By Phil Taylor
The treatment of Labour MP Ian Gibson by our party has been as unforgivable as it was stupid, now causing us a difficult by-election in Norwich North. What is says about the party’s attitude to the rights of members is depressing.
Members in Norwich Labour Party were given no opportunity to put their views on Ian’s ‘offence’, let alone be left to make a decision on his future themselves. Why is it that the party feels that a high council of 3 in London are better placed to end the career of a hard working Labour MP than the hundreds of activists and members in his constituency?
The kangaroo court to which our party subjected this decent man was a travesty of party democracy as well as of the natural justice and fairness to which the Labour Party is supposed to be committed. And why have we seen such double standards in the treatment of MPs? Where are the summons to the ‘star chamber’ for MPs, including Ministers, who have committed far more serious offences? Most members of the public I have spoken to in Norwich couldn’t even understand what it was that Ian was supposed to have done wrong.
Where MPs have really committed offences, their own members are telling them to go – and they are. If we had told Ian to go, he had said he would. But we stood by him, so the party took away our right to back him. Could it be Ian’s willingness to display independence of thought and a dedication to his constituency before climbing the greasy pole that has set him apart for special treatment?
This decision has now prompted Ian to quit as our MP immediately. As members we are all deeply saddened that he has made that decision, but we also understand why has done so. Our anger is not towards him, but the party’s decision to single him out and not let party members decide who we want to carry the Labour banner into the next election.
There are two things the party must now do to ensure it does not make this situation even worse. First, stay out of the selection of our candidate for the by-election. Second, not cause any unnecessary delay in calling the election and deprive people in Norwich North of the lifeline at times of personal crisis that an MP so often becomes, as anyone who has helped at an MP’s advice surgery will know.
Let’s also make this election the first to be fought under the new politics to which we are all saying we are committed. That means candidates speaking their minds, not being run from a tightly controlled party script. And it means properly reaching out to voters turned off, not just by the expenses scandal, but by a feeling that their views don’t count – something the treatment of their departing MP has only reinforced.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
"The Labour member for Livingston, who is accused of submitting an improper bill for the wiring of his flat, is the first MP to be deselected by the party's "star chamber" endorsements panel.
A party spokesman said: "After considering in detail the case of Jim Devine and speaking to him, the Labour Party's special NEC (national executive committee) endorsements panel today unanimously recommended rescinding his endorsement as a Labour candidate.
"He will not be able to stand as a Labour candidate in any constituency at the next general election."
Let's hope similar treatment is meeted out to Tony McNulty, Hazel Blears and Shahid Malik, all of whom appear equally seedy as Mr devine
Sorry but you are incorrect. It is in fact tax evasion and totally illegal. There is an evasion of two taxes - stamp duty and capital gains tax. The correct value of the flat was £300,000 and the sale was thus liable for higher rate stamp duty of £9,000. The CGT would have been payable on the rise in value from the purchase price. Any ordinary citizen trying this on would find themselves with a hefty fine and possibly facing prosecution for fraud. If anyone should have benefited from the rise in value, it should have been the taxpayer, not the daughter.
And while we're on the subject, what about Jacqui Smith? Her second home was in her Reddich constituency where the rest of her family lives, or Tony McNulty whose parents were living in his second home.
The selection of MP's who've been brought before the Star Chamber is entirely inconsistent, there is no clear rule or criteria. In this case it's been used as nothing more than a vehicle to allow the party to be rid of one of it's awkward squad. If it was really concerned with popularity it wouldn't have thrown out an MP who was well liked locally and had a massive personal vote.
As time goes on it is clear that the "New Labour" reforms have destroyed the grassroots structure on which the party depended. What we have now is a small cabal at the top totally out of touch with grassroot working class opinion.
We didn't count before, haven't counted for a decade, so I don't see why Ian Gibson makes a difference.
Like our MPs, you obviously need reminding that the second home allowance is to be used SOLELY to facilitate the function of being an MP. Not being an MP's pampered model daughter.
It infuriates me that my taxes are being used to subsidise the lifestyles of Gibson's daughter or Kirkbride's brother.
You are also being a little naive if you think the Star Chamber didn't have at least one eye on public opinion...
As for the sale, imagine the situation had Ian stepped down at the last election? He would still have the flat and his right to sell his flat at a reduced price to his daughter would be exactly the same as that of any private citizen.
And it wasn't the court of public opinion, it was Labour's "star chamber" that forced the decision.
I do not think it was Ian's independent attitude or free thinking that got him the boot, I think however it made it easier to get rid of him.
However we are approaching a historic moment for our party. After the General election many "elite" MP's will be looking for seats in Constituencies where the local members will not tolerate corruption. It is also important to realise that all constituencies must ensure that they have good ideas about the kinds of people we return to Parliament. People need individuals they can identify with.
Intellectual individuals are good to have but without vocational experience they are of limited use for any party. We don't need individuals who endlessly assess information and never (through a limited value system) come to a meaningful conclusion (like Jack Straw), or individuals that are so resolutely convinced they are correct when morally profoundly wrong (Margaret Becket)due to non-existent value system.
We need people who are well developed mature individuals who are seasoned and who actually care. Once they are elected and make it to the Cabinet they will have a plethora of advisors and make make the ultimate policy decisions based upon thier good value systems.
At the moment we have a group of MP's and Ministers more concerned about thier jobs and money than about the Labour Party, the Country or even democracy itself. Why?
Because they look across the House of Commons and see the people they want to be. This is why senior Ministers are sending thier children to public school, why they have been using taxpayers money to by and rent out properties in London, why they consider themselves executive equivelent class, why they did everything in thier power to avoid the truth about thier expenses getting out.
Just wait for the second jobs info to be released (one way or the other). The full extent of betrayel by our wonderful MP's is yet to be revealed.
"and it means properly reaching out to voters"
"voters turned off.... by a feeling that their views do not count"
interesting points there Phil.
what is your view of open primaries?! By this I mean that this process could be used to "pre-select" candidates say 3 - from which party could then select its candidate for election to Parliament.
Could the other parties be persuaded to follow this model too.
If this concept works and is widely replicated then do you think that society may finally feel that it has the level of say over the calibre of the Westminister political class that it wants?
what do you think.
To take taxpayer money to fund a flat in which his adult, working daughter lived rent-free, before selling it to her for half its market value was a cynical exploitation of the system. Harman's Court of Public Opinion spoke, and Gibson went.
And rightly so.
In Gordon's mad-Damian-McBride-world that makes Gibson an enemy who must be destroyed. Luckily Gordon has promised he will change - so no need for any further discussion.