For Your Consideration.

Picture the scene:

It’s 2020 and Oscar season is upon us. Film studios, directors and producers are busy touting their wares to the members of the Academy, offering up their prize films to the electorate and soliciting interest – and votes – with adverts, direct mail and parties.

Campaigning is in full swing, and you’re flattered to be invited to an exclusive screening of the highly rated “The Hat”, hosted by the studio chief and followed by a private party with some of Hollywood’s finest actors and directors.

As costume designer, your part in the making of “The Hat” was small, but crucial. As a member of the Academy, though, your vote is worth as much as Spielberg’s or Streeps’. Naturally, you were going to vote for the film in all of the relevant categories – but the invitation was still flattering, and you’re going to make the most of it.

As you get ready, you reflect on how much you had enjoyed working on the film, and what a contrast you feel in your career now to when you were starting out. Having climbed the ladder as far as you have has given you a unique viewpoint as you observe the industry, and your place in it. You shudder at the memory of some of the people you have encountered along the way – the power-games and manipulation you had to deal with, not to mention the “favours” expected and unwanted advances rebuffed.

The evening progresses and, after seeing the film, you move on to the function. And then it happens. As you enter the gilded function room you see him: Harvey Weinstein. He’s schmoozing academy members, working on behalf of the studio chief, the director, you(?), to get votes for the film. You can’t believe it; after everything that emerged in 2017, it beggars belief that he should be here, pressing the flesh, and continuing to wield influence.

Sound unlikely? I hope so. But it wouldn’t be without precedent, or application as an analogy.

Earlier today, Guido Fawkes published a story about a certain peer of this parish attending an event in Brussels with our Acting Chief Executive, various of our MPs, our MEP and others. Like all good Lib Dem photos, all the women were at the front, promoting diversity and an (almost) gender balanced group – and at the back was Lord Rennard. A further photo showed him campaigning for Vince in Twickenham in June.

Laying aside Guido’s agenda, the inference is clear: Rennard wishes to exert any and all the influence he can. Vince should resist any moves in this direction, and seek to suppress the Baron’s ambition. As I noted when our Lords elected him as their representative on the Federal Executive: “It's time Lord Rennard … realised that if - and for as long as - he is seen to hold influence, he holds back the ambitions of the party.”

Just as Harvey Weinstein’s continued presence as a manipulator of Oscar voters seems unconscionable, so should the reinstatement of Lord Rennard to any positions of influence and power within the party.

My email to Tim and Sal re: Lord Rennard and the Federal Executive

As a follow up to my last post, here is my email on the subject to Tim Farron (Leader of the Liberal Democrats) and Baroness Sal Brinton (Party President):


Dear Tim and Sal,

I'm deeply concerned about the reputational damage to the party caused by the election of Lord Rennard to represent our Lords' group on Federal Executive.

Whatever one's views of the allegations against him, the resultant internal processes, the lack of police action or the Morrissey report and subsequent statements by Helena Morrissey, his name has become a byword for sleaze and harassment within the party - and amongst many in the public: in particular many who might otherwise vote for us.

By electing him to the FE, the Lords have cemented his circle of influence both there and more widely within the party, and sent a signal to many members and potential members that they (and by extension the Party generally) still don't get the impact of his behaviour.

I'm sure you have both had much correspondence on this but I would like to add my name to calls for public statements distancing yourselves from this decision and reinforcing a commitment to rebuilding our party with a culture inclusive of all, particularly those alienated by this turn of events. Whilst we need to respect the processes of the party, I believe that your mandates from the membership give you both the platform from which you can make these points more forcibly than any other senior party figures: and that doing so will be essential to repairing the reputation of the party.

Kind Regards,


Andrew Brown
Bristol

Chris Rennard and the Federal Executive: It's about rehabilitation.

First things first. I'm a Liberal and I believe in exercising due process. I believe the rule of law and, within the party, the fair application of the rules. I believe in innocence until proven guilty and restorative justice. And I believe in rehabilitation.

I'm also a Liberal Democrat. I want to see the party succeed. Indeed, I want to see the party rebuilt, re-energised - resurrected, even, if I can use such language. And I want to see all parts of the party play their role in that. New members, old members, activists, Councillors, MPs, and Lords.

It's no secret it's been a bruising few years, culminating in a catastrophic election performance in May. There's been compound losses of many Councillors and councils, disastrous results in Scotland and Wales, the loss of all but one of our MEPs as well as the reduction of our MPs to just 8. You don't need me to tell you that it hasn't been fun.

Good things have followed, though: thousands of new members swelling our ranks, our new leader with his distinctive voice on Europe, Refugees, Immigration, Welfare cuts; and his willingness to use our Lords to oppose the Tories, and show up Labour's weaknesses.

Indeed, our Lords have done some sterling work in recent weeks. We may not agree with the institution - but we will work within the system to make lives better for the people of this country.

Against this background, then, it was with dismay that I woke up today to discover that our group in the House of Lords had elected Lord Rennard as their representative on the Federal Executive.

Now, there are those who say: "Lord Rennard has not been convicted of any crime, nor has he been subject to any disciplinary action by the party. Not only that, but Helena Morrissey has said there is no reason he shouldn't play a full role in the party."

And they'd be right.

And as someone who believes in rehabilitation you might expect me to agree with them.

But you'd be wrong.

Now, my active time within the party started after Lord Rennard's tenure as Chief Executive. I've never met him, nor have I had any dealings with him online or by any other means. My only experience have been second and third hand tales from fellow-conference attendees, as well as the media reports. Despite this, he has repeatedly tried to add me as a 'friend' on Facebook*. I'm not alone in this, as it's been part of an ongoing pattern of extending his sphere of influence that has also see him take increasing part in the discourse of the party.

It is, of course, understandable that he is keen to redeem his reputation and he clearly has lots of experience and skills to offer. As a member of a party he (says he) loves, it's only natural that he wants to offer his talents to party.

But the party are well within their rights to decline such offers, and indeed has done through not re-appointing him to any official post.

The Lords could have exercised this right by opting not to not elect him to the Federal Executive. Why? Because it's not just Lord Rennard's reputation that needs repaired - it's that of the Liberal Democrats. Although the (flawed) process was completed and no action was ultimately taken - the party suffered a great deal of reputational damage. Furthermore, despite what Helena Morrissey has said, Rennard has not fully complied with the suggestion of Alistair Webster QC - a point well made by Jennie Rigg, here.

It's time Lord Rennard, and our other Lord's, realised that if - and for as long as - he is seen to hold influence, he holds back the ambitions of the party.

The party is holding a variety of reviews of how it works, including internal party governance. Getting things right will go a long way to making us electable again, not least through improving the internal culture of the party and allowing all our members opportunities to contribute. Getting them wrong can only hamper us.

The processes and structures that have brought us to this pass are no longer fit for purpose - and need to be overhauled. In the immediate term, it's hard to see what can be done** but one thing is clear: in pursuing his own rehabilitation, Lord Rennard has held back that of the party.


*as it happens, I very rarely add people I haven't actually met in real life as friends on Facebook in any case.

**but I'm emailing Tim and Sal to make my feelings known.

Some Thoughts On... the Lord Rennard allegations

It's quite some time to be a Lib Dem: the ongoing Huhne/Pryce court case, the resultant Eastleigh by-election and, now, the allegations against Lord Rennard and the party*.

 

Last Friday, I was delighted to be able to get out delivering for Mike Thornton in Eastleigh: as a new(ish) activist it was my first taste of by-election campaigning - I only wish I had been in a position to go for longer. It has been a campaign that seems to have really galvanised the activists within the party. Record numbers have, reportedly, been flocking to Eastleigh to campaign and record donations made and the enthusiasm seems to have been matched by a high quality, efficient campaign organisation.

 

Morale has been high in defiance - as we so often are - of the prevailing media mood music and, in this case, the reason for the poll. Lib Dems are nothing if not stoical, independently minded and damned if they're going to dance to someone else's tune. Yes, we may be engaged in a pas de deux with the Tories - but we know that they are not picking all the music themselves.

 

On Thursday night, though, Channel 4 News broke a story which has great potential to not only damage morale but seriously damage the party - both centrally and throughout the country. Lord Rennard, it is alleged, sexually harassed a number of woman and, when concerns were raised sought to cover them up. Lord Rennard subsequently resigned as Chief Executive on health grounds.

 

Much has been said and written and many of these points will have been made elsewhere. Here, though, are some of my thoughts on the matter.

 

1. Nothing has been proved

 

As with any occasion in which one is dealing with allegations, and where they are being denied, we should remember that central tenet of our legal system: innocent until proven guilty. Even where the matter is extra-judicial, we shouldn't jump to conclusions...

 

2. Nothing has been disproved

 

...which is not to say that should dismiss the claims now being made. Sexual harassment - and unwanted bodily contact - cannot be condoned. Repeated harassment cannot be excused.

 

3. "We are not dealing with Savile here"

 

Despite the number of sexual scandals competing for media attention, this is not a game of Top Trumps. Suggesting as much belittles the complainants, trivialises their complaints and gives succour to those who think that this is about "just touching a woman's knee" as if that were acceptable behaviour.

 

Note: I have not, at time of writing heard the World at One interview with Jasper Gerrard. If his comments are as reported, I would hope he is de-selected as a PPC.

 

4. I detest this being used as a political football...

 

The fact that our opponents can seek to make political capital out of the issue - as many are seeking to do - is symptomatic of a society that struggles to take these issues seriously. There are those who would do well to remember that "there but for the grace of God, go I [or my party]...". When they do, we should seek to rise above the game that some now wish to play.

 

Perhaps I'm being naïve.

 

5. We should not question the timing of the allegations - and certainly not in public

 

Some have suggested that the report has been timed to disrupt our campaigning in the Eastleigh by election - other's that this is part of an elaborate campaign to unseat Clegg.

Whatever, even if you do believe there is an ulterior motive, what is gained from airing it publicly? Suggesting that the complainants are players - or pawns - in a wider political game is cheap, and belittling; and plays into the hands of our opponants.

 

Besides, there would never be a "good" time for such allegations; suggesting that the timing is fishy is playing politics with peoples’ lives. Which brings me on to my next point...

 

6. Not everything should be seen through the prism of politics...

 

The more involved in politics you are, the more refracted your world view becomes. Seeking the most favourable angle and best spin in everything becomes second nature. When something like this happens, those at the top need to step out of that mindset and take a fresh look. Not at how to present this for the best in the short-term but how best to deal with it for the long-term.

 

If the allegations of a cover-up are true, this should have been done a long time ago. It certainly needs done now. Those involved - on both sides - deserve for natural justice to be openly served.

 

7. ...there are belated signs of the party getting this

 

Last night's statement by Nick Clegg was strong. Whilst I agree it did raise additional questions - specifically what is meant by "indirect and non-specific concerns" and how such concerns were deemed serious enough to be put to (then) Chris Rennard but don't appear to have been followed up further - it goes some way to recognising that real action is needed rather than the somewhat anaemic statement originally made. That statement should been made on Thursday.

 

Humans fail. Institutions fail. But they can also learn from failure - we must make sure that the party does. What matters now is that we get to a) the bottom of the specific allegations made - both of harassment and of inaction/cover-up and b) policies are fully revised to ensure that there is a recognised procedure for reporting any future abuse of power, position through sexual (or any form) of harassment and abuse.

 

8. An independent inquiry is required

 

I understand that the inquiry chair is to be Alistair Webster whom I understand is a former chair of the Lib Dem Lawyers association. Taken at face value, one could question his independence, but without further knowledge I'm going to reserve judgement.

 

9. We can get through this

 

It's going to be stormy and it's going to be unpleasant.

 

But the party needs to face it's failings and effect real change.

 

It owes Lord Rennard and the various complainants a fair hearing.

 

It owes any other woman with grievances a chance to air them.

 

It owes the public the knowledge that the Liberal Democrats have the courage to examine ourselves and ensure our own house is in order when we're pronouncing on issues of equality, discrimination, harassment and abuse.

 

And it owes it to all those who have worked for the party as activists, supported the party in deliveries or financially and voted for the party in elections. In Eastleigh, we have a cause worth fighting for, morale is high and enthusiasm levels are through the roof. Hundreds and thousands of volunteers and activists fighting for their party, proud to be Liberal Democrats, happy to represent the party at Westminster, the party as an institution. Happy for that party to represent them.

 

If the party fails to satisfactorily address the recent allegations, it will have failed these people - as well as those directly concerned.

 

Andrew

 

*I've tried to use the phrase "the party" to refer to the party organisation and leadership, and "we" and "us" where I intend a wider meaning in terms of the membership.