Browse > Home / Uncategorized / FEDERAL EXECUTIVE MEET

| Subcribe via RSS



FEDERAL EXECUTIVE MEET

July 14th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized by

The Lib Dem Federal Executive met last night. The contents of the meeting will (if they have any sense) be made public in double quick time.

This will be a big test for the group AND for its chair Ros Scott. Will this have been (1) a useless talking shop about do-nothing-unimportant side issues – or will they have (2) tackled the serious and important issues facing this party regarding expenses & allowances ?

I am of course, expecting clarification on what is happening with regard to the Lord Rennard, who was/is the Party’s Chief Executive – employed by the Federal Executive  and who recently resigned claiming ill health. Co-incidentally he also still has serious fraud accusations  (relating to allowance claims) hanging over him that, until now, the FE has been unwilling to deal with.

It now seems generally accepted that he is in fact away running the Lib Dem Norwich North by election campaign. IF TRUE, then how can we face the electorate with any seriousness at this or any other election? If we are willing to continue to employ somebody who has such serious question marks over them – that we leave unaddressed – we will face the consequenses sooner or later.   If it is NOT TRUE , well it just highlights how important it is for the FE to get a grip on this.

Investigate him and either clear his name, or take sanctions against him as an employee of the Party. Surely this is the ONLY option available to the FE ? And should have been item 1 on last nights agenda (if not the previous meeting).

The clock is ticking as we wait for the report from the Party President. And if it turns out that they have ducked this issue again, the clock might just start ticking on the FE itself and perhaps more importantly, its chair.

Or maybe, they will surprise us.

13 Responses to “FEDERAL EXECUTIVE MEET”

  1. Michael Heaver Says:

    From what I have seen working in UKIP HQ in Norwich North, the Liberal Democrat campaign has been very thin on the ground. We actually had a LibDem Council candidate defect to us a few weeks back.

    I would imagine behind-the-scenes goings-on like this have something to do with such an apparently underwhelming effort.


  2. wit and wisdom Says:

    Its really difficult to see what the Liberal Vision agenda is. Disaffected group of party hacks seeking to ape Dave’s hijacking of the Tories to inflict a ‘New Labour’ transformation on the LDs?

    Maybe.


  3. Duncan Borrowman Says:

    ‘claiming ill health’ no prejudging in that phraseology is there. Those of us who know Chris well know the facts of this. If you have concerns about the FE maybe you should have stood at the recent election.


  4. Julian H Says:

    “Its really difficult to see what the Liberal Vision agenda is”

    Is it? We’re promoting classical liberalism, and part of that is accountability of public figures using state funds. We’d simply like to know if Eastbourne really was Rennards first home.

    “If you have concerns about the FE maybe you should have stood at the recent election

    I’m sure you don’t mean this, Duncan. Can party members not query the FE without the jibe of “maybe you should have stood for election”?


  5. Duncan Borrowman Says:

    But Julian. The posting doesn’t question the decisions of the FE. It questions the existence of the FE and of Ros. But then LV had at least one losing candidate at the presidential election. Questioning is fine, sniping is cheap.


  6. Angela Harbutt Says:

    Duncan. I was simply saying it as I see it. The employer – in this case the FE – has a duty to protect the reputations of its employees and the wider organisation. A prompt investigation into the accusations made against a Liberal Democrat employee would have resolved this quickly and professionally. This is especially important IF there is any suggestion that the employee is likely to have any ongoing involvement in the organisation. With regard to standing for FE elections, I may well think about it for next time – though as as things stand it would be on a platform for change. Thanks.


  7. Julian H Says:

    LV hasn’t stood anyone at any elections. Chandila’s campaign (which was fairly succesful given that he had 6 weeks to create a nation-wide profile to compete with two professional politicians who’d been campaigning for years) was run by himself and his friends / family / supporters.


  8. Angela Harbutt Says:

    Duncan – quick update as did not read your post of 6.21pm

    1. I was not questioning the existance of the FE – I was questioning what it does.
    2. This is too important an issue to “snipe” – and I certainly do not consider this post or anything I do for that matter “cheap” – I was genuinely asking why there has been no action.

    I really do want to read a report from last nights FE that tells me my concerns are groundless and I will be the first to praise the FE if this is the case.


  9. Duncan Borrowman Says:

    The other issue is use of the word ‘fraud’. I have accused people of fraud. But am careful who I use it against.
    Using it against one of our own and with little to no evidence is something I would not countenance.
    And being carried on the blog of an organisation that claims to be Liberal and democratic but has no structure, officers or somebody except the author who could get a libel writ is even more questionable.


  10. Tinter Says:

    Not especially a friend of Liberal Vision, but the article states he has been accused of fraud by others. This is simply a statement of the facts. If you think the evidence for this is near nill, thats fine- the article doesn’t challenge this point, it asks the Federal Executive to investigate and take a position. As opposed to ignoring the issue completly which appears to be the current plan.

    Although why should we be slower to accuse a Liberal Democrats of fraud than anyone else? If you think the evidence means we shouldn’t thats one thing- but party affiliation shouldn’t affect how we treat suggestions of financial impropriety.


  11. Angela Harbutt Says:

    Tinter has pretty much covered what i wanted to say. And the observation is appreciated. This is a difficult issue and i was attempting to use language carefully. I would ask Duncan to consider also that I did say that the FE should “Investigate him (Lord Rennard) and either clear his name, or take sanctions against him as an employee of the party”. The clear indication is that the hope would be that it would be possible to refute the allegations following a thorough investigation.


  12. Agent Orange Says:

    The thing is Duncan the evidence is there, extensive, mostly in the public domain, and all points to a man who lives most of the year in London while claiming to Parliament that his main residence is in Eastbourne in order to claim over £40,000 from the taxpayer to which he is clearly not entitled. And that’s before the clocking-in or 08/09 claims are taken into consideration.

    What is absent is any sort of denial of the many facts (which you can review on my blog amongst others if you wish) from either Lord Rennard or the Liberal Democrat Party.

    And it’s not as if such things are hard to prove either way. Silence in this instance can be taken as very strong evidence of guilt. This is a tawdry case of expenses sleaze not the Shawshank Redemption.

    Further what the Federal Party has done or rather not done is equally troubling and raises very serious questions about the conduct of the Party President, amongst others.

    An employee is accused of a serious criminal offence in a national newspaper. They can’t or won’t properly deny it. Rather than investigate them under the party’s very clear rules on such things, the party does nothing for ten days then announces an ill-health resignation, only one so evidently unserious that the employee in question is well enough to work on for at least 3 months, and host a big drinks party on a boat. A party co-hosted with the women who is responsible for ensuring the party’s rules are upheld.

    Your defence of him on 21st May broadly summarised is that anyone who dares criticise Lord Rennard is an “ungrateful b*$^@%}”. Pardon my lack of concern for venerating his much self-inflated memory but I thought we were a political party with some opinion on conduct in public life and preference for consistency, not a gentleman’s club looking after our own regardless of what they’ve done, particularly when they do things we strongly criticise in others.

    Get your head out of the sand Duncan. It’s Rennard, not Jesus.


  13. Laurence Boyce Says:

    I don’t understand. Why would anyone venerate Jesus?