A proposed three-pronged attack for Lord Rennard's consideration

I.  See to it that Nick Clegg pays for being so wrong about how he mishandled everything.  He obviously should have got the complainants and Lord Rennard together and told the complainants that anyone who says anything more about the matter would be expelled from the party for bringing it into disrepute.  If Lord Rennard did do it, he should not do it again, or there would be Big Trouble for him.  

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-03872.pdf

A. Leadership election rules 

The rules for the election of a leader of the federal Liberal Democrat party are set down in its
Constitution. The Constitution was agreed in 1988, on the formation of the Liberal
Democrats.  

No changes were made to the leadership election rules between the formation of the party and the 2004 edition of the Constitution, which specified: 

10.1 The Leader of the Party shall be elected by the members of the Party in
accordance with election rules made pursuant to Article 8.4.

10.2 An election for the Leader shall be called upon:
(a) the Leader asking for an election;
(b) the death or incapacity of the Leader;
(c) the Leader ceasing to be a Member of the House of Commons (other
than a temporary cessation by reasons of a dissolution;
(d) the receipt by the President of the resignation of the Leader or of a
declaration of intent to resign upon the election of new Leader;
(e) a vote of no confidence in the Leader being passed by a majority of
all Members of the Parliamentary party in the House of Commons;
(f) the receipt by the President of a requisition submitted by at least 75
Local Parties (including for this purpose, the Specified Associated
Organisation or Organisations representing youth and/or students)
following the decision of a quorate general meeting; or
(g) the first anniversary of the preceding general election being reached
without an election being called under any of paragraphs (a) through
(f), provided that:
(i) the Federal Executive may postpone such an election for no
more than one year by a two-thirds majority of those present
and voting; and
(ii) this paragraph (g) shall not apply if the Leader is a member
of the Government. 

II.   Applying for judicial review which, if successful, would subject the LibDems' actions (and the way they rode roughshod over established and important legal and liberal principles) to scrutiny by the judiciary. They are:

(i)     the rule against retrospective legislation (Lord Rennard could not possibly have known that touching a woman's knee all those years ago could have landed him in such hot water now.)

(ii)    the rule that we have the right to be treated as innocent till proven guilty after a fair trial

(iii)   the rule against double jeopardy

III.  Issuing defamation proceedings against his accusers, and their running dogs.  This would include the leader as well as the party itself, for

(a)   implying that Lord Rennard had committed a crime by putting this matter in the  hands of the police

(b)   insisting that he had something to apologise for, even when they knew they could not prove in a court of law that he was guilty, either to a criminal or civil standard

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/pdfs/ukpga_20130026_en.pdf

Draft for Nick Griffin's Departure Speech after Claire Khaw wins BNP leadership election

"It is with relief that I now address you as someone about to go into retirement.  I am both relieved and pleased because I am now assured that I have left the party in better hands, to a leadership contender who won fairly and squarely and by a significant margin.  I have always felt that the first and last thing an honorable leader should do is find a worthy successor, and, this being done, I now leave you in Claire Khaw's very capable hands and wish you all the best of British luck."  

the lack of democracy in British political parties - THE SOLUTION

Why don't we elect a PARTY that is not politically correct?

Because UKIP are too boring and the BNP too dangerous! (Both are equally riven with internal party strife because of a lack of democracy within the party, which demoralises the membership and creates great resentments. Interesting too that a Socialist Workers Party activist I spoke to on Saturday 31 May complained of exactly the same problem, as regards the split between Left List and Respect.)

SUGGESTED SOLUTION:

Form a party with a constitution such as the one at
http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=107

Now compare and contrast this to the horror that is the BNP constitution, found at http://www.thenationalparty.org.uk:80/constbnp

UKIP's can be found at http://www.ukip.org/ukip/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=39

and get the BNP and UKIP to unite under a party with such a constitution, after having a leadership election.

Remember we only have 2 more years to do this, ie 2010, or we will also miss the next boat to change things.

It is well-known complaint that Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage both operate a crony-system.

No such thing would operate under the proposed party constitution which supports government by referenda. It doesn't matter if it doesn't sound realistic as long as enough people find it fair in principle, and like the sound of it.

They would be the first to join the party, discuss tactics, make the rules. After these are finalised, they can then invite the leadership contenders to fight it out.

Policy disagreements would be resolved by agreeing to disagree - much easier to do when all everyone has to do is agree for a referendum to be conducted should the party be voted into office, ie that the question should be asked, not how it should be answered. Internal party bickering over policies they would never be in a position to decide would then be surgically and permanently removed.


INFORMAL LEADERSHIP SURVEY, EVERY YEAR
The new and different rule would be that all members would every year be required to give the name of the member they think most fitted to lead the party, which will be published. Based on this result, the first and second most nominated members would have the option of having a formal leadership contest.


CARETAKER LEADER UNDERTAKES TO STAND ASIDE IN FAVOUR OF ELECTED LEADER
The founder and acting leader of such a party would state the intention of immediately standing aside for a properly elected leader once a leadership contest has been conducted.

You can't say fairer than that, can you?