Papering over the crack of the elephant in the room

by Stephen Tall on May 22, 2009

Yesterday was a sad day for the Lib Dems. First, because we lost as chief executive a proven successful campaigner, Lord (Chris) Rennard, who helped save the post-merger Lib Dems from near extinction. And, secondly, because the way in which he was forced to announce his resignation resolved nothing, and was entirely lacking in dignity.

It has been clear to everyone since the News of the World alleged that Chris had claimed £41k in Lords’ allowances after designating his Eastbourne flat as his main residence (rather than his London house) that Chris and the party would need to make a statement – a statement from Chris which clarified his living arrangements, and a statement from the party which explained how it would deal with the claims that Chris had abused the system.

Yesterday Chris and the party decided to issue statements which dealt with neither of those issues. That was a mistake. It was a mistake by Chris. It was a mistake by Nick Clegg, as leader. And it was a mistake by Ros Scott, as Party President and chair of the Federal Executive.

We have perhaps been fortunate that the claims against Chris have been overshadowed by the serious allegations in the Telegraph over MPs’ expenses. Even the media response to his resignation as chief executive has been relatively low-key. But that is not the point.

The point is this: an allegation of impropriety has been made against a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords who is also the party’s chief executive. The party could and should have dealt with this issue more quickly and with greater resolve. It has done no-one any good to have the allegations hanging like a dark cloud over Chris and the party for the past fortnight with no statement from the top. Imagine if this had been an allegation against a Labour or Tory peer in an equivalent position, and imagine what our party press releases would have said about the situation.

Of course these things are never easy. Allegations involving friends and colleagues never are. But if we cannot get right the processes for dealing with our internal difficulties, how can we convince anyone else (or ourselves) that we would be any different and better at reforming the wider political system?

The shame is this: Chris has been a great servant to this party, and he deserved a far more dignified exit than this. I have no reason to doubt for a moment the sincerity of his statement that he is standing down for personal and health reasons. But to claim the timing of his announcement is nothing to do with the allegations against him is to treat the party membership as fools. Assuming the decision was made of Chris’s own volition, it is another example of him putting the party’s interests ahead of his own.

But Chris remains a Lib Dem Parliamentarian, and his resignation does nothing at all to alter the fact that his statement and the party’s should have recognised the seriousness of the allegations, and spelled out the process by which they would be investigated. This has sort of happened with today’s announcement that the Lib Dem leader and chief whip in the House of Lords will undertake a thorough review of our peers’ expenses and allowances. But as ‘Tabman’ pointed out in an LDV comments thread today, why on earth did the party yesterday not issue something like the following statement:

Regarding the specific allegations concerning Lord Rennard, there will be a through review of expenses and allowances in the House of Lords which will draw on the work to be undertaken by the independent external assessor. If after this review has reported back [timescale] Lord Rennard has found to have acted improperly, then he will have to pay the money back / face disciplinary action etc [delete as applicable].”

In the circumstances he faced, Chris’s exit as chief executive was never going to be the happy departure he must have once hoped for. But the one thing he, Nick and Ros should have ensured was closure on the specific allegations. Publicly ignoring them was the very worst choice they could have made.

As a result the majority of yesterday’s comments on LDV did not acknowledge the super-human contribution Chris has made to the Lib Dems, keeping us going in the dark days, through to today’s position of strength. A sad end, badly done.

Enjoy reading this? Please like and share:

46 comments

Well said.

by Martin Howes on May 22, 2009 at 2:15 pm. Reply #

Perfectly summed-up.

by David on May 22, 2009 at 2:17 pm. Reply #

All in a nutshell.

The party is now left like a lamp-post waiting for a passing dog.

Absent other evidence, I am afraid Ross Scott seems to have failed her first serious test.

by Edis on May 22, 2009 at 2:26 pm. Reply #

“The party is now left like a lamp-post waiting for a passing dog.”

Yes. The only fortunate thing is that we can be confident the party’s opponents will be too scrupulous to take advantage of the situation.

by Anonymous1 on May 22, 2009 at 2:29 pm. Reply #

…And elephants have very big cracks. Oooh missus.

by Paul Walter on May 22, 2009 at 2:52 pm. Reply #

Stephen – excellent post, and not just because you quote me 😉

I strongly urge everyone in the party to respond directly to Ros Scott’s email in the way Alix urges in her thread on this issue.

by Tabman on May 22, 2009 at 3:04 pm. Reply #

I am not unduly concerned about this now (I was before the FE met, as I epxressed voiciferously in comments here).

Chris Rennard is standing down as Chief Executive. An independent auditor is going to look at all the LibDem peers’ expenses and allowances claims.

Those are two big measures both brought in within 10 days of a small piece in the News of the World. I think we should all calm down a bit. The two substantial actions needed, have been taken.

Chris says his claims were checked “at every stage” with the Lords’ authorities, and I believe him. So what we appear to be dealing with here is something that applies to more peers than just Chris and was fully authorised by the Lords authorities. Hence the independent audit is the right way to go and, in any case, the audit will cover Chris’ claims.

OK, so the word-smithing of the announcements were disinegnuous. Fine. But don’t we expect our party leaders to box a bit clever with public presentation? If they came out and said Chris went this Thursday because of the NOTW report then it would be all over the media like a rash. I think the balance has been got right here. Apart from anything else, seeing the list of people on the Federal Executive, there are quite a lot of people on there who I trust a lot. This has obviously been a very painful episode for all concerned.

by Paul Walter on May 22, 2009 at 3:39 pm. Reply #

As PW says, they handled this just right for the lazy mainstream media – if there was any statement indicating that a major party player was stepping down due to corruption in the HoL then we’d be out on our ear in short order.

Still, it does remind me of the very first episode of The Thick Of It with the removal of the minister for social affairs.

by sanbikinoraion on May 22, 2009 at 4:53 pm. Reply #

“Chris says his claims were checked “at every stage” with the Lords’ authorities, and I believe him. So what we appear to be dealing with here is something that applies to more peers than just Chris and was fully authorised by the Lords authorities.”

How would it make things different if Rennard was officially advised that it was OK to lie about where he lived in order to claim public money he wasn’t entitled to?

Wouldn’t he still have realised it was wrong? Wouldn’t you hope his reaction would have been to expose the whole rotten system, rather than going along with it for personal gain?

Even if the claim is that he didn’t realise he was doing anything wrong at the time, does he still not realise it now? Should he not be apologising and making arrangements to pay the money back, rather than trying to justify himself?

by Anonymous1 on May 22, 2009 at 5:40 pm. Reply #

It would appear that as in the Labour party (Blears)there is a two tier system in the Lib Dem party whereby senior party members are exempt from sanctions.

Cleggs phantom ‘ton of bricks’

Who are they trying to kid?

by john zims on May 22, 2009 at 5:53 pm. Reply #

“How would it make things different if Rennard was officially advised that it was OK to lie…”

Now you’re being silly.

by Paul Walter on May 22, 2009 at 6:02 pm. Reply #

I agree 100% with what Stephen has said. It sadly reminds me of the way we went into the last GE with a leader who was known by our top brass to have a drink problem – how could we then have been putting CK forward as a potential PM when the problem was known about by them?

I voted for Ros and until now had been delighted with her, but find this development disheartening and embarrassing.

by Peter Laubach on May 22, 2009 at 6:04 pm. Reply #

In a previous posting before the Federal Executive met, I told our President (I’m making the presumption that she read it) that any newly set standards had to be seen to come from the bottom upwards not from within the Westminster bubble.

As this has all come down from within the bubble, as you rightly point out, Stephen, it’s a little less than fully transparent.

I said and will continue to maintain that the only way to fully restore confidence with the electorate and with us poor suckers who pound the streets would be a bottom-up motion coming from conference.

I love the smell of home made fudge but only when it comes from a sweet factory, not from Cowley Street.

I didn’t vote for Ros, because I felt that despite her ‘grassroots’ discourse, she was just an another insider. Dear, dear. Right, again.

Once again, I await the day when we have a truly ‘grassroots’ Party President. It would be so much better for the activists and members and if truth be told, so much better for the party at Westminster.

by Martin Land on May 22, 2009 at 6:13 pm. Reply #

I wrote:
“How would it make things different if Rennard was officially advised that it was OK to lie…”

Paul Walter wrote:
“Now you’re being silly.”

In what way am I being silly?

The allegation is that Rennard made a false statement about where he lived in order to claim money he wasn’t entitled to.

You mentioned that he had said his claims had been “checked” by the authorities. Clearly, that can be relevant only if those authorities were aware that the basis of his claims was false, but told him that was OK.

But the point I’m making is that even in those circumstances Rennard should still have realised what he was doing was wrong.

by Anonymous1 on May 22, 2009 at 6:34 pm. Reply #

Paul Walter makes the best of the case, but it amounts to:

1 – The independent auditor will eventually get round to checking out the Rennard case, so it’s sort of all right. Furthermore, he’ll probably be able to find plenty of other peers in similar situations, and he’ll find that the rules are horribly ambiguous anyway, so it’s certainly all right.

No it isn’t. By now he should either have paid it back or proved himself in the clear.

2 – Owning up properly about this would have been “all over the media like a rash”.

Well yes, alongside Steen, Blears, Hoon, and many others. Cameron has parlayed himself into credit by being properly rough with the likes of Steen. Brown has at least been somewhat rough with his piggy enemies, though earning derision by showing favouritism to his piggy friends. What could yet be all over the media like a rash is, that our leadership is not prepared to be rough with anybody at all. And that is not leadership!

by David Allen on May 22, 2009 at 6:47 pm. Reply #

Paul you are allowing yourself to be hoodwinked by Rennard’s spin. You may like the man but it doesn’t stack up.

The designation of a main residence for the claiming of overnight allowances for peers is done on a trust system, not on some rigorous test where the peer has to prove what they say. They are after all assumed to be honourable by the privilege of their office.

All Rennard’s statement means is that he told the fees office his main residence was in Eastbourne. And they then ‘specifically approved claims’ as though that were true.

He has not said that he discussed with them in detail his actual living arrangements, where he spends most of the year living and working in London, and that they then approved that he could instead designate his occasional holiday flat, or old Wokingham home, as his main residence.

And even if they had, Anon1 is right both he and the fees officials would then be culpable for deception. ‘The fees office let me commit fraud’ is not a defence.

Further he was clearly forced to resign by something this week. Stephen Tall is right that the explanation offered by the party of health, family and a planned retreat, treats us all like fools.

It would be kinder though I think to believe he resigned for reasons of not wanting to embarrass the party with his expenses anomalies than the allegations alluded to by Guido Fawkes.

http://www.order-order.com/2009/05/rennard-round-up/

amongst others

http://www.torybear.com/2009/05/ssssh.html

There is I think more than one elephant in this room and the paper is wearing thin.

by Agent Orange on May 22, 2009 at 7:50 pm. Reply #

Agent Orange, a word of warning on blogging deviousness, seeing as you are a newbie 😉 I have noticed in the past that Tory Bear only ever flies kites after Guido has.

See Guido’s first insinuation on this subject, I think same day or the day before Tory Bear’s post. TB doesn’t add evidential weight. Same echo chamber effect as we saw on Thursday with the Liberal Vision/Newsnight/Liberal Vision circle.

by Alix on May 22, 2009 at 8:16 pm. Reply #

I must say that “Guido Fawkes’s” other – insinuations about Rennard not really attending the Lords on the days he claimed – aren’t borne out by his voting record.

On the other hand, if the News of the World is preparing another set of allegations, it might explain why Rennard finally announced his resignation, after “toughing it out” for nearly a fortnight.

by Anonymous1 on May 22, 2009 at 8:35 pm. Reply #

I fail to understand why any of this is Ros’s fault? FE and the president have NO power. What do you expect her to do, other than negotiate her heart out?

by Jennie on May 22, 2009 at 8:54 pm. Reply #

Jennie, Ros has as much power as she wants. If she truly represents the interests of activists and members, she has the power that derives from the people who ACTUALLY run this show.

by Martin Land on May 22, 2009 at 9:03 pm. Reply #

Jennie – Ros could have said (as an example)

“This is unacceptable, I demand that A, B & C happen. I will propose it to the FE and urge them to support this. And remember, I have a mandate from the whole membership”

by Hywel on May 22, 2009 at 9:19 pm. Reply #

Hywel, what can FE do? They can’t withdraw the whip or suspend membership or – well, anything. They can make a public statement and that’s it.

Well, they can sack Chris as CE, but he’s already quit, so that’s pointless.

by Richard Gadsden on May 22, 2009 at 9:59 pm. Reply #

Hywel, I don’t think Ros could have said that – as I understand it, no-one outside the FE membership exercised their right to actually turn up and attend the FE meeting.

At best all she could’ve said was “I have a mandate from a group of people who can be bothered to go to a keyboard and tap out a bit of a whinge”

by Rob F on May 22, 2009 at 10:15 pm. Reply #

Rob F

So members of the electorate don’t even have the right to be represented unless they are present in person?

Almost worthy of Anthony Steen, that one. No doubt we’re all just jealous of the size of Lord Rennard’s house in Vauxhall …

by Anonymous1 on May 22, 2009 at 10:22 pm. Reply #

Rob F: Remiss of me, I wasn’t aware that ordinary party members could just roll up and watch the FE in action! The problem is that for so many of us, our whinging stems from fact that whilst all this goes on, we are out on the doorstep, day in day out.

I did receive a message from Nick Clegg today about the importance of the postal vote. A good message which I was able to read after my youngest son (‘professional day’ today) and I finished off our last of my Division’s 1400 Postal Vote letters – part of the more than 8000 my candidates have got out in our target wards in 48 hours. My point? Nick got that message out – Ros could equally get a message out to the tens of thousands of party members with email addresses and ask them to email all members of the Federal Executive give her their support.

Hywel is suggesting a more confrontational approach. In these difficult times it may be that type of approach which will assure the electorate of our seriousness in ensuring probity.

by Martin Land on May 22, 2009 at 10:25 pm. Reply #

Anonymous1 – Not at all, you’ve taken my point and applied it to the most extreme degree. What I am saying is I find it surprising (to say the least) that none of the people who are supposedly incandescent with righteous indignation decided to actually pitch up and hear the FE’s discussions, rather than indulge in a desperate scramble to be the first to repost all-party emails on their blogs.

And I’d take your views more seriously if you had the courage to write them under your name, Anonymous1

by Rob F on May 22, 2009 at 10:28 pm. Reply #

“I find it surprising (to say the least) that none of the people who are supposedly incandescent with righteous indignation decided to actually pitch up and hear the FE’s discussions”

Rob, I think it’s germane to point out that not everyone can just roll up to London for the evening at a few days notice?

by Alix on May 22, 2009 at 10:35 pm. Reply #

“And I’d take your views more seriously if you had the courage to write them under your name, Anonymous1”

Really, that would be a feeble enough evasion of the point, even if you yourself had the courage to write under your real name! (Or are we meant to divine your surname by some process of mental telepathy?)

But really, is it not in any case rather “extreme” to deny that Ros Scott has a mandate from the membership?

It really is remarkable to me that people like you are still trying to minimise the enormous anger felt, not only by party members, but by ordinary people in general about the shenanigans of Rennard and his like.

A couple of days ago I spoke to an ex-colleague who has always been a very strong supporter of the party – and used to complain vociferously to me when there was no Lib Dem to vote for in local elections. His opinion now? “What’s the point of voting for any of them?”

by Anonymous1 on May 22, 2009 at 10:53 pm. Reply #

Anon1, his name is a link to his blog, where his surname appears.

It is perfectly true that the Fed Exec and the President are somewhat toothless here, as Richard G says. A “mandate from the grassroots” needn’t mean much if more powerful interests want to go the other way.

by Alix on May 22, 2009 at 11:13 pm. Reply #

Anonymous1: “Or are we meant to divine your surname by some process of mental telepathy?)” Try clicking my name.

Alix: You’re right, not everyone could. But someone could. Just the one?

by Rob F on May 22, 2009 at 11:14 pm. Reply #

Rob F

Thank you for the instructions. So, if we follow a link and do a bit of searching, we can work out your surname. Great. But as I said, your evasion of the point I was making is a feeble one.

I don’t believe that any more than a tiny fraction of the membership knew they had any entitlement to attend Federal Executive meetings. I was a member for more than 20 years, and I never knew that. Wasn’t there a discussion here in the last few days about whether the Executive even had any obligation to report on their deliberations (in which, IIRC, Alix asked what was the point of electing people to the FE, if they didn’t)?

I reckon that if Ros Scott, when she was announcing that the FE would consider this on Monday, had pointed out that all members had the right to attend, then you would have had an uncomfortably full house. And I also reckon we wouldn’t have had to wait four days to hear what had been said at that meeting.

by Anonymous1 on May 22, 2009 at 11:34 pm. Reply #

Richard
They could (in the words of Team America) write a strongly worded letter 🙂

Rob F
That is frankly a ludicrously ridiculous point. It’s pretty unlikely that people would, in the middle of local elections, travel hundreds of miles to attend an evening meeting in London, which possibly then requires an overnight stay.

“I have a mandate from a group of people who can be bothered to go to a keyboard and tap out a bit of a whinge”
What other purpose does LDV serve then 🙂

by Hywel on May 22, 2009 at 11:54 pm. Reply #

The thing which gets me about all this is not how the membership should be able to get their views across or indeed if the allegations against Chris are true.

The thing that gets me is…
Before this particular nugget came up I was upset that on this, the public perception of Clegg vs Cameron is, Camerons done better on expenses. The reason for that is he’s been seen to punish people, even people who are close to him.

Now this really, was terribly unfair.

I mean the Lib Dems are lets face it, by far the best on this: they campaign for electoral reform, they campaign for transparency of parliament and they campaigned for expenses reform. So why could Cameron steal the thunder?

Well at the time it was because his party was worse! And with more ass to kick he could show off his ass kicking.

Back then I thought isn’t it a huge shame all the Lib Dems are so damn clean! If only there was one REALLY naughty one, ideally as close to the leadership as possible! Hell if there isn’t they should have invented one!

SO I’m upset about this,
I’m not that upset about the allegations (I think they’re wrong but meh).
I’m not that upset that after all the tough talk there’s not been much tough action. Objectively the action seems to fit the relatively ‘crime’.

What upsets me is that this isn’t an objective issue, this is an emotive campaigning issue. HOW can the Lib Dems drop the ball so massively that Conservatives are seen as tougher on sleeze!

Irrespective of how bad the allegations are and even irrespective if they are true. This is a massive missed opportunity to demonstrate Lib Dems are serious about being anti-sleeze.

by James S on May 23, 2009 at 12:44 am. Reply #

“The reason for that is he’s been seen to punish people, even people who are close to him.” So why have Bill Wiggin and Andrew MacKay still not said they will stand down at the next election while for much lesser offences three MPs are standing down? Answer: the three standing down are old farts who are surplus to Cmaeron’s requirements. Cameron has made an MP stand down for a duck house, but for claiming £140,000 for a non-existent second home, that MP – Andrew MacKay – is still battling on.

One of the reasons I believe in this party is that after giving everyone a chance to have a good old whinge, due process is followed and both sides of the story are listened to.

Last week, I called for Chris Rennard to explain the situation adequately, or pay the money back, or resign. He’s done the latter, albeit with potential disingenuity by the party in dealing with the media and with a probable lack of transparency.

I am happy to trust the party to have the independent auditor to look at the Lords allowances and expenses, and to refer any wrong-doing to the appropriate commissioner.

What else could happen at the moment? He’s resigned. The only thing could be that the whip is taken away from him in the Lords but I don’t think that would be appropriate until the whole thing is looked at properly.

The atmosphere at the moment , in general, is that of a hanging court (it’s even called the wrong thing. People and the media are talking about “expenses” but in virtually every case they are actually talking about “allowances”). I did not join this party for any party member to summarily go through a hanging court. We’ve only heard one side of the story from a Murdoch paper. OK, so more should have come from Chris Rennard. But, time is a key factor here. Time should be allowed for due process and I respect that Ros, the FE and Nick Clegg are going to follow due process, quite correctly.

by Paul Walter on May 23, 2009 at 8:56 am. Reply #

Yes, well done Paul an objective rational position on all this, no doubt why you are a lib dem – they’re the party attractive to objective rational people.

Sadly people willing to dig for the information then view it objectively don’t make up enough of the electorate for this to win you muc h.

You need to get things in the media (they must be interesting / exciting) which demonstrate your leaderships character. They could’ve had exactly the same final actions but with VASTLY better visibility for the public. Why didn’t they?

by James S on May 23, 2009 at 9:40 am. Reply #

“Last week, I called for Chris Rennard to explain the situation adequately, or pay the money back, or resign. He’s done the latter, albeit with potential disingenuity by the party in dealing with the media and with a probable lack of transparency.”

But of course, if you believe Rennard’s statement, his resignation was purely coincidental and nothing to do with the expenses issue. If that were the case, I can’t see why you would see his resignation as resolving the issue.

If instead we assume that – despite what he said – he resigned because he had acted improperly in claiming this money, then clearly he should be (1) apologising and (2) making arrangements to pay it back. And judging by the FE’s statement, the party should be withdrawing the whip.

by Anonymous1 on May 23, 2009 at 9:52 am. Reply #

Anonymous1. Neither necessarily apply. Who are you by the way? You’re not a member any more is that right?

by Paul Walter on May 23, 2009 at 12:20 pm. Reply #

“Neither necessarily apply.”

Eh? Either Rennard resigned because of the expenses issue, or he resigned for some other reason.

If he resigned for some other reason, that doesn’t resolve the issue – in fact it has no bearing on it at all. If he resigned because of the expenses issue, then he should be honest about it, apologise, and pay the money back.

As for your last paragraph, I’ve made it quite clear that I was a long-standing member, and that I’m not a member any longer. Does that invalidate what I’m saying? Or is the ad hominem stuff just a convenient debating tactic?

by Anonymous1 on May 23, 2009 at 1:16 pm. Reply #

Can anyone kindly point me towards the constitutional provision which states that members can attend Fed Exec meetings, please?

It took me about half an hour on the website to find the thing and then another half hour to go through it without finding the relevant provision. I’m losing the will to live. Somebody help me.

by Alix on May 23, 2009 at 1:26 pm. Reply #

I don’t know if it is in the constitution but custom and practice has been that they can for “open” business.

You’d probably need to go the FE standing orders or even chair’s discretion

There would obviously be an issue if 1500 activists turned up to watch though….

by Hywel on May 23, 2009 at 2:03 pm. Reply #

What do the standing orders say about pitchforks, knotted rope, and flaming torches? I’m keen to attend in future.

by Agent Orange on May 23, 2009 at 3:04 pm. Reply #

“Does that invalidate what I’m saying?” Of course not. It’s a question of degree of credibility. I have always found that people who are “anonymous” say things much more aggresively than if they were named.

And you surely cannot make an “ad hominem” attack on someone who is anonymous can you?

I really don’t think either of your alternatives necessarily apply. Of course, if he resigned for health reasons then the matter is open – that is why there is this independent check of the Lords’ expenses and allowances. If he resigned because of the NOTW story it is absolutely not necessarily an admission of guilt – I believ it would be much more likely to be more a question that the story could bring embarrssment to the party, even if it is not true, so that contributed to his decision perhaps.

I really think you are like a demented dog barking up the wrong tree.

by Paul Walter on May 23, 2009 at 4:35 pm. Reply #

Paul

Do you not think that likening someone to a “demented dog” qualifies as an ad hominem attack? And you complain that anonymous posters can be “aggressive”!

But frankly I think your latest suggestion does smack of desperation. You think that Rennard may have resigned because of the allegations over his expenses, even though he knew them to be groundless?

What is the natural reaction of someone against whom false allegations have been made – allegations that are gravely damaging not only to that person, but also to the party to which he has devoted his life?

Is it not first to deny the truth of the accusations, and then to vindicate himself and his party by proving them false?

What is the last thing in the world someone would do in that situation? Surely, resigning his post, claiming he was resigning for unrelated reasons, and leaving the truth of the accusations against him completely unchallenged.

That suggestion really is an insult to the intelligence!

by Anonymous1 on May 23, 2009 at 5:48 pm. Reply #

“Do you not think that likening someone to a “demented dog” qualifies as an ad hominem attack? ”

Yes I do. Problem?

“You think that Rennard may have resigned because of the allegations over his expenses, even though he knew them to be groundless?”

Blimey this is boring. Yes, I do. Bye bye.

by Paul Walter on May 23, 2009 at 7:35 pm. Reply #

Paul

“Problem?”

To be honest, I do find it a bit of a problem when people run out of arguments and resort to insults instead. Especially when they’re supposed to be “liberals”.

And I do think you’d be well advised to avoid using the “you are like a demented dog” line when talking to concerned residents on the doorstep. And as for the “Rennard resigned over his expenses because he’d done nothing wrong” theory, don’t even think about trying that one!

by Anonymous1 on May 23, 2009 at 7:47 pm. Reply #

I think the elephant in the room is about to be replaced by whales in the swimming pool. Anyone with a spare £2.5m handy?

by cogload on May 25, 2009 at 8:44 pm. Reply #

Leave your comment

Required.

Required. Not published.

If you have one.