Analysis of: Lib Dems suspend Chris Rennard amid new inquiry into sexual harassment claims
The Guardian | February 7, 2026
TL;DR
A Liberal Democrat peer faces new investigation for decade-old sexual harassment allegations, revealing how elite institutions protect their own. The House of Lords' structural unaccountability shields powerful men from consequences workers would face immediately.
Analytical Focus:Class Analysis Historical Context Contradictions
The suspension of Lord Rennard over sexual harassment allegations—thirteen years after women first came forward—illuminates the class character of British political institutions. The House of Lords, an unelected chamber where aristocratic and capitalist class interests find permanent representation, operates with virtually no mechanisms for accountability that ordinary workers face daily. While a factory worker accused of similar behavior would face immediate suspension and investigation under workplace policies, a life peer can navigate between multiple investigations, each declaring insufficient evidence, while retaining privilege and income. The material basis of this protection lies in the Lords' feudal origins, modernized to serve capitalist interests. Rennard's 1999 peerage rewarded his service as party chief executive—his elevation was compensation for political labor on behalf of liberal capitalism. The structural impossibility of expelling peers for misconduct reflects how ruling-class institutions are designed to protect their members from the consequences imposed on working people. Ed Davey's statement that 'it should be made easier for peers to be expelled' inadvertently admits the Lords was constructed to make accountability nearly impossible. The women's statement—that they spoke out 'so that future generations of women could participate in politics safely'—reveals the gendered dimension of political labor. Women seeking political careers faced a material choice: tolerate harassment from gatekeepers like Rennard or abandon advancement. This is not merely cultural but economic: access to political careers, networking, and advancement was mediated through men who extracted informal tolls. The thirteen-year delay in meaningful action demonstrates how institutions absorb and neutralize challenges to power rather than fundamentally transform.
Class Dynamics
Actors: Lord Rennard (political elite, former party executive), Women complainants (political workers and aspirants), Ed Davey and Liberal Democrat leadership, House of Lords as institutional actor, Legal professionals conducting investigations
Beneficiaries: Political elites with life peerages who enjoy structural protection from accountability, Party establishments that can manage scandals over decades without fundamental reform, Legal profession earning fees from repeated investigations
Harmed Parties: Women complainants who endured thirteen years without resolution, Women seeking political careers who faced harassment as career gatekeeping, Democratic accountability as Lords remains structurally unaccountable, Working-class women who lack resources to pursue decade-long complaints
The case demonstrates asymmetric power between a life peer with institutional protection and women political workers whose careers depended on figures like Rennard. His position as chief executive made him a gatekeeper to advancement—the hotel room invitation was explicitly framed as career-related. The complainants needed thirteen years and legal advice finding the original investigation 'flawed' to achieve even a suspension, while Rennard cites multiple investigations clearing him. This reveals how elite institutions create procedural labyrinths that exhaust challengers while protecting members.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Life peerages as compensation for political labor serving capitalist parties, Lords attendance allowances providing income regardless of misconduct allegations, Cost of legal investigations falling on party/public rather than accused, Career advancement in politics mediated through personal relationships with powerful figures
Political labor—particularly for women—exists within relations where advancement depends on approval from gatekeepers. Rennard's role as chief executive placed him in control of career trajectories, creating coercive conditions where 'personal space' violations occurred in contexts of professional dependency. The complainants were not merely individuals but political workers whose labor (advising, organizing, representing) required navigating these power relations.
Resources at Stake: Political careers and advancement opportunities, House of Lords seat (£342 daily attendance allowance), Party legitimacy and public trust, Institutional credibility of investigation processes
Historical Context
Precedents: House of Lords' historical function protecting aristocratic then capitalist interests, #MeToo movement exposing institutional protection of powerful harassers, Liberal Party/Lib Dem history of scandal management over accountability, Cyril Smith case revealing decades of institutional protection for abusers
The Lords represents a pre-democratic institution absorbed into bourgeois democracy precisely because it serves class interests. Its unelected, permanent membership creates a chamber where elite accountability is structurally impossible by design. The Rennard case follows patterns seen across elite institutions—Parliament, media, universities—where harassment allegations against powerful men enter procedural loops designed to exhaust complainants. The 2013-2026 timeline mirrors how institutions manage crises: initial denial, limited investigation declaring insufficient evidence, years of quiet, then revival only when external pressure (legal advice, political climate) makes action unavoidable.
Contradictions
Primary: The Liberal Democrats position themselves as progressive on gender equality while their institutional structures—including accepting an unelected Lords—protect male elites from accountability that working people would face immediately.
Secondary: Rennard's 'sorry if I inadvertently encroached' non-apology contradicts the 'broadly credible' finding of violating 'personal space and autonomy', Multiple investigations found behavior credible but insufficient for action—revealing standards designed to protect accused rather than resolve complaints, Davey calling for easier expulsion of peers while leading a party that accepts the Lords' legitimacy
The immediate contradiction may resolve through Rennard's eventual removal, but the structural contradiction remains: the Lords exists to protect elite interests from democratic accountability. Meaningful resolution would require abolishing the chamber entirely—unlikely given both major parties' investment in using peerages as patronage. More likely, procedural reforms will create appearance of accountability while preserving the institution's class function.
Global Interconnections
The Rennard case connects to global patterns of elite impunity within nominally democratic systems. From the European Parliament to the US Congress, political institutions create accountability gaps that protect their members. The House of Lords represents the particularly British retention of feudal forms serving capitalist functions—an unelected chamber where corporate executives, party loyalists, and hereditary aristocrats shape legislation without electoral consequence. The gendered dimension connects to how reproductive and political labor by women is extracted under conditions of coercion across capitalist societies. Whether in Hollywood, Westminster, or workplaces globally, women's advancement has been mediated through male gatekeepers who extract informal tolls. The #MeToo movement represented a conjunctural moment where these structural conditions became visible, but without transforming the underlying relations—as the thirteen-year Rennard timeline demonstrates.
Conclusion
The Rennard case offers a crystalline view of how bourgeois institutions protect their own. Workers facing harassment complaints face immediate suspension, investigation, and termination—often within weeks. A life peer navigates thirteen years of 'thorough investigations' that find behavior 'credible' but insufficient for action. This asymmetry is not a flaw but a feature: the Lords was designed to insulate elite power from accountability. For those seeking genuine equality, the lesson is clear: reforming institutions designed to protect ruling-class interests will always encounter structural limits. The complainants' brave testimony changed a conversation but not a structure—and structures determine outcomes.
Suggested Reading
- The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of how state institutions serve class interests illuminates why the House of Lords structurally protects elite members from accountability that working people face.
- Women, Race & Class by Angela Davis (1981) Davis's examination of how gender oppression intersects with class power helps explain why women political workers faced harassment as a condition of career advancement.
- Prison Notebooks (Selections) by Antonio Gramsci (1935) Gramsci's concept of hegemony explains how institutions like the Lords maintain legitimacy while serving class interests, and how procedural complexity manufactures consent to elite impunity.