This is a typically soft and ineffectual speech of “I didn’t know”. Internal inquiries, fudged by splitting process and accusation, will inevitably be run by Rennard’s friends and ex-colleagues – even if independently chaired – and are destined to run into the sand. The party is apparently not really serious about getting to the truth, and I trust its self-righteous flabbiness will come back and bite it.

This is no doubt not the first set of allegations which have been stopped short by the one being accused “retiring on health grounds” or “spending more time with Family” now I suspect will it be the last.
I do feel however that ALL political parties are subject to the same shortcomings as they struggle to keep their best(not a term I would use) political minds on board in order to help them win the next battle.
The biggest problem for all political parties is their arrogance whereby they truly believe that they are far superior to any of the plebs who cast votes and that any political party member always tells the truth within the party if not to the public.

How wrong they all are and how blind must they think we believe they are, or how blind they believe us plebs to be.

Whatever

Clegg changes his story again, and again, and again, and again, and again,and again, and again, and again,and again,and again,and again.

You do have to laugh at how pompous he is. The lie dems in all their glory.

Michael Crick on Twitter “intv in 2009, I put it to Clegg 4 times that Rennard was sacked. At no time did he deny that, yet tonight he says Rennard resigned”

Can clegg ever tell the truth about anything?

In practice at this level, the distinction between ‘sacked’ and ‘resigned’ can be entirely cosmetic, or permitted for contractual reasons. Even at the time, we knew (in the sense of ‘we’ = bloggers and ‘knew’ = ‘someone in Whitehall told my friend who said…’) that Rennard had been punted by Clegg for some kind of personal rather than professional misconduct.

Interesting that this got brought back now; someone’s had it in their back pocket for a long time waiting for a chance. Any aspects of this actually relevant to governing were over in 2008, afaict.

What with Opik putting the boot in, Farron left holding his dick and Cleggster looking like a bunny in the headlights, well, could this all be the work of that well known Liberal – Mr Simon ‘i’m not gay Tatchell unlike you, even though I am’ Hughes?

Political Betting have got Cleggy (37 notches, lurdeez, 37) on 6-4 to be putsched by the next election. Geez, when Opik’s you’re attack dog, one should really consider retirement.

Did Rennard know Cyril ‘the disciplinarian’ Smith?

Skeletons are alleged to be in the closet a few critical days before a closely fought election.

Lynton Crosby will be behind this, you mark my words. It is certainly in his style. Channel 4 and BBC should be querying the timing of these revelations with more vigour than they are reporting the story.

To use smear and innuendo as a campaigning tactic suggests to me a lack of integrity. But either Rennard or his alleged victims would be extremely distressed by the situation. To use this purely for political capital is disgraceful. This matter needs properly resolving, but not in the spotlight before a by-election.

The result of this affair, and perhaps Clegg’s career, hang on exactly what he knew or was told. If, as he claims, he was given information “indirectly and anonymously”, then I cannot see what else he could have done but put (or have put) the allegations to Rennard. Given his denial, there was really little else they could do, though it does appear that he was squeezed out of his job as Chief Executive. On this reading, those making the allegations seem to have been happy with the result, but came forwards more recently when Rennard appeared to be taking a more active role in the party.

However, if Clegg, or anyone else senior in the party had specific knowledge of incidents (excluding of course the person(s) who made the statements “indirectly and anonymously”) then he’s finished: for a cover-up in the first case, or for being out of touch/control in the latter.