but my recollection is:
    Wasn't thrilled about a coalition with the Tories - but felt optimistic and couldn't see how a Labour/LD coalition could work numerically, and was quietly impressed by some of what David Cameron was saying with his pledge on foreign aid/environment etc.
    Agree; voted Lib/LD for years. However the savage cuts imposed on the weaker members of society, with, apparently. the support of the LD’s are taking me back where I started; Labour.
    I wasn't old enough to vote in 2005 - but I know I couldn't have gone Labour after the Iraq War. I think Charles Kennedy's opposition was definitely a big factor pulling me to the Lib Dems, combined with parental influences.
    Your parents turned you into a LibDem? Quick - call the NSPCC!
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    Good morning all.

    Unionem Europaeam delenda est.

    On topic, not impressed by the hagiography of Rennard. However, I'll always give the Lib Dems credit for going into coalition. As Sir Humphrey would put it, a courageous decision. Clegg put country before party, but then I guess he could afford to.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,154
    On topic - it looks an interesting book.

    Slightly surprised that the advert says:
    "this book is generous to colleagues and friends, and suggests he is loyal and considerate in his personal dealings."
    I'd much rather read about someone who is honest rather than generous, or juicier still, mean to previous colleagues.
  • kingbongokingbongo Posts: 108
    loving this new habit of OGH being off topic with the thread header before any of us have a chance to veer off in the comments.

    I would suggest though that if we are going to have political book reviews they are better than this - a PR puff piece for a man known to be deeply unpleasant in his attitudes to others - Even if I were interested in Rennard I wouldn't put any cash in the man's pockets - or the publisher's.
  • daodao said:

    Charles said:

    Is that Chris “Weinstein” Rennard?

    Funny how the actions of some can be forgotten, the words of others haunt them for a lifetime

    It is completely inappropriate for PB to be reviewing, and in effect promoting, an AUTObiography by a notorious sex pest. It is also a bad reflection on the LDs that he remains an active member of their party in the HoL.

    It is a pity for the LDs that their deputy leader is not (yet) in charge, as she stated in November 2017 that "I do not want Lord Rennard to continue as a member of the party. As far as I am concerned, he is not welcome."
    Not yet and not ever. Swinson is shrill, as invisible as Vince, and doesn’t have a convincing ear for everyday politics. If Vince lasts a couple more years then Layla Moran will have it.
    800 vote majority though?
    Yes, not comfortable. But local activists are working the seat hard, LDs usually get a first-time bonus, and leaders usually get a further bonus too. There’s scope for the Labour and Green votes to be squeezed further, particularly as Moran is social-liberal and works well with Annaliese Dodds (Oxford East, Labour). I’d expect her majority to grow.
  • John_M said:

    Good morning all.

    Unionem Europaeam delenda est.

    On topic, not impressed by the hagiography of Rennard. However, I'll always give the Lib Dems credit for going into coalition. As Sir Humphrey would put it, a courageous decision. Clegg put country before party, but then I guess he could afford to.

    Clegg didn't have a choice.

    What were the alternatives ?

    1) Prop up an utterly weak Labour 'rainbow coalition' - it would collapse and the LibDems would be destroyed at the subsequent general election.

    2) Allow a Conservative minority government - at a time of his choosing Cameron would call a second general election and the LibDems would be destroyed.

    3) Oppose both the Conservatives and Labour - an immediate second general election follows and the LibDems are destroyed.

    After decades of banging on about coalition governments the LibDems couldn't turn down one when it was offered.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,511

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:


    Why were you shocked? The Lib Dems weren’t an offshoot of Labour.

    The Lib Dems had presented themselves (at least to those not paying a huge amount of attention) as to the left of Labour for a long time, admittedly didn't require much effort. To jump over and go into coalition with the Conservatives caused a bit of a shock.

    Considering what has happened to the Lib Dems and the fact I had voted Lib Dems previously I imagine it comes a bit closer to explaining what happened to them rather than younger people being pleasantly surprised Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories. Of course younger Tory voters might have been pleased, but that is a small section of younger people and not very helpful to the Lib Dems.
    I was a Lib Dem supporter in 2010.
    It's not always easy to remember how one felt back then but my recollection is:
    Wasn't thrilled about a coalition with the Tories - but felt optimistic and couldn't see how a Labour/LD coalition could work numerically, and was quietly impressed by some of what David Cameron was saying with his pledge on foreign aid/environment etc.
    Agree; voted Lib/LD for years. However the savage cuts imposed on the weaker members of society, with, apparently. the support of the LD’s are taking me back where I started; Labour.
    I wasn't old enough to vote in 2005 - but I know I couldn't have gone Labour after the Iraq War. I think Charles Kennedy's opposition was definitely a big factor pulling me to the Lib Dems, combined with parental influences.
    Your parents turned you into a LibDem? Quick - call the NSPCC!
    Why? It's not as if they did anything really nasty, like turn him into a Tory! :smile:
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Charles said:

    Is that Chris “Weinstein” Rennard?

    Funny how the actions of some can be forgotten, the words of others haunt them for a lifetime

    It is completely inappropriate for PB to be reviewing, and in effect promoting, an AUTObiography by a notorious sex pest. It is also a bad reflection on the LDs that he remains an active member of their party in the HoL.

    It is a pity for the LDs that their deputy leader is not (yet) in charge, as she stated in November 2017 that "I do not want Lord Rennard to continue as a member of the party. As far as I am concerned, he is not welcome."
    In many ways what bugs me more is that the review is so one-eyed. If it had reviewed it as a serious piece of political commentary from a key political figure, but pointed out he is also a disgraced sex pest who has been suspended from the party at least once and is something of a pariah figure now, fair enough.

    But to read this, it seems like Lord Rennard is a nice guy who never put a foot wrong and that last sentence is just horrendous.

    It's like the crap the Richard III society come out with, but about living people one of whom doesn't merit the hagiography and whose victims may feel hurt if they see it.
    It's his memoirs. Perhaps he is fortunate and doesn't rememoir any of the bad bits of life, unlike those he inflicted his libido upon.

    Lord Rennard, Libido-Democrats.
    Can you buy me a new keyboard? That last line caused me to spill coffee over it. ;)
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 583

    Even before publication, it is clear that EU positions the U.K. strongly objects to will be in the text. According to EU officials with knowledge of the bloc’s position and chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier himself, the document will contain clauses mandating that:

    1. Northern Ireland will remain part of the EU customs union and maintain full regulatory alignment — effectively imposing a new trade boundary in the Irish Sea.

    2. The European Court of Justice will retain legal authority to adjudicate any disputes that arise in relation to the withdrawal treaty, including any disagreements on citizens’ rights or the U.K.’s continuing financial obligations to the EU.

    3. The Brexit transition period will end on December 31, 2020, on the final day of the EU’s current long-term budget plan.

    4. During the transition, the U.K. will lose all voting rights and decision-making power but must comply with all existing EU laws and regulations — and any new rules adopted by the EU27 — with no recourse if it opposes some new policy.


    https://www.politico.eu/article/european-commission-brexit-legal-text-signals-greater-eu-urgency/

    Some of the above are red lines for the Westminster administration, but I expect May to buckle.

    1. I expect this will be resolved by the UK as a whole remaining part of the EU customs union and maintaining full regulatory alignment.

    2. This is unreasonable, as there should be independent judicial oversight for any agreement between the UK and EU post Brexit, but the UK as the sick man of Europe is in too weak a position to argue.

    3. This is reasonable.

    4. In theory this is time-limited, but in practice it will be ad infinitum, due to the need to maintain full regulatory alignment to comply with point 1.

    I expect BINO.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    Certainly Rennard played a pivotal role in ensuring the LDs were far ahead of the other parties in being able to run ruthlessly effective by election and council election campaigns.

    Translating that success into general election gains was more difficult given all seats were up and the higher turnout and the focus on big national issues but the gains the LDs made in 2005 in particular over Iraq when they won their highest number of MPs since the 1920s showed they could be used there too
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,517
    @Andrew_Adonis: First Jubilee Line on time at 5.22 from Baker St, despite treacherous conditions on Camden-Westminster border. Well done TfL, navigating hundreds of London border crossings each day. The Foreign Secretary is proud of you!
  • Charles said:

    Is that Chris “Weinstein” Rennard?

    Funny how the actions of some can be forgotten, the words of others haunt them for a lifetime

    You'll be mentioning next all those stolen millions the LibDems kept from convicted fraudster Michael Brown.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,241

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Charles said:

    Is that Chris “Weinstein” Rennard?

    Funny how the actions of some can be forgotten, the words of others haunt them for a lifetime

    It is completely inappropriate for PB to be reviewing, and in effect promoting, an AUTObiography by a notorious sex pest. It is also a bad reflection on the LDs that he remains an active member of their party in the HoL.

    It is a pity for the LDs that their deputy leader is not (yet) in charge, as she stated in November 2017 that "I do not want Lord Rennard to continue as a member of the party. As far as I am concerned, he is not welcome."
    In many ways what bugs me more is that the review is so one-eyed. If it had reviewed it as a serious piece of political commentary from a key political figure, but pointed out he is also a disgraced sex pest who has been suspended from the party at least once and is something of a pariah figure now, fair enough.

    But to read this, it seems like Lord Rennard is a nice guy who never put a foot wrong and that last sentence is just horrendous.

    It's like the crap the Richard III society come out with, but about living people one of whom doesn't merit the hagiography and whose victims may feel hurt if they see it.
    It's his memoirs. Perhaps he is fortunate and doesn't rememoir any of the bad bits of life, unlike those he inflicted his libido upon.

    Lord Rennard, Libido-Democrats.
    Can you buy me a new keyboard? That last line caused me to spill coffee over it. ;)
    After my coffee spill incident on Monday morning I thought that my laptop was a goner, but after a couple of false starts it decided to start working again by lunchtime.

    I'll try tea next time...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,267
    edited February 28

    What a douche bag!

    It was a Liberal Councillor who had helped Rennard’s disabled mother to get her widowed mothers’ allowance. Orphaned when nearly 17, Rennard then showed abnormal self-reliance in getting through sixth form and university.

    His party's record in government with the Tories has made life for people in those those circumstances far more difficult than when he was 17 in 1977.

    Sadly true. Wasn’t the attitude I campaigned for in the 60’s and 70’s. I think Mr Stodge of this parish has comented that there are a lot of new LD members; not the footsoldiers of the past, like me.
    Mnd, I’m getting a bit old for pavement pounding!
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,869

    Charles said:

    Is that Chris “Weinstein” Rennard?

    Funny how the actions of some can be forgotten, the words of others haunt them for a lifetime

    You'll be mentioning next all those stolen millions the LibDems kept from convicted fraudster Michael Brown.
    I think that you always mention this whenever the LibDems are the subject.
    For the sake of balance I think I need to mention Asil Nadir.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822

    John_M said:

    Good morning all.

    Unionem Europaeam delenda est.

    On topic, not impressed by the hagiography of Rennard. However, I'll always give the Lib Dems credit for going into coalition. As Sir Humphrey would put it, a courageous decision. Clegg put country before party, but then I guess he could afford to.

    Clegg didn't have a choice.

    What were the alternatives ?

    1) Prop up an utterly weak Labour 'rainbow coalition' - it would collapse and the LibDems would be destroyed at the subsequent general election.

    2) Allow a Conservative minority government - at a time of his choosing Cameron would call a second general election and the LibDems would be destroyed.

    3) Oppose both the Conservatives and Labour - an immediate second general election follows and the LibDems are destroyed.

    After decades of banging on about coalition governments the LibDems couldn't turn down one when it was offered.
    The Lib Dems' mistake was to make it a five year coalition. They should have included a break clause after two years, allowing them to review their options at that stage. They could have done so on the logic that there was an immediate financial crisis that needed sorting and that steps after that would need to be thought about at that stage.

    They could have been reasonably confident that come 2012 the Conservatives would be behind in the polls, giving them time to cleanse themselves in opposition, constructive or otherwise.
  • Why hasn't the UK set out its own withdrawal agreement text? There was nothing to stop the government doing this. Now, it will have to respond to the EU one, which means that - once again - the EU is setting the entire agenda. If you want something, you have to seize the initiative. Once again, we have failed totally to do so. And we all know why: the government cannot agree on a final position, let alone a negotiating strategy to get to one. What a shambles.
  • daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?

    Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.

    Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
    Which bit do you see as going back and lying?

    They think they have Britain over a barrel. They’re negotiating accordingly.
    Northern Ireland. They agreed Northern Ireland would be treated as part of the UK, now they appear in effect to be demanding it stay in the single market.

    PS - they are not negotiating, they appear to be trying to impose. That seriously ups the risk of rupture which would be blamed on them. This is not smart politics and up to now they have been quite deft about deflecting blame so I am surprised at the sudden descent.
    The UK committed to ensure Northern Ireland’s businesses would retain the same unfettered access to the UK internal market. The EU did not.

    The EU has proposed a draft. It is up for negotiation, however it is presented. I expect they want the tantrums out of the way early.
    The EU is rightly determined, on behalf of 1 of its remaining members, to ensure that the artificial border across Ulster remains (as it currently is) a mere administrative boundary line and does not revert to being a hard border. If the UK wishes to have a hard Brexit, that will not be permitted to apply to the 6 counties, so there would have to be an effective border for trade and people between GB and the 6 counties. Alternatively, the UK as a whole could stay in the CU +/- SM.

    Yes, this was agreed in December.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,208
    Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_fourfm
  • Yep - we are where we are entirely because of decisions taken by Theresa May designed to appease the Leave loons on the Tory right and to get good headlines in the Mail, the Sun, the Express and the Telegraph. The UK's entire Brexit strategy so far has been designed to do one thing: keep Theresa May in 10 Downing Street. It's not even party before country. It's self above all else.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,804
    Roger said:

    Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_fourfm

    One of my favourite political quotes:

    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    HL Mencken
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,804
    Scott_P said:

    @Andrew_Adonis: First Jubilee Line on time at 5.22 from Baker St, despite treacherous conditions on Camden-Westminster border. Well done TfL, navigating hundreds of London border crossings each day. The Foreign Secretary is proud of you!

    :lol:
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    This threader concerns me slightly, especially the last two paragraphs.

    Lord Rennard has been lucky. If what he did had come out now, instead of four or so years ago, there would have been no way back for him. And perhaps rightly so.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    Roger said:

    Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_fourfm

    These are the self-same morons you have made a career selling stuff to with your adverts aimed at....morons.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    Scott_P said:

    @Andrew_Adonis: First Jubilee Line on time at 5.22 from Baker St, despite treacherous conditions on Camden-Westminster border. Well done TfL, navigating hundreds of London border crossings each day. The Foreign Secretary is proud of you!

    Well done Boris, reducing Adonis to sounding like a smart-arse metropolitan twat, rather than saying anything of note.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    edited February 28
    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?

    Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.

    Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
    Which bit do you see as going back and lying?

    They think they have Britain over a barrel. They’re negotiating accordingly.
    Northern Ireland. They agreed Northern Ireland would be treated as part of the UK, now they appear in effect to be demanding it stay in the single market.

    PS - they are not negotiating, they appear to be trying to impose. That seriously ups the risk of rupture which would be blamed on them. This is not smart politics and up to now they have been quite deft about deflecting blame so I am surprised at the sudden descent.
    The UK committed to ensure Northern Ireland’s businesses would retain the same unfettered access to the UK internal market. The EU did not.

    The EU has proposed a draft. It is up for negotiation, however it is presented. I expect they want the tantrums out of the way early.
    The EU is rightly determined, on behalf of 1 of its remaining members, to ensure that the artificial border across Ulster remains (as it currently is) a mere administrative boundary line and does not revert to being a hard border. If the UK wishes to have a hard Brexit, that will not be permitted to apply to the 6 counties, so there would have to be an effective border for trade and people between GB and the 6 counties. Alternatively, the UK as a whole could stay in the CU +/- SM.
    Alternatively the Tories could elect Boris as leader given his recent statements accepting some form of limited hard border, we would not get a FTA or transition period post Brexit but it would be enough for the DUP and if Parliament voted to Leave the Customs Union (with the votes of pro Brexit Labour rebels like Campbell, Hopkins, Hoey, Stringer and Field) it would likely have enough support in Parliament.

    We would then go straight to WTO terms, no free movement, no regulatory alignment and no ECJ jurisdiction and a hard border between NI and the Republic in April 2019. The GFA may also be killed off but with neither the DUP nor SF having agreed to powershare for almost a year it has been on life support for months anyway
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,154

    John_M said:

    Good morning all.

    Unionem Europaeam delenda est.

    On topic, not impressed by the hagiography of Rennard. However, I'll always give the Lib Dems credit for going into coalition. As Sir Humphrey would put it, a courageous decision. Clegg put country before party, but then I guess he could afford to.

    Clegg didn't have a choice.

    What were the alternatives ?

    1) Prop up an utterly weak Labour 'rainbow coalition' - it would collapse and the LibDems would be destroyed at the subsequent general election.

    2) Allow a Conservative minority government - at a time of his choosing Cameron would call a second general election and the LibDems would be destroyed.

    3) Oppose both the Conservatives and Labour - an immediate second general election follows and the LibDems are destroyed.

    After decades of banging on about coalition governments the LibDems couldn't turn down one when it was offered.
    The Lib Dems' mistake was to make it a five year coalition. They should have included a break clause after two years, allowing them to review their options at that stage. They could have done so on the logic that there was an immediate financial crisis that needed sorting and that steps after that would need to be thought about at that stage.

    They could have been reasonably confident that come 2012 the Conservatives would be behind in the polls, giving them time to cleanse themselves in opposition, constructive or otherwise.
    Unconvinced that would have been acceptable to the Tories.
    I think they'd have done better if they'd just followed through on at least one of their big promises (tuition fees, nuclear deterrent, constitutional reform).
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,241

    Scott_P said:

    @Andrew_Adonis: First Jubilee Line on time at 5.22 from Baker St, despite treacherous conditions on Camden-Westminster border. Well done TfL, navigating hundreds of London border crossings each day. The Foreign Secretary is proud of you!

    Well done Boris, reducing Adonis to sounding like a smart-arse metropolitan twat, rather than saying anything of note.
    I'm more intrigued as to why Adonis was changing at Baker Street at 5.22 in the morning.

    A bit early for that sort of thing.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645
    HYUFD said:

    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?

    Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.

    Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
    Which bit do you see as going back and lying?

    They think they have Britain over a barrel. They’re negotiating accordingly.
    Northern Ireland. They agreed Northern Ireland would be treated as part of the UK, now they appear in effect to be demanding it stay in the single market.

    PS - they are not negotiating, they appear to be trying to impose. That seriously ups the risk of rupture which would be blamed on them. This is not smart politics and up to now they have been quite deft about deflecting blame so I am surprised at the sudden descent.
    The UK committed to ensure Northern Ireland’s businesses would retain the same unfettered access to the UK internal market. The EU did not.

    The EU has proposed a draft. It is up for negotiation, however it is presented. I expect they want the tantrums out of the way early.
    The EU is rightly determined, on behalf of 1 of its remaining members, to ensure that the artificial border across Ulster remains (as it currently is) a mere administrative boundary line and does not revert to being a hard border. If the UK wishes to have a hard Brexit, that will not be permitted to apply to the 6 counties, so there would have to be an effective border for trade and people between GB and the 6 counties. Alternatively, the UK as a whole could stay in the CU +/- SM.
    Alternatively the Tories could elect Boris as leader given his recent statements accepting some form of limited hard border, we would not get a FTA or transition period post Brexit but it would be enough for the DUP and if Parliament voted to Leave the Customs Union (with the votes of pro Brexit Labour rebels like Campbell, Hopkins, Hoey, Stringer and Field) it would likely have enough support in Parliament.

    We would then go straight to WTO terms, no free movement, no regulatory alignment and no ECJ jurisdiction and a hard border between NI and the Republic in April 2019. The GFA may also be killed off but with neither the DUP nor SF having agreed to powershare for almost a year it has been on life support for months anyway
    A hardish border is a corollory of rejecting CU. DUP need to be disappointed.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,241
    Well for once I've arrived in Manchester and it isn't raining.

    That's because it is snowing.

    Laters...
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 583
    HYUFD said:

    daodao said:



    The EU is rightly determined, on behalf of 1 of its remaining members, to ensure that the artificial border across Ulster remains (as it currently is) a mere administrative boundary line and does not revert to being a hard border. If the UK wishes to have a hard Brexit, that will not be permitted to apply to the 6 counties, so there would have to be an effective border for trade and people between GB and the 6 counties. Alternatively, the UK as a whole could stay in the CU +/- SM.

    Alternatively the Tories could elect Boris as leader given his recent statements accepting some form of limited hard border, we would not get a FTA or transition period post Brexit but it would be enough for the DUP and if Parliament voted to Leave the Customs Union (with the votes of pro Brexit Labour rebels like Campbell, Hopkins, Hoey, Stringer and Field) it would likely have enough support in Parliament.

    We would then go straight to WTO terms, no free movement, no regulatory alignment and no ECJ jurisdiction and a hard border between NI and the Republic in April 2019. The GFA may also be killed off but with neither the DUP nor SF having agreed to powershare for almost a year it has been on life support for months anyway
    The UK as a whole would be on life support if the above happened. Progress towards Scottish independence and Irish re-unification would be accelerated and rUK would be in a desperate economic plight and politically isolated.
  • HYUFD said:

    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Can anyone explain to me why the EU would score such a crass own goal as this draft treaty appears to be?

    Going back on previous agreements and lying to negotiating partners is never a good look.

    Are they actually trying for a diamond hard Brexit, or to quote Harry Potter are Barnier and Juncker actually as stupid as they look?
    Which bit do you see as going back and lying?

    They think they have Britain over a barrel. They’re negotiating accordingly.
    Northern Ireland. They agreed Northern Ireland would be treated as part of the UK, now they appear in effect to be demanding it stay in the single market.

    PS - they are not negotiating, they appear to be trying to impose. That seriously ups the risk of rupture which would be blamed on them. This is not smart politics and up to now they have been quite deft about deflecting blame so I am surprised at the sudden descent.
    The UK committed to ensure Northern Ireland’s businesses would retain the same unfettered access to the UK internal market. The EU did not.

    The EU has proposed a draft. It is up for negotiation, however it is presented. I expect they want the tantrums out of the way early.
    Thestay in the CU +/- SM.
    Alternatively the Tories could elect Boris as leader given his recent statements accepting some form of limited hard border, we would not get a FTA or transition period post Brexit but it would be enough for the DUP and if Parliament voted to Leave the Customs Union (with the votes of pro Brexit Labour rebels like Campbell, Hopkins, Hoey, Stringer and Field) it would likely have enough support in Parliament.

    We would then go straight to WTO terms, no free movement, no regulatory alignment and no ECJ jurisdiction and a hard border between NI and the Republic in April 2019. The GFA may also be killed off but with neither the DUP nor SF having agreed to powershare for almost a year it has been on life support for months anyway

    Yep - that is one solution. It would destroy the UK's economy, make us an international pariah and kill off the Conservative party for a generation, but it is doable.

    Buccaneering Boris's first trip[ to the US after becoming PM in such circumstances would be an interesting one. He may discover that the Irish American lobby is pretty powerful.

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,620
    Roger said:

    Why is it that representatives of the EU sound so much brighter and sharper than their British counterparts? I know the residends of Hartlipool prefer Jeremy Kyle to listening to 'Today' on radio 4 but why did we allow these morons to vote when they've never listened to the arguments? Listen at 8.10 and weep


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_fourfm



    Roger - showing us his right on credentials again I see.


  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Charles said:

    Is that Chris “Weinstein” Rennard?

    Funny how the actions of some can be forgotten, the words of others haunt them for a lifetime

    It is completely inappropriate for PB to be reviewing, and in effect promoting, an AUTObiography by a notorious sex pest. It is also a bad reflection on the LDs that he remains an active member of their party in the HoL.

    It is a pity for the LDs that their deputy leader is not (yet) in charge, as she stated in November 2017 that "I do not want Lord Rennard to continue as a member of the party. As far as I am concerned, he is not welcome."
    In many ways what bugs me more is that the review is so one-eyed. If it had reviewed it as a serious piece of political commentary from a key political figure, but pointed out he is also a disgraced sex pest who has been suspended from the party at least once and is something of a pariah figure now, fair enough.

    But to read this, it seems like Lord Rennard is a nice guy who never put a foot wrong and that last sentence is just horrendous.

    It's like the crap the Richard III society come out with, but about living people one of whom doesn't merit the hagiography and whose victims may feel hurt if they see it.
    It's his memoirs. Perhaps he is fortunate and doesn't rememoir any of the bad bits of life, unlike those he inflicted his libido upon.

    Lord Rennard, Libido-Democrats.
    Can you buy me a new keyboard? That last line caused me to spill coffee over it. ;)
    Apologies. Sort of.... :lol:
This discussion has been closed.