You can always rely on Polly Toynbee to spectacularly miss the point:

“Their distrust may be justified here, as this byelection follows a familiarly vicious pattern, the air thick with dirty tricks. Where did the Lord Rennard sleaze reprise from 2009 suddenly come from, and why now in the final runup to election day? Blasted across every front page, Nick Clegg’s fumbling response hasn’t helped, but it doesn’t take an expert political nose to suspect this stinks.”

She then goes on to play down the claims against Rennard as “less than criminal” – despite the police being called in – and compares the story to “Tory tricks directed at UKIP”. Perhaps she should read what Cathy Newman has to say on why she ran the story now. This is about the women who are victims of sexual harassment being able to hold a sex pest to account, and the lies being told by people who tried to stop their story coming out:

@christomill @cathynewman Though when people reduce the allegations to a 'plot', they demonstrate lack of concern for the underlying issue.—
Alison Smith (@AliFionaSmith) February 25, 2013

Polly’s diversion tactics are one in the eye for the sisterhood.

Despite what LibDems might want us to believe, the most important part of the Rennard scandal is not Nick Clegg or Eastleigh, but the women who have made the allegations against the sex pest peer. The response of the party’s female MPs has been non-existent. What Jo Swinson knew and when is at the heart of this story, she was in the chamber yeaterday but said nothing. Where is Lynne Featherstone? Jenny Wilnot might have just had a baby but why has careerist Sarah Teather been so quiet? Their silence speaks volumes…

EXCLUSIVE: Met Police in contact with Lib Dem officials to "ascertain if criminal activity has taken place" over #Rennard—
Cathy Newman (@cathynewman) February 25, 2013

Will need some sturdy cuffs for those hands…

Yesterday Clegg told us: “my office only received concerns indirectly and anonymously”. We now know they were detailed, specific allegations. The Telegraph have just upped the Rennard ante, revealing the specific allegations they put to the LibDem election head of comms Jonny Oates back in April 2010. Oates is now Clegg’s Chief of Staff. The lawyers eventually sat on the story after the strength of the denials, but the four out of the five allegations now emerge:

To which Oates responded:

The obvious question arises: without putting the specific allegations to Clegg, how could Oates have issued this denial to the Telegraph? Yesterday Clegg insisted only “indirect and non-specific concerns” had been raised with his office, back in 2008. This correspondence proves detailed allegations were presented to a senior aide, and judging by the response evidently him, in 2010. That is not what Clegg told us yesterday…

Having flown in from Spain last night to make the Rennard crisis worse, Nick Clegg has done a runner. Guido just spoke to the LibDem press office who said he had got on a flight at Heathrow. They did not know, or were not saying, where he is going, but it was not mentioned in the timetable briefed to the lobby this morning.

Where’s Wally?

UPDATE:

Hearing Nick Clegg has flown to Amsterdam to meet the Dutch PM Marc Rutte—
Sophy Ridge (@SophyRidgeSky) February 25, 2013

As Guido revealed in his Sun column yesterday, one fellow yellow peer has jumped to the defence of randy Rennard. Weirdy-beardy Lord Greaves has been fighting his corner on an internal party message board, suggesting the sex pest allegations were merely “mild sexual advances”.

“Are the allegations true? We will have to wait and see. Meanwhile I suggest people just calm down a bit. Is the alleged behaviour criminal? We don’t know the details of anything that may have happened. But it is hardly an offence for one adult person to make fairly mild sexual advances to another. What matters if whether they are pursued if they are rebuffed…In passing I would note and guess that if the allegations as made are a matter for resignation, perhaps around a half of the male members of the Lords over the age of 50 would probably not be seen again”

Then on a thread titled “Just a devious Beeb/Labour  plot to steal Eastleigh thunder”, Lord Greaves continues:

“Interesting to consider what is “sexual harassment”. Does one proposition constitute sexual harassment? If that is not normally the case (which seems common sense) might it do so in the particular context of the relationship between two people? And once there has been a refusal by the other person, how many more propositions constitute sexual harassment? We only know the identity of two of the complainants, as I understand it. In at least one case, if the event that is alleged too place, I’m surprised the response was not a slap in the face. But why the complaints have been made now is a mystery.”

Guido wonders what the party’s paltry female contingent would make of Greaves’ hands on attitude to dealing with the Rennard crisis. With friends like that…

Last night’s statement went well then. As if today’s papers were not bad enough for the LibDems, the party leader and party president have given a masterclass in being unable to stick to the same line this morning. First, Tim Farron went for a straightforward approach on the Today programme, admitting “we screwed this up”. Minutes later Clegg refuted that suggestion, telling Radio Solent “we have nothing to hide as a party”. Last night Farron refused to deny this would be a resigning issue for his boss if last night’s revelations were true…

Clegg only talks about his office hearing the Rennard rumours in his statement: “I am angry and outraged at the suggestion that I would not have acted if these allegations were put to me”. ITV’s Lucy Manning and the Telegraph report that a LibDem raised concerns with Clegg personally in 2008:

“I was at an event with Nick Clegg and said Nick, you need to know that we have print journalists which I believe were, I think the Telegraph were chasing it, the Mail was chasing it and the News of the World was chasing it.

I said I believe there are three papers that are actively pursuing the Rennard story and he knew exactly what I meant, there was no ‘what are you talking about?’

As the party leader he knew exactly what I meant when I said it to him. He said, ‘Thank you very much, I will go and deal with it.’ And again nothing happened.”

Clegg’s clarification of his clarification needs…clarifying.

“As I said yesterday, I did not know about these specific allegations until the Channel 4 broadcast.

When indirect and anonymous concerns about Chris Rennard’s conduct came to the attention of Nick Clegg’s office, in late 2008, we acted immediately. As Nick’s Chief of Staff, I put these concerns to Chris Rennard in strong terms and warned him that any such behaviour was wholly unacceptable. Chris Rennard categorically denied that he had behaved inappropriately as he continues to do. Chris Rennard subsequently resigned as Chief Executive on health grounds.

As these concerns were received indirectly and anonymously, as those involved understandably wanted to maintain privacy, there was a limit to how we could take this matter forward following Chris Rennard’s resignation. The party has rightly set up inquiries into these matters and I will participate fully in those processes.”

Clegg is refusing interviews…