WE CAN DRAW LESSONS FROM THE PAST BUT WE CANNOT LIVE IN IT.

By now most of you will have heard that the Labour Party's candidate for the Police and Crime Commissioner elections in Northamptonshire, Lee Barron has been forced to quit the race after it emerged he was arrested during a town centre disturbance 22 years ago.

I do feel sorry for Lee, despite all my troubles with the party I still consider him to be a friend, and the law in this case is truly an ass when it allows for Prime Ministers and Home Secretary's to hold office with aged convictions but disbars others from standing in PCC Elections.

I also have a conviction from when I was 19, and I don't try to hide it, I was at the time arrested for supposedly kicking a drunk in the "lower testicle region" after he had stumbled into me. I did push him off me and over on to the floor, but I did also point out to both the Police and Court at the time that I had 24 stitches in a leg wound following an accident at work (I cut through my leg and muscle with a stanley knife when working on a roof in London) and that I was walking only with the aid of a stick, when this drunken buffoon walked into me driving his knee into my damaged leg, I also pointed out to them to little avail that if I had of kicked the guy, then like the proverbial one legged man in an arse kicking contest, I would have fallen flat on my backside, and if I had meant him any harm, wouldn't I have hit him with my stick rather kicking him with my only good leg? The court was not impressed and still found me guilty of Actual Bodily Harm and fined me £250

But like so many others have said, I know see it as part of who I am,  and as part of me becoming a different person in later life, and despite my own brush with the law I still went on to stand for election and become an MP, and also became a warranted Police Officer.

People should therefore judge Lee and indeed all of us, on who we are now, not what silly things we did as teenagers. And I ask you one question, who is better served to represent the local electorate? people like Lee and myself who got into scrapes as youngsters? or people like Sally Keeble who is Labour's  candidate again for the Parliamentary seat of Northampton North despite having been caught abusing parliamentary rules leading her to "misclaim" expenses to buy new kitchen fixings and beautify her garden in her Northampton Home when she was last in office?

The Tory press also attack Lee for  encouraging union members to break the law during speech he gave at a demonstration in London last year.

During the rally, Lee can be heard saying  “Every time we refuse to cross your picket lines we break the law but we’d rather break the law than break your picket lines any day of the week.”

So let me also be clear on this like him I would rather risk breaking a rotten law before I crossed any picket line, it's called principle, something sadly missing within the current political climate.

However the response to Lee's plight from the Labour Party is as always so predictable and also so  stomach churning, Lee points out in a statement to the local newspaper that they knew all of the above all along and that they supported him and his candidature. And then he talks about hoping he has not let people down and of building his party's position in the future, and the party in the same piece then drop him like a ton of bricks by saying they were "disappointed" to learn from Lee something they presumably already knew and then they suspend him, withdraw their support and organize another local witch-hunt, sorry investigation.

What really puzzles me though is this.  I knew all about this rule 5 months ago when ex Falklands war hero Simon Weston was forced to withdraw his candidature and I first heard rumours that this story might break about 2 months ago and yet no one in the party it seemed deemed it necessary to check the position until after Lee's £5000 deposit had been paid, leaflets had been printed, and the date for withdrawal and replacement candidates had passed!

Speaking of ineligible candidates I was also told at roughly  the same time that candidates with live IVA's (debt repayment arrangements) were also not eligible to stand and yet the Lib Dem's candidates Paul Varnsverry's IVA is listed on the net as in place until Jan 2013?

Of course he could have got himself released from it early in order to stand for election, but in the circumstances I think he should inform us all of his situation or else we might see the field reduced even further!

Back to main story though , expect further internal problems within the Local Labour Party as they all now distance themselves away from a decision and a region intent on destroying any essence of local autonomy at the price of keeping the Labour Party in Northampton permanently off the East Midlands map.

NOT INVITED TO THE PARTY

It was a very good night locally if not nationally  for the Conservative Party with them clearing the board in Northamptonshire winning all seven parliamentary seats at the general election. Well done to them. I disagree fundamentally with their politics but the voters have spoken and it would be churlish of us to deny them our congratulations and best wishes.

It was also though an interesting result for the Labour Party, defeated in all six seats but with a vote which held up very strongly. Strongly enough in fact to deny any Liberal Democrat a victory or any give them any big surge in popular support.

Finally though it was a bad night, a very bad night for those of us who either as Independents or as smaller parties tried to gatecrash the Big Party's Party.

Despite lots of good wishes and seemingly a lot of support on the ground, voters clearly returned to the traditional fold when they finally entered the Polling Station.

Having looked at the results of other Independents and small party's locally and nationally I am starting to feel slightly pleased that I held my deposit! it seems few if any others did. Even the celebrity appeal of Esther Rantzen in Luton South did little to help her have her £500 returned.

So what did we all learn? That the country is not ready, at least at a national level for radical politics? or maybe that those of us who propose change to the three party system are wrong to do so?

Or maybe that the national media and the electorate that they aimed their guns at, got exactly what they wanted?

There is no doubt that the Leaders Debates had a huge impact on the outcome of the election, probably leading to the now hung parliament which matched its self promoted prediction, but in reality it also killed off the attempts of the minor candidates to breakthrough. I hold to the view that too many of our voting public who understandably are switched off to the local and national  political scene went to the polls expecting the names of Nick Clegg, David Cameron and Gordon Brown to actually be on the Ballot Paper. And the focus of the national media on the "closest election in years" and their ability to choose which policy areas to cover and which not to cover (what happened to MP's expenses debate?)  no doubt also played a big part in galvanising voters to poll in favour of the LAB/LIBDEM/CON
coalition. So where was the real debate some may ask?

But were we not supposed to have been choosing our constituency MP's? not a Prime Minister or Government? And how does a Labour candidate in Northampton South who runs a non campaign (turning up just one day a week) and missing the BBC and local newspaper hustings still end up in second place in Northampton South with nearly 10,000 votes!

Over the coming days the party's in Westminster will horse trade with each other to determine who will govern, and electoral reform will be high on the agenda and shopping list of the Lib Dems, but it is not only the voting system we need to change. It is also the role that our national media are increasingly  playing in determining the very outcome. Our national Parliament shouldn't continue to be used as a political TV alternative to the "X Factor" or a " Britain's not got Political Talent" beauty contest. The role of the national newspapers, the broadcast TV and Radio media and the publication of national opinion polls without any local knowledge and or weighting thrown in should all be questioned.

I accept my defeat, it was heavy, I feel personaly for those who worked tirelessly to support my challenge, and for those who had the courage and conviction to back me and vote for an alternative to the big three, and I apologise to them here and know publicly for not being able to carry their standard and banner any higher into the battle.

But tomorrow is another day, and the local elections in May 2011 are a different animal, and I have many many miles to walk before I rest.

I would also like to thank you all for reading this blog over the last few weeks, our hits have gone through the roof, keep coming back, I have lots more tales to tell! and we have many more challenges to face and battles to be fought.

So just what's is their big plan?

News may have reached Northampton's political family by now that two of their extended cousins Anjona Roy and Geoff Howes were expelled from the Labour Party after a painfully long enquiry into what Labour party staff saw as them colluding with, and supporting people outside of the party (see http://tonyclarkeindependent.blogspot.com/2009/09/shooting-yourself-in-both-feet.html ) None of it is true of course, but since when did that worry the cowards that run the East Midlands Labour Party.

Two and a half years on from my own expulsion, and given the election results since, you may think that I view this latest news with glee? After all the party seem to have endless enthusiasm for smashing itself into ever smaller pieces, but really, I feel more saddened than elated, because despite their party allegiance, both individuals are honest and good people, Anjona is an assertive and efficient campaigner for the rights of those often trodden on by life, and she was an excellent local Councillor, her equalities work across many fields is known throughout the County and beyond. Geoff, a freeman of Northampton, former Leader of the Labour Group and Mayor was the most stoic of Party supporters. Geoff defended the Labour Party tooth and nail, it mattered nothing to him if it was Micheal Foot or Tony Blair's Party it was still his and god help anyone who challenged its values with him.

So why have they both been treated so appallingly? What is the Labour Party's end game? what is their big plan? Alongside the current expulsions there has been a mass exodus of party members in Northampton who no longer can support the peoples party being so much against its own people, both its members and those they have traditionally defended. So just what is it that Emilie Oldknow as the Director of the Party in the East Midlands trying to achieve?

Emilie of course as witchfinder general had her own problems with the truth in her report back to the party following my own expulsion, alongside John Dickie and Peter Evans, and she even accused Muslim and gay members of the party of supporting me at the time because of my gender, (see http://tonyclarkeindependent.blogspot.com/2009/02/why.html ) I challenged them then to put me in a court room if they felt that I couldn't back up any of my comments I made with clear evidence. They didn't do so of course, because as with Anjona and Geoff's case the truth is the last thing they want to have to face up to in public. And so both were put to a modern day party centric version of the ducking stool, if they were guilty then they would be expelled, and if they were innocent then they would still be expelled even though we know they didn't do anything to warrant it.

Emilie's reward for her subservience it seems is to be shoehorned into Paddy Tipping MP's seat in Sherwood at the next election, its 6652 Labour majority may just stand up to the current slide in the polls, but according to yesterdays Sunday Times even her selection in what is an all women shortlist is marred with controversy, where another candidate Helen Holt believes she has been the victim of dirty tricks by supporters of Emilie Oldknow, whose boyfriend Jonathan Ashworth is Brown’s deputy political secretary. Holt said: “I feel I have been totally stitched up. My face does not fit. I believe I am being used in a process that from the outside looks fair but is a way of parachuting a candidate into the position because she has family links to Gordon Brown.” she goes on to say “I joined this party because I wanted to see fairness and justice for everyone and not just the chosen few. I once believed that one day a coal miner’s daughter could possibly be an MP, but now my belief has been shattered,” she said.

Well Helen, the people of Northampton and those who in the past have supported the Labour Party know exactly how you feel, the cowards and traitors are sitting in their high office flinching and sneering along happily to each other whilst those of us with any sense have long left the building. Who they will turn on next is anyone's guess, but locally at least there is hardly any one left for them to take out their venom on.

The other two party's though must not smile too broadly at the Labour Party's discomfort in public though as they to have their "internal issues" and all of the main political party's increasingly seem to want to turn their political memberships into little more than supporters clubs and leafleting crews with decisions taken on candidates and policy being left to the "connected" few, flying in the face of any concept of democratic accountability or local involvement.

And it is for this very reason that Independent local candidates will increasingly find favour with an electorate more ready than ever to declare "A plague on all your houses"

Meanwhile, I remain perplexed at trying to work out just what the Labour Party big plan is? They have an absent candidate in Northampton South who it seems has now even given up himself on the pretence that he is putting up any sort of fighting for the seat, (even his twittering has dried up) and so few people left in the party that meetings could be held in a coffee shop (most of the phone boxes have now been removed) They have imploded and show no sign of resolving any of the problems of the past apart from expelling anyone who was around at the time.

If anyone out there can offer me an explanation for their latest actions, or what their bigger game plan is then I for one would be delighted to hear it?

Unity and Unitary are the only saviours for local government

The combined energies of our local Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Conservative Councillors at both the Guildhall and at County Hall are being consumed almost entirely by trying to convince an ever shrinking public interest that the other two Party's are both unfit to govern and that only they alone can save us all from the very deep trouble we find ourselves in.

Meanwhile both the Tory County and Lib Dem Borough administrations continue to blame the Labour Party for the mess both Councils are now in despite the red flags coming down at the Town Hall in 2003 and at County Hall in 2005. All normal knock about stuff in the body politic I hear people say? But Northampton at present can't afford such luxury

Of course the outdated and remote two tier local government system that we continue to suffer under, allows this to happen often in a complete mirror reversed image. In other words at the Town Hall the local Tories berate the hapless Lib Dem's for their failures in local office often within hours of them having crossed the road and changed roles from where a Lib Dem opposition at County Hall has distributed the blame onto the ruling Conservative Party for sometimes the very same issues.

As an example, a couple of weeks ago I challenged Richard Church (Lib Dem) at the Town Hall over the state of the newly laid York Stone paving slabs in Gold Street which are now covered in grease and chewing gum because no one bothered to seal the freshly laid slabs. Richard (having waxed lyrical in his portfolio holders report as to the schemes success) told me it was nothing to do with the Borough Council and it was the County Council who had let the contract. Surprise Surprise when I tackled Jim Harker (Tory) last Thursday at a County Council meeting he defelected the blame and reminded me that the work was a partnership between NCC, NBC and WNDC. Since I have been informed privately that the County Council tried to tell the Borough Council officers that York Stone was the wrong choice but they just wouldn't listen.

All trivial stuff really but the same pandemic of BSE (Blame Someone Else) decease is evident on much more important issues, such as the drawing up a Joint Core Strategy (strategic plan) between themselves collectively before consulting on it with themselves and all then saying what an appalling hash they have all made of it! Talk about politicians having a penchanc'e for self flagellation!

So we now unbelievably have a strategic plan proposed by the West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit (NBC, NCC, SNC and DDC) which has been rejected fully by both SNC and NCC with NBC and DDC both choosing to be self critical without having the full courage of their conviction to reject it outright.

So who in all of this has got it right about who is wrong? Well all of them really, you see all have failed to govern and all have seemingly contributed in their own special ways to the state our Town and County are now in. Of course John Prescott must also shoulder some of the blame as the Local Government Act 2000 which brought in "Cabinet" style local government has probably damaged our democracy even more than the local politicians who have administered it.

I must also share part of the responsibility having voted for thesame act in Parliament as an MP but little did we know then that the egotistic and the power hungry would turn an opportunity to decentralise the decision making process into an excuse to concentrate all power and decision making at the centre and within the executive without proper scrutiny.

Ruling administrations of all colours across the whole country have simply grabbed power for themselves whilst paying lip service to any proper scrutiny and the need to keep the whole council engaged. Chief Executives are equally guilty of hoarding decision making powers and ever delegating more and more decisions to their chief officer colleagues, leaving many Councillors both in opposition and within the ruling party (but outside the cabinet) wondering why they bothered to stand for council in the first place.

But for Northampton and indeed the County to recover and strengthen its democratic accountability we need all of the parties to find common ground over the urgent need to reorder our local governance. We need Northampton to be in control of it's destiny again through the establishment of a Unitary (one tier) council based on its own agreed boundary. Other Unitary authorities for either the remaining County or perhaps more plausible North Northamptonshire and South Northamptionshire also need establishing.

But we also need to act quickly, collectively and locally and fight for our right to govern now before an even worse fate is imposed down on us from on high. Having suffered for 5 years from the quangocratic ramblings of West Northamptonshire Development Corporation do we really want to risk any new government whatever its colour imposing on us a West Northamptonshire Unitary Council?

Some will say we need to prove our competence to govern first before we can demand any new structure, I say that it is our very structure which prevents us from delivering that competence in the first place. Where else in the UK can we find a population of 200,000 plus people unable to vote for one council to govern and deliver all of its services? Where else in the UK will we find bi annual elections electing different Councillors and political administrations to different councils who then spend most of their time opposing each other and most of their tenure wasting their energy on party politics instead of providing public service.

Perhaps what we really need is less party politics altogether? and an electorate willing to elect more Independents who will put the needs of the town before the needs of their party. Perhaps we also need a few brave souls from within the party's to have the courage and foresight to say the Party is over and become Independent's themselves?

We need somehow to find common ground and purpose, to achieve unity in Local Government to achieve Unitary Local Government and if the party system can't deliver that or prefers to continue with its backbiting and blame agendas then they should stand aside.

Shooting yourself in both feet

Extraordinary news reaches me that Northampton South Constituency Labour Party has been suspended, Lock Stock and Smoking Barrel.

In addition four of their most loyal members Geoff Howes, Anjona Roy, Kathy Smith and Alan Scott are under further investigation.

So what have they done? Called for a return of Clause 4? or for total Renationalisation of the Public Utilities and Coal Mines?

Maybe they have upset the next door neighbour Sally Porter? or embezzled party funds to spend on a Vodka Frenzy?

But it seems it is none of the above, There crime is that they simply tried to win an election.

When Geoff Howes stood in the Borough Council By Election in Duston earlier this year he phoned me and asked me if I would give him an endorsement for his leaflet. He also asked fellow Independent "Fitzy" from Northampton's Market and the late John Gardner BEM for similar endorsements.

I was happy to oblige. Despite my expulsion from the Party and the way they have treated me, individuals within the Party remain my friends. Geoff was a very good Councillor, he is a very able man, and would run rings around a large number of the current incumbents at the Guildhall.

The endorsement simply said that the Council could well do with people of Geoffs calibre, and who could argue with that at present. Fitzy and John Gardner god rest his soul also gave endorsements. All three were published in an election leaflet at the time. I sought nothing from the endorsement other than helping a decent man get elected despite the way I was personally treated by the Labour Party. Geoff, his agent Anjona and Kathy Smith who printed the document sought nothing other than getting their candidate elected. What possible Machiavellian intent was detected by the Labour Party higher offices reveals more about their own insecurity than it does the intentions of those accused. If I wanted to put a leaflet together in Duston I could do so, without using it to support a Labour Party candidate!

Anyhow it seems the national party were not happy, what were local members thinking about, getting endorsements from people who were not party members? Heavens above, its never been done before has it? Alan Scott I hear is up on a different charge of swearing at a party meeting. Well there for the grace of god go half of the f*cking cabinet!.

But yes in fact getting external endorsements has been done before, all the time, and when I was in the party, I was told an endorsement from outside is worth a hundred from a Party member.

But they couldn't possibly have a quote from Tony Clarke on their leaflet could they, so the very slow wheels of Labour Party injustice churned ever onwards towards the inevitable suspension of the whole party, and since the suspension of individual members.

Very helpful with a general election around the corner I here you say. Their Parliamentary Candidate Clyde Loakes (remember him, still twittering away telling us of his leafleting in Northampton at the same time he was at meetings in London, and they say men can't multi task!) seems to be fully supportive of the NEC's actions and happy that at a time that the membership should be preparing for battle that they are spending all their time and energy fighting each other. The national party will now pretend there are "other reasons" for their actions and try to make themselves look conscientious by inventing non existant reasons for their concerns, but it wont wash with anyone in Northampton who knows what is going on.

And of course the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will be beside themselves with glee

I though am very saddened, I hold no torch now for the modern day Labour Party, and as I have said on numerous occasions the top down, London controlled administration of all three of the main party's make it impossible for local democracy to remain meaningful, but the thought of good people being trodden down by cowards and traitors for simply trying their best to get local representatives elected makes me very angry.

If the Labour Party are unable to challenge the Tories and Liberal Democrats next May at a general election then I am more than prepared to fill that void and in doing so stand up for decent independently minded centre left voters across Northampton, but I can't help but think that any chance of the open wounds within Northampton Labour Party ever being healed will now have to wait until Clyde Loakes and Sally Keeble are back home in London as defeated candidates, both victims of their own stupidity and inability to see and respect loyalty when it is staring them straight in the face.

CLYDE LOAKES DIRECT- No Fee No Win- 100% complication assured

"Have you or someone you know been expelled from the Labour party when it wasn’t their fault? Or is your local Party suffering through the negligence or interference of regional party staff? The hole left behind in your party by those who have departed can sometimes be difficult to fill, but now with “CLYDE LOAKES DIRECT” we can offer you a full replacement “NEC approved” candidate on a full “no fee no win” basis, and we make sure that you get 100% of the complications. Our service has been developed over a number of years, here are some recent testimonies"

In 2003 Cllr Tony Buckley was Labour Leader of Waltham Forest Council when he received a letter from the General Secretary telling him to “Stand down” The Labour Group were annoyed at this “Top Down” instruction and interference in local matters so they re-elected him once more. The Party then suspended him, two days after his mother died and barred him from holding public office. His local Party condemned the move and stated clearly that he had not broken any party rule and they praised his hard work and achievements. Days later with the deputy leader in hospital undergoing surgery junior cabinet member Clyde Loakes made himself available to the group as it’s saviour and new prospective leader. In fact a “special deal” was arranged so that his leadership election took place in full council chamber rather than waiting for the formality of a Party Group meeting where the full details could be discussed and other candidates could have stood or reaffirmed support for Buckley. Cllrs prior to the council meeting were “Persuaded” to vote him in. One source tells us

“The word persuade is perhaps a kind one. It involved the circulation of an entirely untrue rumour that the whole Labour group/party would be suspended if this was not done”

Although Cllr Buckley had broken no party rules the investigation that followed was able to benefit greatly from Clyde’s knowledge when he told the inquiry “It was clear that the majority of the group wanted him to challenge the request to stand down” and in conclusion “I believe that it would be in the groups best interest if Cllr Buckley is expelled from the Party. His re admittance into the party with whatever strings attached would be seen as a rallying point for his supporters” Only two councillors stood up against this bullying and refused to back Loakes coronation, both were subsequently blocked by the regional party from being on the “panel” for candidates at the 2006 local elections. One of them had the highest vote of any Labour Councillor in their constituency (naturally with his departure and all in the in fighting the seat was lost at the next election)

So do these “ambulance chasing” tactics sound familiar? And was it therefore no surprise when he appeared to fill the vacancy left by my departure from Labours ranks in 2007 after my enforced expulsion? In fact the details relayed to me from a friend in London are very similar to those continuing to trouble the Northampton South Party to this very day, dissenting voices kept off future panels of suitable candidates, dissent in the Labour Group, Regional involvement in local investigations, and Constituency Party’s passing resolutions which are ignored by the NEC.

History it seems is repeating itself.

My source told me “I hate to see a once proud party being taken over by careerists while democratic process is just shoved aside".

I couldn’t agree more, in fact I would broaden the concerns I hold to include all of the main three political parties, full of careerists and more at home selling accident mitigation and insurance than truly representing the electorates they should serve.

Suspended

It is with deep regret that I have to inform you that I have discovered that a letter sent out by me to members of the general public included within it positive comments about an individual who is also a member of a main stream political party.

Although this was done in a true spirit of cooperation and support and the utmost respect for the electorate at large, I also have to take full responsibilty for my own actions and be aware of the consequences of them.

I have therefore this morning held a full investigation into the circumstances which led to the said document being produced and distributed, and as a result I have decided that I have no alternative other than to suspend myself and my whole corporate body from political activity for a period of 4 days from March 27th to March 31st 2009.

During this time I will go away to the peak district (The Cobblers are playing at Carlisle on the Saturday) and then visit Scotland in order that I might reflect fully on my crimes over a few glasses of Guinness and single malt whiskey chasers.

..............................................................................................................................................................

Have I gone completely mad? No but it seems the Labour Party have.

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/Investigation-over-Northampton-byelection-leaflet.5030305.jp

Why?

I guess the other question some might have before they decide to read my ranting and ravings is why I was expelled from the party in the first place?

Well officially it was for standing against an official Labour Candidate. But that hides a whole raft of broken rules, skullduggery and deceit from the party, so for your pleasure or pain I record below the events as they occurred taken from my report to the party at the time. It's also very old news now, and like most who leave the party after so long you quickly start to wonder why you put up with all the hassle in the first place? funny enough as well after, rereading it I find myself thinking why was I so damn considerate in my language?

Apologies it is so long............................................. but I promised someone that I would post it. Its pretty boring as well for all but the most committed politicos, but great reading though if you want to know what the main party's are really like.

THE CONTINUED LIES AND DECEIT OF EAST MIDLANDS LABOUR PARTY OFFICERS

Dear Member,

It is with deep regret that more than 3 months after my expulsion from the Labour Party, that I find myself writing to you, having to respond to the continued lies , deceit and denials which has been emanating from party officials from the East Midlands regional office.

Having decided to not comment publicly so far on the matters that led to my expulsion and that of other long standing party members, I now find myself in the difficult position of having to speak out to defend both my good name and reputation and that of others who have been defamed by the party’s lies.

It was my sincere hope that the party would deal with it’s own faults, take action against those who have shamed its name and respond to the varied complaints and calls for an enquiry which have come from many members and from the Constituency and the District Party. They have chosen however not to do so. They have instead decided to widen their trawl for wrongdoers and have accused others in the Party of having intentions other than they had.

In this report I will lay out clearly the breaches of party rules and unnecessary lies peddled by the regional office and challenge them to deny them, not in an internal report to party members, but if necessary in a court of law. I am certain of my facts and of the witnesses that will bear truth to the many points that I will raise.

I ask only of you to ask, could this unnecessary series of events have been avoided?

Who is to blame? And how can the damage ever be repaired in the absence of the truth and of any justice to those of us who have been so badly wronged?

Within this report, I will outline and explain how the officers of the East Midlands Labour Party colluded with others within Northampton with the effect of:

A) Blocking my candidature to represent the Party at the 2007 Borough Council Elections in both Castle Ward and St Crispin’s Ward,

B) Breaking its own rules on the selection of it’s candidates,

C) Ignoring complaints made to it during the process,

D) Fabricating evidence to defend its wrongful actions

E) Defamed the names of others in its attempts to cover up its own lies.

Throughout these last 3 months I have entertained the idea of returning to the Labour Party once this matter had been dealt with, even now party members have asked me to accept the whip and ask to rejoin. I cannot do so whilst the regional and national party continues to deny any wrongdoing, and whilst officers of the East Midlands Party are happy to lie and to collude with others to cover up there misgivings. Without the truth the party has no integrity.

I am also currently considering standing at the next general election, nothing would have pleased me more than to have done so once more under a Labour banner. The opportunity for me to do that now seems to be outside of my control.

I have many good friends within the local party, and I would take this opportunity to thank them for there personal support for me and others expelled over this matter, but I would now say to you all, can you really justify remaining in an organisation that exists to defend the truth and to uphold justice when it is so scared of facing up to its own misdemeanours? I would ask you to consider carefully what you will do if the only option you are given is to “shut up” don’t question the executive” and are asked to “put the past behind you” without it first being dealt with. Cllr Keith Davies’s repeated requests to “draw a line under the issue” can only be actioned once the errors of the past have been recognised and dealt with.

I still remain willing to work with the party to investigate this matter without any thought of revenge or retribution. But I will not walk away and allow the truth to be corrupted

Northampton needs and deserves, now more than ever a strong Labour Party presence ready to take on and tackle the injustices meted out by our two local councils and in addition needs to play it’s full part in the return of a fourth term Labour Government.

However it will not do so whilst its strings are being pulled by cowards and traitors within it’s midst, who are willing to put their own needs to cover their own tracks before the need for the truth. And it will not do so if the only option left to its members is one of either blind obedience or reluctant admission that the party is not interested in the truth.

REPORT PART ONE: INITIAL SELECTION:

On Wednesday the 21^st March, I attended a meeting of the executive officers of Castle Ward (Central branch) as Chair, with the vice chair Cllr Marie Dickie, the secretary John Dickie, and the two candidates for the election, the sitting councillors Lee Barron, and Peter Evans.

At that meeting LB announced that due to his recent election as Regional Secretary of the CWU and the birth of his new daughter, he was not willing to continue with his candidature and a discussion ensued as to how a replacement could be found. I was asked to consider standing for selection. I declined. I agreed to consider this further with my family and we also agreed to the ward calling an emergency meeting to deal with the vacancy for the 28^th March. On Thursday the 22^nd March I informed John Dickie and Lee Barron, that having discussed the matter with my wife that I was willing to put my name forward for selection.

Lee Barron announced to his group on the Borough Council on Friday the 23^rd March that he was standing down. In her report to the Party the Regional Director Emilie Oldknow states “On Saturday 24^th March, unexpectedly, it was announced that the Labour group leader was standing down as a Labour Candidate for Northampton’s Castle Ward” I am not going to fall out over a discrepancy of a day, but it was never announced to anyone other than the group on the Friday night. Someone however at that group meeting took it upon themselves to inform others including the press.

Over that same weekend I was contacted by Wayne Bontoft of the Chronicle and Echo to tell me that a “Labour Councillor” had informed him that LB was standing down and that I was replacing him as the candidate and as Leader of the group. Mr Bontoft also informed me that the Conservative MP for Northampton South Brian Binley and the Leader of the Tory group Cllr Tim Hadland were also aware of the above, having been informed by the same source. I informed WB that this story was not true, but that I had agreed to go for selection. The C&E ran a story on Tuesday 27^th March which confirmed my decision to stand for selection. I had informed WB that a) I would have to be selected first, and b) that who would lead the group would be a matter for those elected. Following his story under a sub editors headline of “Cobblers chief to stand for election” Mr Bontoft phoned me to apologise for the misleading headline within the article and that he would be prepared to bear witness to the conversation we had had and that I had not said that I was the selected candidate. .

In her report to the party Miss Oldknow suggests that “a report appeared in the local newspaper on the Tuesday morning stating that Tony had been selected for castle Ward, his comment was “I am delighted to be selected for Castle Ward” Miss Oldknow know’s that this is a lie and a copy of the newspaper report can be found at http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/template/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=255&articleid=2181592 I ask her to retract her lie and to apologise.

Also that same weekend, Matt Forde a regional officer from the East midlands phoned John Dickie as secretary of the branch and in John’s words the following was agreed.

On Sat 24th March Matt Forde phoned me and accepted that the ward had been put in an impossible situation, but that the region wanted to take over the process. I indicated that a ward selection process was already in train and whilst he understood that he had perhaps anticipated the party’s actions. that it was in the best interests of securing a good strong candidate for a safe ward. At no time did MF mention gender balance .It is a lie to suggest that he ever raised it in any conversation with me. The first the ward knew about this was the letter sent to women members after the selection of Tony Clarke.”

The regional party have made much play of the fact that Mr Forde had telephoned John Dickie to tell him that the regional party was taking over the process, however regardless of what can or cannot be taken from a private phone call between two people without witness, what we do know is that at no time whatsoever was the Constituency Chair, Secretary or the District Party Chair or Secretary informed of the regions sudden interest or their desire to take over the selection or of how they planned to do so.

On Wednesday evening the 28^th March I attended a selection meeting at Northampton Labour Club which was quorate and was also attended by the chairs and secretaries of both the constituency and the district party. I was selected as the candidate for Castle Ward.

In her report Emilie Oldknow accuses the branch of breach of party procedures in this selection and even suggests that the meeting did not take place. The then Chairs and secretaries of the two bodies present will attest to this being untrue.

PART TWO: THE ALL WOMAN SHORTLIST

On Thursday morning the 29^th letters arrived from the region, to women members within the Borough of Northampton (including my wife) informing them that the region was to hold telephone interviews for a panel on Friday night the 30^th March and that a selection meeting would take place on Saturday 31^st March. These letters were also sent to party officers in Northampton. This was the first official correspondence received from the party on this subject and had arrived after the ward selection had taken place.

The branch immediately challenged the ruling on the need for an all women shortlist. The outgoing Labour group had 10 members of which 3 were women 30%. At the time of the regions intervention 4 of the 10 held seats had women candidates selected for them, an increase to 40% of the seats held. One of these seats had been filled by the wife of a retiring councillor who stood down, also at the last minute without any intervention from the region and or involvement of the district or constituency party’s We know not what procedures were followed in this case but enquired of the party why the two wards of St James and Castle had been treated so differently in exactly the same circumstances. The party did not respond to our complaints.

On Saturday the 31^st March the 2^nd selection took place. Three women attended. Ann Timson, a Castle Ward member who wanted to know what was occurring. A Mrs Choudary, the wife of Iftikhar Choudary who informed John Dickie and David Brede (Constituency secretary) that he had brought her along because Sally Keeble MP had phoned him and asked him to. He also informed them that his wife only spoke rudimentary English and that she felt uncomfortable in being considered.

The third candidate was Mrs Tess Scott, the mother of an intern who had worked in Sally Keeble’s office and who was ineligible to stand by the very nature of the letter sent out by the regional party indicating that only women living in the borough would be considered. In fact the ward again challenged the party to inform them as to how she had received the letter as she lived outside the Borough, and also how she had been invited? And if she had been afforded the opportunity to stand as a member of Kettering Constituency Party, had other members of that constituency been offered the same opportunity? And indeed had women members in the other surrounding constituencies also had equal access. No answers were forthcoming.

David Brede and John Dickie stood outside the meeting and spoke to both Ann Timson and Iftikhar Choudary, at no time was there any conversation between themselves and Mrs Scott, at no time were any of the candidates intimidated, and no complaints were received. In her report to the party Mrs Oldknow states that they “attempted to intimidate the women as they attended the meeting” again this is untrue and this allegation should be withdrawn. It is aimed in part at the existing secretary of the Constituency Party whose only intention in attending the meeting was to act as an observer, He was denied along with the sitting County Councillor for the ward and ward members access to the building and/or to the meeting.

Furthermore in her report Miss Oldknow suggests that “Tess Scott, the Labour candidate received on three separate occasions abusive and intimidatory phone calls from members within the Castle Branch and other constituency members” again this is untrue and if Miss Oldknow or Tess Scott want to perpetuate this lie then we challenge them to provide details in full of who was responsible and what was said. In absence of this we again call for an apology and a withdrawal of the statement.

The District Party Meeting of Monday 2^nd April:

On Monday evening the 2nd of April a meeting of the executive of the District Party (LGC) met together with a representative of the regional party to try to discuss a way forward and to identify a route out of the mess that had been created by the regional party’s intervention. Over that Weekend. Mr Aziz Rahman, the candidate for the neighbouring St Crispin Ward had contacted the party to tell them that due to ill health he was not able to continue as candidate. At that meeting it was suggested that the party ask me to consider attending a selection for the now vacant seat in St Crispin Ward the following evening. At this meeting Les Marriot informed those present that he “Had heard” that Peter Evans was considering not standing. This comment had no foundation and or evidence of truth. The members of the executive present including Nova Keown, Ulric Gravesande, Anjona Roy, and others will testify to the accuracy of the above if asked. At 10.30pm on Monday 2^nd April I was asked to fill in a form for selection to stand in the St Crispin’s Ward at the election. I did so against the wishes of many branch members as an attempt to bring a halt to all of the infighting that had occurred.

Whilst this meeting took place Sally Keeble MP was in the restaurant opposite the Labour Club owned by Aziz Rahman trying to get him to withdraw his decision to stand down as a candidate. It is my view shared by others that her intention was to prevent me standing in St Crispin Ward. The next day Mr Rahman received phone calls from Ian Riley which he found to be intimidating and in his words bullying him into not withdrawing his candidature

The Second Selection Tuesday 3^rd April

On the Tuesday evening I attended for interview for the panel, and for selection for St Crispin Ward. Also present to my surprise was Mr Iftikhar Choudary and 2 others.

Of the interview panel only panel member from Corby was known to me, the other two members I believe were from the West Midlands. Also present within the building were Mr Ian Riley (the regional director West Midlands) and Matt Forde (regional officer (East Midlands). Following the panel interviews I was called for selection and was asked if I wished to be considered for a vacancy in Castle Ward. I informed those present that I understood that there was no vacancy in Castle Ward and that I had attended for selection in St Crispin. I asked for clarity and was told that they were only doing as they had been instructed and that they would ask for clarity from the regional officer.

I was called back up to the selection meeting and informed that I had been selected as the candidate for Castle Ward and asked if I would accept the nomination. Matt Forde was in the room at this point and I once again asked for clarification as my understanding was that no vacancy existed. Mr Forde refused to answer other than saying that there is a vacancy and I had the chance to accept the same. I did.

When I returned down stairs I phoned Peter Evans who was the sitting Councillor and explained the situation to him. He, like me took it that Mrs Scott must have withdrawn. Mr Choudary was selected for the vacant St Crispin seat and I spoke to Matt Forde again to seek some clarification as to who I would be standing with and also to speak to him on a confidential matter regarding another candidate. Once more he avoided an answer and together with Mr Ian Riley left the building having endorsed my nomination paper.

10 minutes later Peter Evans phoned me to say that he had just received a phone call from Mr Forde to tell him that he had been deselected as the sitting councillor on the basis that the party “Had heard” that he was withdrawing. He informed them that this was untrue and that attempts to contact him earlier were not able to be responded to as he was carrying out a mental health assessment as part of his work. At no time did Peter Evans withdraw, and at no time was he not the candidate for the seat. My concerns over the selection had been confirmed and I was then phoned by Matt Forde who told me that the party had “acted in good faith” I informed him that I had just been selected as the candidate and endorsed by the regional party to stand and that myself and Peter Evans would be doing so by submitting our nominations the following morning. Mr Forde said he would need to speak to the constitutional officer and that he would phone me the next day. But he also said for the first time that I “should not submit my nomination paper” I asked him under what ruling he was denying me that right as an endorsed candidate? And he would not give me answer. Miss Oldknow in her statements makes serious allegations as to the intent of Mr Evans and Mr Rahman and ignores the factor of Mr Rahman’s ill health and makes further allegations saying “they wanted a man selected” This is defamatory and should be withdrawn immediately.

If Miss Oldknow is unwilling to do so then she should inform Mr Rahman and Mr Evans as to where this slander has emanated from in order that they can seek legal redress, if she does not then I believe as the author of this repeated slur she should be willing to defend her accusation in a court of law.

Miss Oldknow also lies in her report about the sequencing of events. Mr Evans was not informed of the view of the regional party as to him having withdrawn, nor for that matter was anyone else in the party, including either the LGC Executive members or the Ward officers, until after I was selected.

In her report Miss Oldknow states that “Both Mr Clarke and Mr Iftikhar Choudary accepted selection as Labour candidates on the Tuesday evening” This is not in question, but she goes onto say “Mr Clarke did so in the knowledge that he would be replacing Peter Evans in Castle Ward” This is a wicked and vicious lie and I will again stand in a court of law and invite those present at those meetings to repeat it under oath if they so dare.

Indeed, were this the case then why did Matte Forde phone me back less than an hour after endorsing me to tell me that Peter Evans was not withdrawing? Why were the LGC executive also unaware of his supposed withdrawal and what evidence for it exists outside of the here say of Les Marriot at the meeting on Monday night?

Having broken its own rules over the imposition of an all women’s shortlist and then broken the rules they then set for the selection of the same, they then deselected a candidate without anyone’s knowledge, including the candidate, and then selected me in his stead without an explanation. If I am being kind I could put this down to incompetence, however I fear other reasons exist for the actions taken by party officers that can only be explained by them if required to answer.

Wednesday 4^th April Nominations

At 10.30am on Wednesday the 4^th April I attended the Guildhall to submit my nomination together with Peter Evans as the official Labour candidates for Castle Ward. These were the only two nominations held by the agent, although I understand Tess Scott’s papers were submitted via Catherine Russell who works for Sally Keeble without the permission of the agent. Matt Forde sent me first a message and then rang me to instruct me “not to submit my nomination as I was no longer a candidate.” Witness to this phone call was John Dickie, Peter Evans, Anjona Roy (the agent) Arthur McCutcheon and Gary Youen’s. I asked repeatedly under what party ruling was I being instructed not to submit my nomination and on what basis the party had decided that I out of the three endorsed candidates had been contacted to request my withdrawal? No explanation was forthcoming.

Not wanting to be party to any more lies, deceit and behind close door decisions myself and Peter Evans submitted our papers without party endorsement.

Neither of us took any pleasure in doing so.

Other Factors:

During the period that the above charade was played out I made several attempts to get the party to intervene at a national level. In addition the Branch sent off two letters of official complaint to the constitutional officer for answer. Peter Evans also wrote asking for answers to questions he had raised regarding the validity of the process

We have never received any answers to any of the questions we posed about the breaches of Party rules by the party itself.

At one point in an attempt to get the party to resolve the issue without further unrest Marie Dickie contacted the then Party chair Hazel Blears by telephone to asked her to intervene. Marie will confirm that Hazel’s response was,

“Marie, Sally Keeble has briefed me on this whole issue and told me that it would be a disaster for the party if Tony Clarke was elected to the Borough Council”

I remain to this day unsure what Sally meant by this and only she can explain her comments, however I fail to see how the outcome has been anything but a disaster created by the party itself through it’s own foolishness.

Each of the above comments and statements can be backed up by hard copy evidence and by witnesses to them occurring.

Conclusion

I have now grown tired of the continued failure of the party to sort out its own mess or even to acknowledge its faults. My silence on this matter to date and my unwillingness to act against the party’s interests has so far been met by indifference and by instructions to party members not to speak to me. I consider this both childish and unhelpful.

I will now be considering what comments I will be making to the press once the cover up report written by Miss Oldknow is released? Maybe I should just copy them into this statement? Maybe I should tell them exactly who I believe has instigated this whole affair and why? Maybe it’s time for me to accept that whilst I have friends within the party that the party itself is not worthy of my continued silence and protection. I just hope that in possession of the truth that you are now better informed and equally determined to ensure the matter is dealt with.

Tony Clarke