X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

Rennard row weakens Lib Dem ‘we make govt better’ line

21 January 2014

8:58 AM

21 January 2014

8:58 AM

It’s been a while since the Liberal Democrats commanded quite so much media attention or quite so much space on the front pages. If all publicity were good publicity, the volume of coverage that the party is receiving from the Rennard scandal would do wonders for its poll rating.

timthumbtimthumb (1)timthumb (2)timthumb (3)timthumb
But that’s not how it works, and particularly not when your top brass has spent months trying to tell voters that the Lib Dems are so very grown up, mature and thoughtful that they’d make any government better. It’s a little more difficult to see this party as the special secret ingredient in a good coalition when all the talk is of the sort of confusing organograms that children might draw when devising secret societies, and when a row that could have quite easily remained an internal party matter had it been dealt with when the allegations were first made turns into a supernova of news.

[Alt-Text]


The Liberal Democrats haven’t just been amateurish at dealing with the Rennard affair, their organisation itself is built in an amateurish way. This is a legacy from the merger of the SDP and the Liberals, with those on the inside of the modern party joking that the SDP didn’t trust its membership, and the Liberals didn’t trust their leadership, and so a panoply of rules were developed which confused everything. It has led to a power vacuum at the top, which sounds very worthy on a conference floor, but doesn’t half make it difficult for a leader to, you know, lead. This was made worse by Charles Kennedy’s leadership, during which Rennard’s power base solidified. By the time Clegg arrived, Rennard was a difficult force to reckon with, and it was in those early days of his leadership that Rennard was known to staff as ‘God’. He also had an assistant nicknamed ‘Jesus’.

It means that other parties, who have kept rather quiet during this row because they know all too well the danger of casting the first stone, are still able to mock the Lib Dems, not because they’ve got a sex scandal (although in the other parties, sex scandals do still tend to involve sex), but because they’ve been so hopeless at dealing with it.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close