Birmingham City Council have a free newspaper, which is delivered to some households in the City and dumped under a few hedgerows as well. You will recall that for years, the Liberal Democrats planned to scrap it, but once they and the Tories scrambled into power in 2004, they realised the power of propaganda and a new contract was duly signed. You may also remember that it is supposed to be a politically-neutral publication - which is why Albert Bore has become accustomed to having his budget response spiked.
So, imagine my shock when I read Mike Whitby's column in the current issue - always a cure for insomnia, telling the readership that the elections were a vote of confidence for the ruling partnership and burbling on about other successes (sic) of the Regressive Partnership.
Surely this has to be an abuse of an apolitical publication?
'I was giving a few people a lift to Victoria station when the fuckers pulled me over...'
That's a great way to talk about the police of the Metropolis. And he's got form - this is apparently his fourth alcohol-related offence and his second drink-driving conviction. This time, he got a three year driving ban with a compulsory retest, an eighteen-month supervision order and will have to be tagged for the next three months between 9pm and 6am.
This case is too serious to joke about - I've just deleted three paragraphs of political digs at the Liberal Democrats after reading the full judgement. This isn't the place for levity. Frankly, this is an absolute disgrace. In brief summary of the case, a daughter with disabilities was born to a 22 year old mother as a result of a brief liaison with a 66 year old man. The mother, according to the clinical psychologist, is in the bottom 2% of the population for verbal skills and the bottom 1% on capacity to perform tasks. The child is disabled and is oxygen dependent and while the mother clearly wants to care for her, she seems signally unable to provide the level of care required and may not be able to learn the routine necessary to keep the child alive and healthy.
Most of the names in the judgement are anonymised, with a couple of exceptions.
Lord Justice Wall was damning in his criticism of John Hemming,
'My judgment is that his self-imposed role as a critic of the family justice system is gravely damaged.... Speaking for myself I will not be persuaded to take seriously any criticism made by him in the future unless it is corroborated by reliable, independent evidence.'
John attacked the mother's own solicitor - effectively accusing her (identified only as 'SC' in the judgement) of fabricating evidence. The judge was so shocked by this that he didn't just ask for a transcript of the hearing, he had the court staff knock up an audio CD as well so he could be sure of what Hemming had said
In a nutshell, Mr. Hemming's response was that the evidence contained in SC's file had been made up: in a word, fabricated.... Mr Hemming seized immediately on the discrepancy in the dates which I have identified in paragraph 64 above, and sought to argue from it that "there is some doubt as to some of the provenance of some of the documents in these files." I intervened to say: "I believe in calling a spade a spade. Do you think this is a put up job?" Mr Hemming replied: "I think this is a put up job and I have some experience in looking for evidence".
The judge reviewed the case files and the notes, found nothing to support John's claim and wrote that he found it
not only unacceptable but shocking, that a man in Mr Hemming's position should feel able to make so serious an allegation without any evidence to support it. In my judgment, it is irresponsible and an abuse of his position. Unfortunately, as other aspects of this judgment will make clear, it is not the only part of the case in which Mr Hemming has been willing to scatter unfounded allegations of professional impropriety and malpractice without any evidence to support them.
This all kicked off when the Official Solicitor was appointed to act in the mother's place, as she was deemed incapable of giving instructions to her own representative. Some of the notes referred to in the judgement support that decision. John's view is that the Official Solicitor is there to rubber stamp the local authority's decision - a long way from the truth. A clinical psychologist (HJ) was appointed to clarify whether the mother was capable of instructing her solicitor and understanding the ramifications of the legal process. To be clear, the psychologist specialises in this field - her doctorate was into research of the parental competence of mothers with a learning disability and she has 18 years of experience in the clinical field. There are probably few people in the country better qualified to pass an opinion and John Hemming certainly isn't one of them.
That didn't stop him from having a go. He accused her of being in the pay of the council (experts aren't supposed to be partial - they give an honest opinion based upon their view of the facts and have an overriding duty to the court, at least they did when I had to act as an expert a few years ago). The judge commented:
It is plain to me from these documents, that in addition to the allegations set out above, Mr. Hemming believes that HJ was in the pay of the local authority and thus was "the local authority's expert". For good measure, he asserts that the system is "evil" and that "there does seem to be little concern in the legal profession about the reliability of opinion offered in court.". The clear implication behind the "witch findings" items on the website set out at paragraph 95 above is that "experts" like HJ are in it for the money; that they are happy to "manufacture 'evidence'"; and that they are in receipt of "phoney" letters of instruction. The result, Mr Hemming asserts is a "disaster"
This set of assertions - laid out on John's website - are thoroughly demolished by the judge. There is no evidence to support his attack on the witness' competence, the claim that she was falsely instructed - the clinical psychologist was actually instructed on behalf of all parties - and there's no evidence beyond John's own conspiracy theories that she's in it for the money. Repeating those claims outside court or without the protection of parliamentary privilege would very probably see Hemming facing a libel suit.
Lord Justice Wall gave his view
Even more unarguable – indeed it is outrageous - is Mr Hemming's allegation that HJ was the paid expert of the local authority. She was nothing of the kind. Such an allegation is not only without any evidential foundation of any kind: it is plainly contradicted by the evidence.
Mr. Hemming's allegation that HJ is part of an "evil" system only warrants comment because it comes from a Member of Parliament, and thus from a person in a responsible public position whom one ought to be able to trust only to make serious accusations when they are based on evidence. I am astonished that somebody in Mr. Hemming's position should have seen fit to put such a disgraceful allegation into the public domain. I reject it unreservedly.
The nub of the problem with John's support of the mother was his failure to understand the basic principle of the law as it affects children
...the danger of the mother’s approach, reinforced as it has been in my judgment by Mr Hemming’s partial and tendentious advice, is that it has been entirely adult focused. Not once in his argument did he mention the welfare of KP [the child]. His emphasis, and that of RP [the mother], was entirely on her rights and the alleged wrongs which had been done to her.
Here, John has signally failed to understand that the core of child protection work shifted with the 1989 Childrens' Act, where the very first item - s1(1) says that
the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.
The judge sums up neatly with a reasonable view of the system - imperfect, certainly, but far from evil.
In my judgment, the arguments advanced by Mr Hemming in this case are ill-informed and tendentious. They are contradicted by the evidence, and must be rejected. I think this most unfortunate. Nobody who works in the Family Justice System regards it as perfect: most of us see it as under-resourced and struggling to deal with the work loads thrust upon it. Constructive criticism, particularly from those in a position to bring about change, is to be welcomed. I am myself in no doubt that the system must change and adapt, and I have spoken many times in public in support of my belief that there needs to be greater transparency in order to combat the partial, tendentious and inaccurate criticisms made against the system. I therefore welcome the opportunity provided by this case to demonstrate that the system has operated properly, and that the criticisms made are unfounded.
John picked on the wrong judge. This is not a judge who is unaware of the faults - he could have found common ground over the changes required to the system - much as I agree that it could be improved - but he picked on the wrong case. The judge adds
I would like to make it as clear as I can that the function of this court is to maintain standards in family justice, and does not hesitate to criticise a local authority which has broken the rules. Indeed, I invite any reader of this judgment to read the forthcoming decision of this court in Re F [2008] EWCA Civ 439, which is being handed down on 1 May 2008, and in which Thorpe LJ, Wilson LJ and I are deeply critical of a local authority.
This case is a tragedy, certainly, but I don't believe that justice or the mother's case was served by John's ill-considered and wild interventions. As the judge himself adds in a postscript,
at the heart of this case, as with so many family cases, lies a human tragedy: the premature and unconsidered birth of a disabled child, and a mother who is plainly incapable of caring for her, however much she may want to.
I cannot recall ever reading such a harsh set of criticisms of a serving MP by a judge. John Hemming should be ashamed of his performance in this. I don't write this lightly or with any political malice - hard as that may be to believe - but his behaviour was wrong. I've written before that there are problems with the Family Courts system and that perhaps the time has come to review the absolute secrecy in which these courts operate, but John's wild allegations about impropriety on the part of social workers - a much-maligned group of people who do a dangerous job (statistically they have a higher risk of being murdered than do police officers) in a very difficult and emotionally-charged environment. Mistakes and injustices are bound to happen in any system and we need to find ways to minimise those and right the wrongs, but chucking wild conspiracy theories around serves nobody, least of all KP. She is at the centre of this, not the mother and still less John Hemming. He would do well to remember that.
One nice thing I forgot to mention about last week's shenanigans at the Council House - lots of self-satisfied, smug Tories celebrating and a smattering of dejected Labour campaigners - was that I ran into Paul Dale of the Birmingham Post, who took the time to say some nice things about the blog. Thanks for polishing the ego for me, Paul! Nice to know that I have at least one reader out there.
I also got interviewed by Adrian Goldberg, of The Stirrer, for the live results internet broadcast. I believe that the broadcast lives on somewhere, but it wasn't one of my finest hours and I have nothing but renewed respect for those talking heads who have a microphone shoved into close proximity and have to say something relevant.
One of the things about this is that I know I don't have the reach of an Iain Dale (or even a Bob Piper), but the depth of the readership is most interesting. Councillors, journalists and MPs make up a disproportionate chunk of the readership of the blog.
A mole in the committee corridor reports seeing Cllr Whitby fuming at having to be asked to leave the Planning Committee meeting today as they needed to move onto the private agenda, from which all non-members of the committee must be excluded.
Wonder what could have enticed the leader of the council down from his office?
Thursday wasn't a good day for Labour in Birmingham or elsewhere in the country. Fortunately, we did buck the trend here and were only just in second place behind the Tories on city-wide vote share, but our voters stayed at home - 13,000 fewer turned out for Labour than last year, compared to a Lib Dem vote drop of 4000 and 500 for the Tories. Our problem is that unlike the other two parties, our vote is spread across the city and the anti-Labour vote continues to coalesce behind whichever party has a chance of winning/holding the seat.
How do we recover? Beyond my pay grade, really, but as everyone else is having a pop, I'll join in.
1 - Keep Gordon. We have two years to run on this government and we've already had six months of inaction due to the leadership/deputy leadership elections. Another few months would add nothing but would make us look disunited and argumentative. A party that turns in on itself is not fit for government and the people won't elect it. We need to rally behind our leader and look outwards at the real targets - the Tories and the Lib Dems.
2 - Let Gordon be Gordon - with caveats. Don't try and be Blair. You aren't. Cameron is better at it than you and even he isn't a patch on Tony. Work on your strengths - let's see the competence of the Chancellor and the passion for tackling poverty and improving education that I've seen at close hand. Gordon is still the man of substance against Cameron's Will o'the Wisp 'I'll be anything you want me to be.' The PM has to think strategically, not tactically, so some of the detail may have to be prised from your hands. It will hurt, but not as much as losing will in 2010.
3 - Ditch some policies. Here's my biggie - let's forget ID cards. They won't work and we'll throw billions down the drain creating Labour's very own poll tax. Also, scrap the discredited 42-day detention - nobody involved with administering it seems to want it very much and we could do with the unity in the parliamentary party.
4 - Rebuild. Literally. Let's take the billions for ID cards and spend some of it on proper social housing. Labour should offer more money ringfenced for local councils to build new directly-owned properties. People want this and this has been one of the key failures of this government - we just haven't delivered on housing.
5 - Tell the story. One of our strengths pre-97 was a clear narrative behind our policies. That went adrift pretty swiftly. We need an overarching story of how we have made the country better and how [insert policy idea here] fits into that pattern. If it doesn't fit, then it probably shouldn't be in our plans. We also need to be clear that there IS a difference between us and the Conservatives and to demonstrate that clearly.
6 - It's the economy, stupid. It is ALWAYS the economy. Don't let people talk us into recession - plenty of commentators like the IMF are still forecasting that the UK economy will grow this year, albeit at 1-2%. If the country slides into recession, then our electoral chances will slide away with it.
Two things to remember are that last summer, things were so different. We can go back there if we work at it and if we are hungry enough for it. The Tories are ready to work and are hungry and we've seen what they can achieve when they do.
We've got a fight on our hands, but it is one worth having. And one we can win.
Within hours of Boris Johnson - BoJo - winning the election, London's hit by a tidal wave. See - vote Tory and it all goes to hell in a handcart.
Boris is undoubtedly a larger than life character, with a carefully cultivated buffoonish image, but he's far from stupid and we're fools if we think that he is. However, he is vulnerable to letting his mouth run away before that brain is fully engaged to filter his words for an audience. He will need an exceptional group of people around him to protect him and to ensure that the 'right' lines are fed to him if the Cameron coalition isn't to be wounded. His speech on Friday evening was an example of what can be done when he is properly channelled, but Conservative HQ will be on tenterhooks over the next few years waiting for Boris to make a mistake.
One thing I'm sure of, though - London does not run through Boris' veins in the same way that it does Ken's. His concession on Friday night was heart-rending, as he apologised for losing while struggling to hold back the tears. I don't believe we'll see the same reaction when Boris leaves office.
Even more interesting is the path of the polls listed on UK Polling Report. Bob has pointed out the the money is moving away from Boris on Political Betting and if you look at the polls, the current has turned there as well. YouGov has been polling for the Evening Standard and even at the start of April, was showing a 13 point first preference lead for Boris over Ken - which translated into a 12 point second preference win. More recently, this has declined to a 7% first preference lead and other polls - mruk/Sunday Times and Ipsos MORI/Unison give Ken a lead of 1-3% on first preference and a 2-4% win on the key second preferences.
How on earth have the Tories managed to throw away such a lead?
Boris's PR team worked hard to keep him on a short leash - to an almost subterranean level prior to the campaign proper kicking off - well aware of his propensity to make mistakes. In direct debate, he has shown himself to be significantly weaker than Livingstone and relying on his admitted puppyish charms. Since the campaign started, though, Johnson has to be out and about and he's fallen over again and again. On a new generation of Routemasters, he forecast that this would cost £8 million, only for this figure to be shown to be some £100 million short of the true cost. Boris stuck to his guns in interviews, but then told a member of the public that he agreed with higher figure.
While London is a peculiar electoral beast, much heavier on personality politics than the national scene, this isn't good news for the Tories. To have their candidate so utterly undermined over the course of the campaign - despite the vitriol-fuelled support of the capital's main newspaper, The Evening Standard which has dedicated itself to the destruction of Ken, and now additional backing from The Sun, does not bode well for the national campaign which is expected to major on the joys of Cameron. But then, just as Boris has faltered under pressure, when Cameron gets questioned on the detail, he looks a lot less competent.
But here's a thought for the pot. While the Tories want to win in London, would they also be peculiarly happy with a narrow loss? The fact is that every time Boris makes a mistake - and by God, he'd make them - or misspeaks, that will be national news and will damage the Conservative Party across the country. A close defeat shows that the Tories can compete with Labour - even over a man with a huge personality cult in London, but doesn't expose them to the frailities and incompetencies of the Boris cannon rolling about the gundeck.
We'll see on Thursday. But in the meantime, back to my own campaign....
Top marks and a tip of a well-turned-out bowler hat to Pete at West Brom Blogger for his revelation that the band in a Sandwell St George's Day parade is, well, a far-right group whose former leader served time for gun-running to the 'loyalists' in Northern Ireland. Pete's pointed out before that the BNP have hijacked the parade to spread their particular brand of English exclusivity - the Fuehrer Nick Griffin even turned up one year and applauded the 'lack of Asians' in the 'ethnically English' parade.
I have no problem with celebrating St George's Day - I just believe that we should celebrate England in all its glorious forms and ethnic origins. Your colour or your religion don't define whether you're English - nor does the 'cricket test.' If you sign up
Never again will we hear the story of Lionel Blair pulling off Twelve Angry Men....
If you've never heard the tradition that is the incomprehensible panel game, I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue, then you've missed something in your life. His entirely deadpan delivery of devastating lines made the show what it was and he was one of the few men to understand the intricacies of Mornington Crescent. Samantha will be inconsolable and I'm sure even the lesser-spotted Sven will shed a tear.
From Eton, via the beaches at Salerno to a fixture of Radios 2 and 4 and even a Radiohead album, Humph turned down a knighthood and rarely has one been more deserved. He brought music and laughter to our lives - a charm that crossed generations in our family.
This week's Question Time replicated recent meetings between the three big candidates - Ken looks calm and statesmanlike, Boris disarmingly aggressive and apparently incompetent and Brian just plain irrelevant (I do feel sorry for Brian Paddick - he's going to be crushed beneath the Boris & Ken steamrollers and his only relevance is the destination of the second preference votes). I genuinely cannot understand how on earth anyone could not vote for Ken in the face of the buffoon that is Boris. Being mayor of London is not about chairing a half-hour comedy panel show once in a while - it is the biggest elected role in the country and an opportunity to do good or ill for 10 million people.
An example of Boris' inherent incomprehension of how things actually work is his belief that he'll negotiate a no-strike deal with the RMT. Now, short of stuffing their pockets with so much cash that the staff of the London Underground can't fit through the doors anymore, there is precisely no chance of Boris being able to dazzle them with enough charm to get them to abandon the ultimate weapon of any worker - withdrawal of labour. It really won't happen - not least because the RMT has drifted a long way to the left. Boris even accused Ken of defeatism over the issue because the Labour Party is funded by the RMT. First off, Ken's being realistic. Secondly, the Labour Party expelled the RMT back in 2004 because they didn't necessarily want to support Labour candidates.
The man really has no idea.
It would be a disaster for London and for the country for Boris to win on May 1.
If you are in any doubt about the probity or propriety of your actions, you should ask yourself the question, ‘What would a reasonable observer think?’
Things are hotting up in Aston, the focus of legal action on a number of occasions in recent years. Following the embarrassment of the Liberal Democrat Cabinet Member (information correct at time of going to press) Cllr (ditto) Ayoub Khan, when his support for failed candidate Saeed Aehmed ended in ignominy as a judge slammed his behaviour, things have contrived to slide further downhill.
Last week, Cllr Khan waited until fifteen minutes before the closing time to submit a few hundred voter applications and some new postal vote applications. Nothing wrong with that - all perfectly legal - but there has been a local protocol signed which advises that such documents should be submitted to the Elections Office within 48 hours of being received by a political activist, in conformance with the Electoral Commissions code of conduct, where s14 says the following:
If you are given a completed application form, you should forward it directly and without delay to the local Electoral Registration Officer.
Unfortunately, rumour has it that some of the applications delivered by Cllr Khan were not delivered 'without delay,' but may have lain somewhere for several weeks. I have heard tell that some may even date from January or February - but that's to be confirmed. Needless to say, there's a good excuse - Ayoub has been housebound for a fortnight with flu and he was the only person with a key to get access to the Lib Dem campaign office. If he's the only one they trust with the key, what ARE the rest of them like? The cynics point out that late submission might be an attempt to discourage close scrutiny of the applications.
The latest twist to this story is that it has been revealed that despite his excuse
"I had been very ill with 'flu for two weeks"
Cllr Khan managed to drag himself from his sickbed to attend a lunch with key members of the Somali community - many of whom are Dutch citizens and thus entitled to vote in local and European elections, hence Cllr Khan's eagerness to sign them up. He managed to get to this apparently long-standing engagement just four days before he was able to get those application forms down to the Elections Office. Now, I would consider ensuring that people are enfranchised a key function, so I would not want anything to get in the way of that happening - least of all putting it second to getting a good lunch.
Unsurprisingly, John Hemming has been swift to criticise - the elections office. You see, this only came to light because one of the staff in the office made a mistake and rang the Labour Party regional organiser, rather than dialling the Liberal Democrat. He was in a meeting, so they left a brief message to explain the concerns and didn't realise that they'd called the wrong person until later. John's been supportive of this highly-pressured member of staff, accusing them of Labour bias and has pointed out that they are open to prosecution - not that he wants to wield the axe, of course. He's continued his kind words for City Council employees by claiming that polling station staff have been campaigning for Labour,
I think it is important in the light of what happened that we have a proper inquiry into staff in the elections office campaigning for the Labour Party.... The elections office has for a number of years had people who have been working for the Labour Party. We have Labour activists running polling stations, this is Mugabe territory
although he's now backtracked and says that it only applies to three or four cases in previous elections. As there are 300 or more polling stations, that's hardly endemic - although clearly, independence is expected and bias shouldn't be permitted, even in less than 1% of the cases. Very dramatic, I'm sure, but entirely baseless. John's outbursts are becoming increasingly off the wall and embarrassing to the Liberal Democrats and to our City.
Rumours have it that the Tories have had enough and if the voters in Aston don't solve the problem, Cllr Khan will have to step away from the Cabinet table.
John has struck back with a photograph of a Labour councillor apparently entering the house of a voter who has a postal vote. This was taken on Tuesday, after the first batch of postal votes was sent out on Monday, although it isn't known if the voter had received the ballot paper as a second batch was sent out on Tuesday. Labour activists have all been briefed to not do this and any breach of that policy can have serious consequences for the individual concerned in terms of the party, although it is not illegal and not against the Electoral Commission guidelines.
I fear that more legal action is certain over Aston after the election.
Apparently, Lembit Opik - my favourite Lib Dem MP - is engaged again, this time to one, or possibly both, of the Cheeky Girls (that's enough to make me consider joining UKIP). Let's hope it works out better than his last relationship.
Lembit Opik was a drunken, tight-fisted, shambolic show-off with hideous clothes. He said he was psychic and that asteroids will destroy Earth. No wonder he told me, 'You mark my words. I'll end up in No. 10'...
Most of us are familiar with the concept of 'Budget Purdah,' when the Chancellor of the Exchequer refrains from comment on economic issues in the run-up to his budget. There's another kind - that of 'Election Purdah.'
The period between the notice of an election and the election itself should preclude proactive publicity in all its forms of candidates and other politicians involved directly in the election. Publicity should not deal with controversial issues or report views, proposals or recommendations in such a way that identifies them with individual members or groups of members.
I raise this, because Martin Mullaney's scrutiny committee gave the green light to the A34 Red Route through Springfield. This has been opposed by many traders along the Stratford Road, running through Cllr Jerry Evans' ward. Cllr Evans is up for election this year and also has the luck to serve on Cllr Mullaney's scrutiny committee. He was also the author of a 'minority' report addendum to the main scrutiny report, the only voice amongst the all-party committee calling for
Now, I quite like Martin and Jerry, but this is a little naughty.
No Code has been breached here for the following reasons: 1) The Council has done NO publicity on this report. I've done it by giving a copy of the report to the press. 2) This is not a 'decision', it merely Committee business and purely advisory.
Hmm.
If Martin, as Chair of the Scrutiny Committee (nominally a council, rather than a party political appointment) has given this report to the press, then that qualifies as proactive publicity - it isn't a response to a question, it is putting the report out there. Furthermore, the code explicitly covers 'recommendations' - which this report certainly is. Martin continues,
all I can say is that the Scrutiny Committee officers were happy that this report did not breach the election purda law. I didn't put any pressure on them to alter their process. They followed Committee process and the Senior Officer in charge of Scrutiny was kept fully involved throughout that process.
Well, the officers seem to think that this is perfectly fine, but I'm still not convinced.
Don't get me wrong - this isn't a huge issue and I'm not so exercised that I'm about to go bleating to Mirza Ahmad (the Chief Legal Officer), but I do think that the Lib Dems haven't covered themselves in glory over the past week - John Hemming is STILL trying to defend Saeed Aehmed and the soon-to-be-defeated Cllr Ayoub Khan, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
On The Stirrer, John Hemming innocently asks if it is proper for the Respect candidate in Sparkbrook to be a council employee - as it has been rumoured. A good rule in politics is never to ask a question unless you are sure of the answer.
My sources suggest that the gentleman in question has handed in his resignation, but the rules state that you have to have served your 30 days notice AND cleared the council payroll by the time nominations closed - which takes a further 30 days. His consent to nomination form includes paragraphs confirming that he is a valid candidate.
Just to explain for civilians - you cannot stand for a council that employs you, although you can run for a different council. A Birmingham City Council employee could run for Solihull council. Anyone can run for parliamentary or European election - with an exception. The exception would be a politically restricted post - a council employee of significant seniority is prohibited from holding posts within a political party or running for any election. That's a complex piece of legislation simplified, but you get the general idea.
Now, here's the clever bit. John Hemming knows the rules exceptionally well and knew about this some weeks ago.
Leaving it until now means that the candidate has a choice. He can withdraw before Wednesday, but Respect can't nominate a replacement as nominations closed last Friday, leaving a run off in Sparkbrook between the Lib Dems, Labour and Talib Hussain (the former Bond baddie, turned Liberal, turned Independent). I know other parties are standing, but I'm not going to bet the ranch on the BNP, the Tories or the Greens coming through the gap and winning.
The alternative is even more entertaining - say the candidate decides to tough it out and goes into the poll and IS ineligible. He doesn't have to win, he just has to get enough votes to potentially make a difference to the result. In that case, the patented John Hemming Acme Election Petition Generator will whirr into action and produce a legal document. When this gets to the election commissioner, he - or she - can not only void the election but can also demand that the party fielding the ineligible candidate covers the costs of the rerun.
Anyone know how deep George Galloway's pockets are? We could be about to find out.
The candidate in question has stated that he left the council formally on the 23 March, having given notice in January. It has also been suggested that this is yet another Lib Dem smear tactic and I appear to have landed in the middle as a co-conspirator according to Paul Dale in the Post. Anyone who has read this blog for any period of time will know just how big a load of cobblers that idea is. My sources could be wrong and I may have made a genuine error in my understanding of the law - I'm not a lawyer (although I know a few). Anyway, as with all internet postings, your mileage may vary.
If Cllr Ayoub Khan has any sense of honour, he will announce that he will stand down from the council and will not contest the elections on May 1. If the Liberals have any sense of justice, Saeed Aehmed will never again be allowed to contest an election on their ticket.
The outcome of the Aston election petition is another stain on the reputation of Birmingham - a stain created by Liberal desperation to hang on to council seats by fair means or foul, even if it means inventing a court case. In doing so, they have contrived to waste half a million pounds of public money on what is little more than a vanity prosecution. The election commissioner, Timothy Straker QC, slammed both of the Liberals for
an unwarranted attempt was made by Mr Aehmed and Mr Ayoub Khan to suggest that Mr Afzal was seeking illegitimately to influence the pursuit of the case
and has reported them to the High Court. The whole case has now been reported to the DPP and to the police.
Amazingly, Cllr Khan - a barrister - claimed that witnesses had been intimidated by Cllr Afzal, but rather than reporting it to the police or even raising it at the start of the trial, he decided to wait almost two weeks before mentioning it - a decision that astonished the commissioner.
The petitioner [Saeed Aehmed] and Mr Ayoub Khan used “unrelated and peripheral events against the First Respondent [Mr Afzal]. This included a scurrilous and unwarranted allegation that he was involved in witness intimidation.
Further, Cllr Khan provided further evidence that was dismissed by the commissioner as clearly no more than an unsupported and unsubstantiated assertion directed against Mr Afzal
Furthermore, speaking about council hopeful Saeed Aehmed - he of the name change, the commissioner damned him
I have formed a very poor impression of the Petitioner as a witness. In my judgement, having seen him in the witness box and observed him through the trial, I do not consider that I should believe any of his evidence.... unless it is either entirely uncontroversial or independently corroborated
From the Birmingham Post
Describing Mr Aehmed as a "very poor witness", Mr Straker said no medical evidence had been produced in court to substantiate his disability grant or his claim that for several months in 1993 he was drifiting in and out of consciousness. A series of boxes ticked on one of the forms indicated that Mr Aehmed had difficulty in going outside, moving around, taking a bath, climbing the stairs, sitting down and using the toilet. Mr Straker said: "It was being recorded that the Petitioner was, effectively, helpless. This, I consider, was never the position. "If matters were so bad why do the medical records not record such as the position? How is it that the Petitioner now appears healthy with there being credible evidence that at all material times he was an active man anxious to play a role in community affairs?"
Mr Aehmed claims that the NHS have lost the records.
And the dog ate his homework.
We deserve better than this. Resignations are called for - Tilsley can't stand by and say that thre is no reason Ayoub Khan cannot be a candidate. John Hemming's crusade against electoral malpractice doesn't include criticising his colleagues in Birmingham, for some reason. His normally vocal site is silent on the issue so far, although he was swift to demand the expulsion of Labour members accused of electoral malpractice. Tilsley - and the power behind the throne Hemming - want to allow an internal inquiry to sweep things under the carpet. They've had a very public enquiry conducted at our expense - what else is there that could be said?
Even the Post - normally sympathetic - is firing both barrels at the Liberals. Marc Reeves said
My paper will demand the resignation of Aston Lib Dem councillor Ayoub Khan, the cabinet member for local services, because - simply - we've had enough of this city's reputation being dragged through the mud.
Yesterday was April 1st and I was taken in by the story that Nick Clegg, who is apparently still the leader of the Liberal Democrats, against all the odds, has had up to 30 lovers.
Clearly we have an arms race amongst the Liberal Democrat MPs.
Abortion votes are, by convention, not subject to party whip. This is an area of policy-making that is best kept out of the party political structure - witness the way the issue has polluted the political environment in the US.
Conservative MP (and member of the Tombstone group of right-wingers) Nadine Dorries has strong views in opposition to abortion and has enthusiastically leapt aboard the Alive and Kicking campaign which is highlighting MPs who have voted in favour of choice and have majorities under 5000. Curiously, the three she has picked on so far have all been Labour women - Laura Moffat, Barbara Follett and Jacqui Smith.
In the name of balance, here's a couple of equally vulnerable Tories that should draw her attention - and a Lib Dem as well.
I hope that Nadine will feature these in future columns - I wouldn't want to think that she's exploiting a serious ethical issue for cheap political gain.
Shameless nicking from Bob Piper and Luke Akehurst in the name of legal covering of backside.
LEGAL NOTICE.
Anything published here from now until polling day that seeks to influence people to vote Labour is:
Promoted by John O'Shea of 39 Douglas Road, B27 6HH on behalf of the Labour Party Candidates, care of 39 Victoria Street London, SW1H 0HA .
Hosted (printed) by Blogger.com (Google Inc) of 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 who are not responsible for any of the contents of these posts.
Please note however, that The Labour Party is not responsible for the content of this website or individual posts as, unless specifically stated, I am writing solely in a personal and individual capacity.
(EDIT - Corrected hyperlink to Luke Akehurst's blog)
