Duncan’s spasms of rage about being asked such questions would be more reasonable had he answered with a strong clarification of what the FE or he had actually done and why.

Even now though he hasn’t even responded to Orangjepan’s very modest request for a clarification of what constitutes due process in the party on such matters.

You can judge for yourself whether this is evidence for or against there being a cover-up and nonfeasance.

Is this important?

I think so for two reasons. First on the issue at hand is that the party is now in a very difficult position should external investigations against the accused escalate, which is not improbable given Parliament are investigating Rennard, and the Police other peers.

This is not just a reputational difficulty, although given Clegg’s statements the hypocrisy is stunning, the FE’s inaction already means tens of thousands of the member’s money has been spent paying off Lord Rennard for his ‘resignation’. It is unclear whether more money is now either being spent on defending him in the Parliamentary inquiry or will be spent in future for any peer so accused.

That is the immediate problem. The second issue it raises, is what is the point of the Federal Exeuctive?

Personally I think we need a strong, democratic member’s body within the party to hold the Leader, Chief Executive, and other delegated party bodies to account. The Federal Executive/President as constituted already have those powers, some actual some through influence, and you could not have had a more stark test of how it chooses to use them than the public exposure of the Chief Executive on accusations of fraud.

I think the evidence strongly shows the Chief Whip in the Lords and President have behaved improperly and the FE have let them do it without so much as a whimper of protest.

Which leads us back to problem one, and what would happen should such a situation arise again. That should cause all of us some concern.

However it would be appropriate for him to use his position to communicate how the process works and what challenges and issues are being faced. Where are we? Is there a list of potential mechanisms worth discussing (such as the rent-only housing allowance mentioned by Clegg)?

Where defensive reactions are provoked it is only natural that some guilt will be assumed, so it is important that communication channels are kept open and used to demonstrate our proactive approach to increasing transparency.

Might I suggest that Duncan could support Clegg’s message from a few days ago by putting a bit of meat on the bones for us plebs. I’m sure LDV would welcome a contribution.

“I am in a position to tackle things in the Lib Dems internally, so that is where I will do it.”

So bluntly, in respect of peergate, what have you done?

All that is publicly evident is that you prejudged any investigation by publishing a staunch defence of Rennard and accused his critics of being “ungrateful b*$^@%}s”, and have lately been commenting about the different standards you apply to Lib Dem and non-Lib Dem sleaze.

This is matter of public interest and therefore can be discussed in public. We are discussing particularly your statement

My public pronouncements on the failings of politicians will always be about my political opponents, not those in the same party as me.

I can assure you that your political opponents include those who misuse public funds, even those in the same party as you. Otherwise, you may find that most of the voting public become your political opponents too.

So if I ask “have the party looked into whether Rennard’s primary home was in Eastbourne?” I’m not saying “STRING HIM UP! IT’S A LIE!” I’m actually asking for the party to do the right thing and investigate the matter. Then, if it’s the case, they can reassure us that no wrongdoing has taken place, and we can all move on and get back to attacking Cameron’s vacuous “policies”.