Get real, tomorrow is not going to happen. By Dan Hodges – “Because this is the Real World. Where Real Things Happen. In barely formulated tabloid-ish sentences that have somehow made their way into a broadsheet where they masquerade as incisive realism. With their no-nonsense tone. And their full-stops.”
The Okinawa missiles of October – Did the US nearly launch nuclear cruise missiles at the Soviet Union and other countries during the Cuban Missile Crisis?
An interactive guide to ambiguous grammar – Make sure you read it right to the end.
After the Paris Attacks: Live News Should Challenge Narratives, Not Desperately Try to Create Them – Too much media coverage is desperate speculation to fill air time, rather than reporting what’s happened.
The Rennard debacle: better to rock the boat than have the tail wag the dog – James Graham saves me from having to write another post on the conclusion of this.
And as a fictional bonus, try Andrew Hickey’s Ten Things You’ll Only Get If You Were A 50s Kid.
With depressing predictability, many people’s response to the concerns a lot of Liberal Democrat members have raised about the return of Chris Rennard to the Federal Executive has been ‘aren’t there more important things to worry about?’ It’s also interesting to note that ‘shut up and deliver leaflets‘ has now evolved into ‘go and do some phone canvassing’. This is of course mixed in with ‘don’t you know there’s a by-election on’ and ‘talking about this just gives us bad publicity’ to try and shut down any debate by blaming everyone else for the bad things.
It’s an interesting attempt at political judo: trying to make it look like it’s those people complaining about the Lords putting Chris Rennard on the FE are the ones in the wrong, rather than those who’ve actually made the decision. It feels to me very much like people who misunderstand free speech – yes, you have the right to say what you like, or elect whoever you choose, but that doesn’t free you from the consequences of your actions. Imagine if Tim Farron used his slot at Prime Minister’s Questions to ask Cameron if he could tell him who put the ram in the ram a lam a ding dong. He’s perfectly entitled to ask that, and as leader he can choose the subject of his questions, but he’d have to face the consequences of that choice.
This is the situation the Lords group – or, at least, the 40-odd of them who voted for Rennard – are in. They’ve made their decision according to the rules they have and in accordance with the power they have to appoint a member to the FE. Having seen the decision they’ve made, a large chunk of people in the rest of the party have pointed out that it’s a really bad decision and the response hasn’t been to try and explain why they think it’s a good decision, but to complain that people are daring to criticise it. Hiding behind ‘there are more important things you should be doing’ and ‘you’re making the party look bad, go and deliver leaflets as penance’ is quite a depressing way to try and avoid a debate and shift the blame for the effects of a decision onto those who didn’t make it.
Too many people forget that liberalism is about the freedom to make decisions and act, but that freedom comes with responsibility for the consequences of your actions. No one acts in a vacuum or makes decisions that are void of consequences and to assume that you can do whatever you want without facing criticism when you get it wrong is to demand to be removed from all consequences and be unaccountable in the way you exercise your power. Unaccountable power is something liberalism opposes, and it’s those who are trying to get everyone to move on and just accept it that are being illiberal here.
There are some words you don’t want to see coming up on your Twitter feed because you know they’re invariably associated with bad news. When you’re a member of and follow a number of Liberal Democrats, “Rennard” is one of those words, as it normally means that everyone’s least-favourite former chief executive has done something silly again.
This time, it wasn’t just him being silly. Assisted by the votes of thirty-nine other members of the Liberal Democrat group in the House of Lords, he’s been elected as their representative on the party’s Federal Executive. I’m not sure what was going through the minds of these peers when they decided that someone cited as the principal reason why several prominent women have left the party was the best person to represent them on the FE, or why they think that raking up old arguments is the best way for the party to spend its time when its trying to rebuild. Some credit must be given for the twenty peers who voted for Tim Razzall to take the place instead, with questions being asked of the fifty or more who didn’t bother to vote.
What’s clear now, as it has been ever seen the allegations about him were first raised, is that there is a clear divide in the party over Rennard and that there are a number of people in senior positions in the party (particularly amongst the Lords group) who want to put him back into a prominent position because they believe the legend that he’s a political campaigner without equal, who can somehow magically restore the party’s electoral fortunes if he’s given the chance to. At best, this is somewhat overstating the ability one person could have on the party’s fortunes, but I’d argue that the supposed miracle-working powers of Rennardism ignore that he was principally a tactician and it was the party’s strategic positioning during the Ashdown and Kennedy years that created the real opportunity. (See here for my more detailed argument on that)
What we have here is a section of the party establishment deciding that standing up for their old mate is more important than giving the party the opportunity to rebuild and make a fresh start. Like Jennie, I want to see Tim Farron and Sal Brinton telling the Lib Dem Lords to think again, and I want to hear from the other members of the Federal Executive what they intend to do about it. Are they happy to see it being used to make the whole party look bad?
I’m sure it’s not their intention but the Lib Dem Lords are doing a very good job of showing just what the problems are with giving power to an unelected and unaccountable group. One of the outcomes of the party’s governance review has to be to remove any power over the democratic structures of the party from unaccountable groups like them.
Too much democracy? Time for 21st century democracy. – An introduction by Martin Smith and Dave Richards to some of the themes of their book Institutional Crisis in 21st Century Britain, which I’m working through at the moment.
Forget quotas for women MPs – time to limit the number of men – Rainbow Murray flips the debate on representation.
Making policy for the policy invariant – How do you make policy if the people don’t care what the results of that policy are?
Public Statement on the Readmittance of Lord Rennard to the Liberal Democrats – Jennie Rigg says exactly what I would say.
Do political parties make any difference? – Alex Marsh with details of some new academic research that’s relevant to my interests, and also contains some information on the party’s stance on immigration that’ll be of interest to activists.