PRE CHRISTMAS CRACKERS

My apologies for the short delay in normal service, (lack of blogs) but a family bereavement and high work load temporarily threw me off course.

So to play catch up and give regular readers an insight into all things politically malignant I thought I would treat you to some short inputs and comments.

THE COMMISSIONING COMMISSIONER

Adam Simmonds as Northamptonshire's newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner has certainly not wasted any time in making himself and the Tory Party even less relevant and popular by announcing his appointment of up to 16 staff to help him in his newly elected role!

These include Assistant Commissioners dealing with a whole host of specialist areas, including advisers on Youth, Neighbourhoods and even faith.

But what is extraordinary about his employment rest is that most of the applicants are not applicants at all! They are just self appointed Tory party members. All it seems very eager to join the new Conservative Party managed gravy train. His election agent and the Tories current Political assistant at County Hall are just two among many new "crime" experts who will now be paid from the public purse.

He has though now, after much pressure, announced that some of these 16 posts will only be filled after a proper interview process has taken place. Late but laudable you may think?, until that is you see that he has already announced who will fill the posts before the interviews have even taken place!

Of course whilst making it clear he is quite prepared to spend way beyond the previous £800,000 revenue expenditure for the decommissioned Police Authority to make sure he gets the right staff, he is at the same time telling Police Officers and Staff that he cannot protect their jobs in the forthcoming budget round.

This man is doing more single handily to undermine and destroy the Conservative Party's future local and general election chances than all of the opposition parties in Northamptonshire could muster as a collective effort. (although Binners is a good second option at the moment)

Long may he continue in post!

LABOUR PAINS

Whenever I mention the ongoing troubles within the local Labour Party I get the same tired old complaints from over zealous members accusing me of not moving on or blaming the regional Labour Party for all of the Party's ills.

So let me make it very clear, I care little for what happens in the Labour Party's regional office or about who is currently responsible for their steady supply of political own goals, but I do find it astonishing to hear that the Local Party is once again to be suspended.

This means that since my expulsion way back in May 2007 that the local party has been suspended for longer than even my own personal expulsion lasted! I work out that of the 5 years and 7 months since that date, that the party has been under suspension for a total of 5 years and  2 months? But I stand to be corrected.

The latest suspension I am told is because there were so many complaints and counter complaints flying around related to individual Cllrs on the Labour Group of the Borough Council that the region thought it best to just once again pull the plug. In fact from just the small snippets I hear I doubt if there is a member of the Labour group left who currently is not complaining against a fellow comrade or who hasn't had a complaint lodged against them! So much for Fraternity!

Funny though really how the region always ensure that the party is suspended and never up and running when selections for election candidates are on the horizon, so once more their County Council candidates will need to be "appointed" by region rather than selected by local members. Now given that the last two panels of candidates for the County and Borough elections have been hand picked by region who should they blame for the infighting currently ensuing?

Meanwhile some even more disturbing news reaches me about serious criminal investigations in respect of one of their other elected members in Northampton, But in order to allow justice to be done I will of course refrain from revealing all or any of the details, but those inside the party may feel a little aggrieved that they didn't heed the warnings some including myself were giving them at least a year back!

PAYBACK TIME

Whilst focusing on the local  Labour Party's current (constant?) woes I must share with you the misgivings many party members are now expressing over the Party's choice for candidate at the next general election in Northampton North.

Now of course myself and Sally Keeble never really got on when we were both in the house , we were chalk and cheese, and I could never get away from the feeling that she felt my election in Northampton South was a distraction to her, she certainly seemed happier after I had gone and seemed to prefer having a Tory next door to shout at rather than a nuisance neighbour.

Another area where we were both miles apart was in respect of Sir Thomas Legg's enquiry into the MP's expenses scandal. I was pleased to receive early on in the enquiry a letter from Sir Thomas  saying

 "having examined the records in the light of my interpretation of the rules and standards in force at the time, I have not identified any payments made to you under the ACA during the review period which I consider call for any repayment or further supporting evidence to be provided by you. Accordingly, my conclusion is that no further action is required from you in this matter"

Not surprising really, as my office staff at the time will confirm that I wouldn't even claim insanity despite having more than enough evidence to boot!

Sally on the other hand you may recall got her self into a spot of difficulty by claiming for a whole host of "improvements" to her second home in Northampton including  according to the Daily Telegraphs expose:

"£5,000.00 worth of repairs to the kitchen of her constituency home in 2005, along with £2,403.00 on new appliances and work surfaces. She later claimed £950.00 for the “essential” replacement of her shower, toilet and washbasin, £3,072.00 for a new boiler and £7,669.00 for new windows., not to mention all those tree works in the garden!"

So concerned was she at the time that her largess may influence the way people voted that she along with many other "embarrassed" MP's made voluntary payments back to Parliament to prevent further criticism of the claims. The payments were made at the height of the furore over MPs’ expenses, as the public vented its anger about the widespread abuse of the system.

However, it has emerged that since then, nearly two dozen current and former MPs had quietly asked for the "repaid" money to be returned to them , after receiving lower than expected demands from the House of Commons authorities to repay any over claimed expenses.

And so it was that our Sally in 2010 after no longer being an MP and perhaps feeling less guilty about all those items she felt she had wrongly claimed for and therefore wanted to pay back,  joined 26 other MP's and former MP's in asking for a refund of their refund!

The Commons authorities therefore quietly and secretly sent her a cheque back for £3,737.74

But now she is standing for election again! So can she tell us, was she in her own eyes right in claiming the money for all of the above on her expenses in the first place? If so, then was she then wrong when she said after the scandal broke that she felt she had duty to pay some of the money back to Parliament?
And if she was right in paying "some" but not all of her claimed expenses back to Parliament in 2009 then why has she then secretly claimed it back since when she is no longer an MP?

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.

SEASONAL SHORTS

Sorry guys work and caseload has taken me away from the blog in recent weeks. So here's a few short thoughts regarding the blogs I nearly made!

WAR WAR IS STUPID

Hearing Ed Milliband declaring that the last Government were wrong to go to war was refreshing, but the applause of so many Blairites who are now happy to clap Ed and the Party being so anti war now it has become official Party policy sickened me.

These were the very same people for god sake who tripped through the yes lobby in Parliament knowing it was wrong to go to war but put their careers before their conscience, hypocrite's of the very first order, all of them.

COMMONS DENOMINATOR

So what do Micheal Ellis, Sally Keeble and Margaret Thatcher all have in common? is it

A: They all share the same Birthday?
B: They all share the same political views?
C: Both of the above?

Answers please





SELECTION BOX

Turmoil continues apace it seems in the race to represent the Lib Dems in next Mays Borough Council Elections. After deselecting the sitting Mayor and losing another deselected Cllr to the Tories, the local party are now going through a second round to reselect some candidates who have already dropped out!

What's not clear of course yet is how the boundary commission may lay waste to all their plans, Not only have the Lib Dems selected their candidates for yhe new wards which have still not been confirmed by the boundary commission but their is growing concern that even if confirmed their will not be enough parliamentary time available to pass the changes through the commons! Leaving the seats on NBC as they currently stand. And the candidates?


THE SECRET DIARY OF A JANITOR

New has reached my ears via a reliable source (and then Aufona) that Den the Pen Merideth is currently writing his auto biography!  How delightful a read that will be! John Dickie suggests the first line might be

"I was born at a very young age"

followed by tales of the playground and maybe a few juicy tit bits about his love of the chase!

"The breath so near her pillow, that she shrunk back into it, lest these wandering hands should light upon her face."

Stick me down for a copy please Dennis.

ALL INSIDE THE BIG TENT

I was delighted that the motion put down by our Independent group at September's Full County Council meeting was passed unanamously. The motion which asked for any "Big Society" to also be a "Fair Society" also asked the Council to commit to paying its front line staff a "Living Wage" Which Jim Harker was happy to accept.

We now just need to hear from Jim as to what rate his group has set the Councils "Living Wage" for the majority of Councils so far who have agreed to this messure a sum of £7.00 an hour is the norm with £7.20 being paid in London.

The current Pay and grading denbacle has some County Council staff on as little as £6.31 an hour. So come on Mr Pastry, how say you tell us what the new rate will be and make a lot of disgruntled staff a lot happier?

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.

It's not a new Speaker we need it's a whole new Parliament

Listening to the praise being laid on lavishly by MP's to Micheal Martin this afternoon in the commons you would be forgiven for not knowing that the same bunch who now rise to commend him on his loyal service were the very same hypocrites who a few weeks ago called for his head on a silver platter in order to save their own skins over the MP's expenses row.

"Gorbel's Mick" as we called him with affection, was in deep trouble from the very day he put on his speakers robes simply because Parliament is still living in the dark ages and Mick was seen not to be of the right class or stock to be in such a high office. And so the Toffs hated him for being working class and some of the working class disliked him because he had taken the Queens shilling and put himself above them. Personally I always found him to be good company and someone who hadn't totally forgotten his roots but I also felt that he tried too hard to fit in and to live the role as was expected of him, rather than being himself and ploughing his own furrow. Let us also not forget that he tried last year to modernise the MP's expenses system only to find half of the commons couldn't be bothered to vote and the rest formed a majority against him.

So has his departure cleansed our Parliament? not one bit, and even as the house deliberates on their next victim for the Speakers chair the stories of expenses abuse continue to hit the front pages. Today's latest exposure regarding Brian Binley saddened me not simply because of the impact it has on the reputation of Parliament, but also because I felt he didn't need to have over complicated his affairs in the way he has and that it was all so unnecessary.

I have said elsewhere on this blog that in my view MP's staying overnight in London ought to be provided accommodation centrally to stop all the wide and varied schemes MP's dream up to utilise the additional cost allowance. And Brian's case only strengthens my argument

Despite him taking my seat at the last election and me also planning to challenge him at the next as an Independent, I have always got on with Brian, and he is also good company but we are political opponents with different ideas and values. As such the easiest thing for me to do in the circumstances would be to jump on the bandwagon and launch into a personal tirade of abuse and call for him to stand down immediately.

I won't do so though because I would rather look at the issue reflectively, and anyhow it seems that he has enough critics of his own already without me wading in. But I do think he has been more than a bit naive in thinking that renting a flat from yourself or your own company would be seen by Joe Public as anything other than just plain wrong. So for what it is worth I offer him and you my view.

The additional cost allowance is for "additional" costs of staying in London. So if you or the company you are chairman of owns a flat in London then you have no additional cost.

And if you want to avoid the risk of housing market forces putting pressure on you or your families purse, as he tries to explain in his response to critics, then you simply rent a flat and not buy one, but certainly not rent one from yourself.

I also think he will be digging himself a deeper hole by saying that his new flat now costs him and the tax payer more, about £1800 a month instead of £1500 a month. You see both sums are excessive even by London standards and without looking I would guess you would still be able to pick up a decent rent for around the £1000 a month mark, or maybe even less in today's market.

Some of the criticism he is facing though is unwarranted, for instance those who think an MP can commute to and from London on a daily basis forget that the Parliamentary day can start at 9.30pm and often goes beyond 10.30pm at night, meaning that even if you managed to catch the last train home at 11.30pm (which gets into Northampton about 2.30am) then you wouldn't be in bed before 3am and up again 6.30am in order to get back down to the smoke for the next days business, a 20 hour day with 4 hours sleep a night? not advisable for anyone.

So what choice has all these deliberations left the electorate at the next general election across Northampton? Well in Northampton North we have an MP in Sally Keeble who thinks it is OK to spend her "additional" costs on gas boilers, dishwashers, tree surgery, a new scullery, and replacing marble worktops with glass ones in her "flipped" second home.

Meanwhile in Northampton South Brian defends his right to charge the taxpayer a £1500 rent for a furnished property that belonged and was paid for by his own company, and then right again to pay even more for a second property at a rent of nearly £1800 a month?

I will stand at the election in Northampton South though not on Brian's record in Parliament but on my own, I believe that the 8 years I spent in office were good years for local democracy and those who criticised me at the time for publishing my expenses annually in my parliamentary report are now seeing why I felt so strongly about openness and transparency. If successful I will rent a small flat at the lower end of the market and publish once again annually all of my expenses.

The MP's expenses row though is now losing all proportion, and it is getting more and more difficult to separate out the guilty from the sinned against. Ian Gibson for instance was hounded out of his Norwich North seat by the Labour Party for simply allowing his daughter to stay with him in his London flat and selling the property to her below the asking price, both of which sound reasonable. But I think it suited the Labour Party to use his case as an excuse to cull a rebel.

Brian's case is more complex and I will give him the opportunity to explain himself for his own actions and leave his own party to decide on his fate. Although I feel humility rather than defiant indifference will serve him better and painting himself in a corner and saying he won't pay anything back will only make it more difficult for him to find an exit route. Sally's "additional" costs though are also just plain wrong and you can but wonder how some Labour colleagues have faced wider criticism and yet to date she has come through relatively unscathed.

In renting properties at prices way above the costs necessary and using tax payers money to buy luxury items both Brian and Sally have fallen into the same trap that Gorbel's Mick fell into, They all three thought that they were more important than they really are and that they had a lifestyle to live up to. But strip away the robes and the titles and the offices they serve and they will find that they are no more important than you and I. And when they do so they will probably see for the first time what all the fuss is really about. You see people will judge them not on grounds they have justified for themselves but on the common ground and expectation of the majority of us who are trying to eek out a living in such difficult times.

Perhaps we might get the chance to have two Independents elected to Parliament in the next general Election? If so I hope it's an opportunity that the electorate seizes with both hands.

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