John Foley: A Liverpool Legend

Editorial comment: Most towns and cities have a colourful figure who stands out against the trend. In Liverpool, John Foley seems to have mastered the art of embracing an awkward squad to challenge the local scenario. The Liverpool Echo describes John as 'father figure of St John's Market', and a threat to those he felt were 'doing wrong'. He was a campaigner on many issues, including helping to rescue the famous market when it was threatened with closure. He died on the 9th, September, in Royal Liverpool Hospital after catching Covid-19. John gained the admiration of many from Liberals, like Cllr Richard Kemp, who campaigned with him on a number of issues, to Scouse anarcho-syndicalists in the local Solidarity Federation.

Colin Laphan, a close friend of John’s and the chair of the St John’s Market Traders Association, told The Echo:

'He was everything that was good about Scousers, he was salt of the earth, a fighter for justice – he was what Liverpool is all about.'

He added: 'The idea that anyone could think this virus isn’t serious is insanity. We have lost two of our friends and traders – John had no other illnesses before he got covid.'

***********************************************

Tribute to John Foley: Liverpool legend by Mike C.

CAMPAIGNER and market stallholder John Foley has passed away from coronavirus at the age of 55.

John was well-known in his native Liverpool where he was a formidable campaigner against injustice and a thorn in the side of the powerful.

He fought a long campaign against Ryanair, arguing that the airline had unfairly terminated his daughter's employment whilst profiting from the thousands of euros she had paid for her flight attendant training.

The campaign involved publicity stunts such as climbing onto the roof of Liverpool John Lennon Airport, picketing Ryanair's AGM in Dublin, disrupting the Grand National and handcuffing himself to the goalposts during a Premier League match.

His campaign was backed by the Liverpool branch of the Solidarity Federation who supported many of his pickets and organised a day of action at European airports through the International Workers' Association.

Latterly, he pursued a private company contracted by Liverpool City Council to enforce litter fines. John believed the company were profiting by unfairly targeting vulnerable people on low incomes. The council eventually capitulated and ended the contract.

As a stallholder in Liverpool's St John's Market, John campaigned against the council's attempts to charge traders sky-high rents, and organised a rally to demand the re-opening of the market which remained closed even though other retailers were open following lockdown.

His final campaign was to stop the closure of two local care homes, which was ultimately successful.

As well as being a passionate campaigner against injustice, John was a dedicated family man, and a warm and genuine bloke. I was proud to have known him and campaigned alongside him.

GO TO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0I-MZC2FEI

********************************************

Rochdale Cllr Faisal Rana's Ethnic Politics

Editorial comment:

In a tweet on July 22 Rochdale Cllr Rana says:

'Too few BAME councillors leads to bad decisions.'

Cllr Faisal Rana@FaisalRana48·

Yet some would say Rochdale has tended to be

over-represented by Muslim councillors, and it is worth

examining if this has been in historic terms healthy for

democracy and the moral status of the town.

Worries have been voiced in Rochdale about 
the problems of the Indian sub-continent 
becoming too much of an issue

in the town's politics.

I say this because since the early 1970s 
I have had a close personal and political 
relationship with the Kashmir community

in this town, and even accompanied a 
party of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front 
supporters when in 1992 we went to the 
House of Commons to appeal to get the backing 
of Paddy Ashdown, the then Lib Dem leader, 
in their conflict on the Indian sub-continent 
between the Jammu & Kashmir Liberation 
Front (JKLF), and the Indian government.

***********************

ROCHDALE'S TRAGIC HISTORY OF ETHNIC POLITICS

by Brian Bamford

RACIAL participation in the politics of Rochdale stems from the 1970s, when the then Rochdale MP Cyril Smith established a close relationship with the Muslim community. This was later well documented in the book 'Cyril Smith: Smile for the Camera' by the now disgraced former Rochdale MP, Simon Danzcuk.* For more than 20 years 1972 during the period Smith was in office as the local MP, the Asian community there continually supported the Liberals and the Liberal Democrats. Only later after Liz Lynne, who succeeded Smith as the Rochdale MP, lost the seat to Labour in 1997 did the Muslims in the town begin to transfer their affections to the Labour Party.  After the now disgraced MP Simon Danzcuk, became the Rochdale MP in 2010 the links between the the local Asians and the party accelerated, and the Labour Councillor Faisal Rana has now been able to boast in a post on his Blog entitled: 'How Labour In Rochdale Is Becoming A More Inclusive Party.'

Councillor Rana writes: 'All too often, an ingrained if unspoken prejudice exists in many Labour Party branches that BAME candidates cannot win in predominantly white seats. The selection process and selection meetings are poorly run and often loaded against minority ethnic minority candidates. How many branches, even today, meet on licenced premises discouraging many mumslim [sic] members from taking part? Even when a BAME member is selected as a candidate, it is likely to be in a seat that the party has little or no chance in winning.'

At present according to Carl Faulkner 'Rochdale Council has 12 ‘Asian’ councillors – that equates to about 20% of councillors. The 2011 census showed that the total ‘minority’ population was about 21%. Not all of these are ‘Asian’ of course.

After he was elected Councillor Rana was cautioned for electoral fraud by the police for voting twice in the local elections. Yet, he still retained his seat and has since been promoted. When I spoke to another Rochdale Muslim councillor about the shame that Rana was bringing upon the Labour Party by his conduct I was told that he (Rana) has too much influence over the leader of the Rochdale Labour Party Alan Brett.

Despite what Cllr Rana and the community of scholars might say 'Ethnic identity politics' doesn't have a very noble tradition in Rochdale. 
 

* In his book about Cyril Smith, Smile for the Camera, co-written with a fellow Labour activist, Matthew Baker, Simon Danczuk details Smith's close relationship with the Muslim community in Rochdale, including the encouragement of electoral fraud amongst them, apparently. According to Danczuk, Cyril Smith "transformed politics in the Asian community and became a powerful voice," as they switched from Labour to Liberal en bloc, and Smith prevented people being deported as illegal immigrants and supported the building of the first mosque in the Lancashire town. Danczuk continues: "It was in this community that Cyril unquestionably had the biggest influence."

The Data Death Ship for anti-Brexit team

ACCORDING to the Xmas issue of Private Eye both Jeremy Corbyn and Jo Swinson had 'hard data telling them they would go down to an epic defeat if they gave prime minister Boris Johnson the election he craved.' 

What followed was what we now know to be a disaster.  

 Naomi Smith, cheif executive of the pro-European campaign group Best for Britain, commissioned a highly expensive 'multi-level poll' of British political attitudes. In June's Peterborough by-election it it prediction of Labour's vote share was only 0.6% off the actual result.  Private Eye claimed the Best for Britain researchers had considered what would happen if the Brexit Party leader, Nigel Farage, had decided to help the Tories. In the 2017 general election, Ukip didn't stand in hundereds of constituencies with pro-Brexit MPs. 

Best for Britain took their findings to the Lib Dem's cheif executive Nick Harvey, and Rhiannon Leaman, Swin's cheif of staff.  They continued to disbelieve the figures until the 28th, October when they voted to overturn the provision of the Fixed Term Parliament Act and give Johnson his election. 

The Best for Britian then tried Labour's James Frith, Anne Turley and other Labour backbench MPs were more receptive.  They were, according to Private Eye, aware that many of their voters hated Corbyn.  Private Eye added:  'They also knew they were just a handful of Commons votes from securing a second Brexit referendum.'

But Corbyn ordered Labour MPs to back an election saying:  'This is a once in-a-generationh chance to build a country for the many, not the few.'  'Bring it on' cried his sidekick Laura   Pidcock.  Swinson,and Turvey lost their seats. and Johson won his predicted majority.

******************

BREXIT: The Lib Dem position!

 from Jo Swinson

IN the middle of this Brexit chaos, I want to be 100% clear about where we stand.

Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal has passed its first vote in the House of Commons, but make no mistake: this is not a done deal.

The United Kingdom is still in the European Union.

It’s with a heavy heart and immense disappointment that I say Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal has only passed because of Corbyn's Labour party.

Many Labour MPs voted for this deal, and Corbyn’s weakness on Brexit has passed this deal.

We are now on the path to Brexit – all because Jeremy Corbyn is not a Remainer and his Labour MPs have bailed out Boris Johnson.

This is a difficult night for our country, and I want you to hear this from me and from the Liberal Democrats: you are not alone.

You have a strong team of Liberal Democrat MPs fighting your corner in Parliament.

We are standing strong for our future.

We are growing the movement for a People’s Vote.

We’re doing absolutely everything we can to stop Brexit.

The vote in Parliament tonight is the first in a long series of votes that Boris Johnson has to win - and it does not mean that we have left the EU.

There are many opportunities left to stop Brexit. 

******************

Loose talk by Job Centre DWP staff!

 Manchester LibDem Cllr. John Leech* reports:

Responding to the shocking comments made by DWP staff about Universal Credit claimants, the Liberal Democrats have blamed "Boris Johnson’s hateful Tory Government" for promoting hateful language.

Benefits managers have been caught on tape making horrifying comments about claimants including blowing them up with a grenade and “faking it", according to the Mirror on Sunday.

In one conversation a manager says: “The police sometimes have sting operations where they gather people together. We should nominate one person to throw a grenade in.”

One said they “have absolutely no time” for claimants with depression and anxiety.

The Liberal Democrats have blamed "Boris Johnson’s hateful Tory Government" for "actively promoting cruel language."

Liberal Democrat John Leech voted against the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and was the very first MP in the House of Commons to speak out against key parts of the Act including the Under Occupancy Penalty (‘Bedroom Tax’) and Universal Credit.

*  John Leech was one of two Lib Dem MPs to vote against entering Coalition in 2010 and the very first MP to speak out against the under-occupancy penalty (commonly called the 'bedroom tax') in Parliament.

*************

The Delegitimising of Jeremy Corbyn

by Les May

FIRST some figures. Amongst the Opposition parties Labour has 247 seats, the SNP 35, Independents 15, Liberal Democrats 14, Independent Group for Change 5, Plaid Cymru 4 and the Green Party 1.  In other words Labour has more than three times the rest of the Opposition parties combined and in particular it has 233 seats more than the Liberal Democrats.

So if there is a ‘no confidence’ vote in Parliament and the Johnson government loses its majority and is unable to secure a majority in a second vote within 14 days the outcome should be either an immediate general election or a cross party ‘caretaker’ government mandated to delay leaving the European Union without a deal, it would seem to be uncontestable that the leader of the caretaker administration should be Jeremy Corbyn.

Apparently not. Jo Swinson, who since July has been leader of the LibDems, has said he ‘risks jeopardising a vote of no confidence in the government by insisting he becomes caretaker PM’.  Previously she had said he was ‘divisive’.

Writing in the ‘i’ last week Kate Maltby, who on her website modestly describes herself as ‘a critic, columnist and scholar’ tried to cast doubt on Corbyn’s fitness to lead by claiming that some of his social media supporters were ‘anti-semitic’ and were linked to those opposed to vaccination of children. (As she provided zero evidence for these claims I do hope she is a little more assiduous in carrying out research for the PhD she tells us she is doing on her website.)

In mid August Caroline Lucas decided she would bypass Corbyn by offering to broker a deal for ten women MPs to form a cross party Cabinet. (Interestingly she was attacked in the Guardian because, amongst other things, none of them were ‘trans’ and most were not lesbians.)

Yesterday Yasmin Alibhai-Brown used her column in the ‘i’ to claim he was ‘worryingly beholden to his close, maniacally anti-capitalist advisers’ and that he should let Caroline Lucas lead a temporary government of national unity.

What these women are about is delegitimising Corbyn and, by inference, Labour’s claim to be the party to form a caretaker government.  Corbyn has been elected leader of the Labour party on two occasions.  He was leader of the party when it confounded the pundits by denying Theresa May a clear majority in 2017.   None of the four women referred to above can make anything approaching such a claim.

You cannot maintain credibility by first attacking Boris Johnson for avoiding scrutiny by closing down Parliament for five weeks and then seeking to find an excuse for bypassing the leader of the largest opposition party.  If Jo Swinson is listening, ‘You have 14 MPs, Corbyn has 247.  Go figure’.

*************

The Politics of Delusion

by Les May

I VOTE Labour. In the referendum I voted to remain in the EU, but accepted the result.   At no time have I felt it necessary to criticise Labour’s policy about Brexit. It has confounded the ‘scribblers’ in the media whose criticism has had to be limited to grumbling about its lack of clarity. How nice it would have been for them if Labour had declared its support for, or opposition to, a further referendum.  They would have been able to look forward to lots of ‘exclusive’ briefings from Labour MPs in favour of or against the policy, as the equivalent of open warfare gripped the party. It has not happened.

Credit for this not happening is not due to Corbyn alone.  Those seen as ‘big names’ in the party who do not entirely agree with his stance, John McDonnell, Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer, plus those Labour MPs which some sections of the media would find more congenial as Labour leader, e.g. Yvette Cooper, Hillary Benn and Stephen Kinnock, have been muted in their criticism.

Criticism has tended to come from Labour MPs eager to convince us that if only it would adopt their preferred strategy of supporting a second referendum and campaigning to remain in the EU, the party’s poll ratings would magically improve.

What people who believe this forget is that Labour does not have a majority in Parliament. Labour is essentially a bystander with no power to influence the decisions of the next prime minister, who at this moment is being selected by 160,000 Tory party members in no way representative of the wider population and who seem happy to trash the economy, the union with Scotland and tear up the international treaty which gave guarantees to the people of Ireland in a single minded pursuit of leaving the EU.

If Labour did adopt such a strategy it would have the support of the Welsh and Scottish nationalists, LibDems, MPs who identify themselves as Independent and some Tories.   Even if collectively the different groupings could muster a majority, constitutionally there appears to be no mechanism by which Parliament can prevent a Johnson or Hunt led government forcing us to leave the EU without a deal. To believe that Labour declaring itself in favour of a second referendum and that it will campaign to remain in the EU will in some way influence what happens when a Johnson or Hunt led government takes over is the politics of delusion.

The people who believe this are not alone in being deluded. Corbyn, Hunt and Johnson all share their own delusions.  They believe that if they become Prime Minister they will be able to negotiate with the EU to produce something that is different from the deal that was rejected three times by Parliament.  Corbyn has already tried to sweet talk the Irish government to no avail. I doubt whether the other 27 countries of the EU are exactly quaking in the boots at the prospect of meeting Boris or Jeremy who both seem to think that threatening to leave with ‘no deal’ is going to wring some major concession from the EU.

Labour’s worst nightmare has to be that blame will be dumped on it for the chaos that will follow if Hunt or Johnson have to ‘put their money where their mouth is’ and the UK leaves the EU without a deal.  Labour will be accused of doing ‘too little, too late’ by people who don’t want to acknowledge that its ability to significantly affect whether the UK leaves the EU after the referendum was always limited. Labour’s best option now is probably to look to a damage limitation strategy. 

********** 

Declaration of Human Rights:

Are we in violation?
Everyone has Right to Free Speech!

by John Wilkins

MANY of us in this country believe passionately in freedom of expression within the law.  Is this the situation today?  I would argue no.

If we truly had such a freedom why is it often difficult getting your views listened to and getting them published even more so. 
 
In the case of the local media there is a diminishing ability to express your views particularly if they are challenging to those in power in our Town Halls.  Letters columns in my local papers are almost non-existent and the local on-line paper is becoming more cautious in its reporting.  Many feel that its reliance on advertising revenue from our local council could be a reason.

However it is also on the national stage that there is an in-balance in reporting important issues, largely because the print media is 80% dominated by papers with what appears a right wing bias. Many fear the BBC treads cautiously at times so has to not upset the powers in Westminster.

You may disagree with me but I will give one example which concerns the vendetta, not too strong an expression in my view, against Jeremy Corbyn.  On the phone to a friend he mentioned a newspaper he had just seen which contained no less than 13 articles detrimental to Corbyn, plus 3 attacking the Labour Party.  I write not as a member of Labour nor any other but I would like to see more balanced reporting, surely there are more issues to be discussed than attacks on one politician, like him or loath him?

A friend has tried to create a newspaper with more left wing views to counter some of the bias in our press and that includes holding our local Labour run Council to account as well as the Conservative Government.  Sadly his criticism of the local Labour leader of Council incurred the wrath of a the then chair of his CLP.  This escalated into criticism of a front page of my friends newspaper which was construed as anti-Semitic and the flames were fanned by right wing blogger,  Guido Fawkes.  As a result fury from the Board of Deputies gave ammunition for Labour to suspend him.  This was overturned on appeal but other contributors were targetted for abuse on social media, including a MEP, some were threats of violence and warnings that MOSSAD knew who they were.
Fast forward several months and a meeting was organised to discuss creating more media outlets expressing left wing views.  Here is where the UN declaration of Human Rights would appear to have been violated by sections of the Jewish community.

Article 19. 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'

Article 20. (1) 'Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.'
Over a dozen venues were approached and all bowed down to pressure not to allow the meeting on their premises.  The meeting did happen despite this this opposition.  The venue was kept secret until the last minute but a bogus venue was picketed by protesters.  One lone photographer from the Jewish Chronicle did appear but as the turn out was low and the meeting late starting he was fobbed off by being told that the meeting was probably not going to take place.
It did, albeit with a small audience, but including many who had travelled from as far as Devon, London and N. Wales.  Some had no particular political allegiance. Indeed a friend of mine persuaded his politically disinterested wife to attend and she is now a passionate supporter of Jeremy Corbyn!
Whatever your political views I hope you share with me the concerns I have raised and the report published only last year by Reporters without Borders, which campaigns for journalistic freedom.  They placed the UK 40 th. out of 180 countries on its World Press Freedom Index. Some of the countries ranked above us include 'Uruguay, Samoa and Chile for restrictions on reporters seeking to hold power to account'. (The Guardian Wed. 25 April 2018)
As we approach the 200 year anniversary of Peterloo, which captured the imagination of the national press and led indirectly to creation of the then Manchester Guardian a few decades later I wonder if we have come as far as we should in terms of freedom of expression.
Listen to the words expressed about freedom of expression centuries ago:
"The right to free speech is more important than the content of the speech."  Voltaire.

“I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It”.

(Attributed to Voltaire, but whilst he expressed such sentiments it was first published by English writer/ historian, Evelyn Beatrice Hall without quotation marks in her book about Voltaire and is now claimed to be her words.)
People in the UK have the right to free speech including Boris Johnson, Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage as well as those on the Labour left even if they are sometimes careless in their choice of words.  One exception is that if those words can be construed as incitement to violence.  One thing I have noted is the violent rhetoric of the far left and the far right and the pro Israel lobby.  Even the calm, reasoned words of outgoing leader of the Lib Dems, Vince Cable were lambasted cruelly by the far left for daring to claim Manchester could be doing more to eradicate rough sleeping in Manchester.  Yet one Labour councillor's solution had been to arrest and fine those he termed aggressive beggars!
Please, those of you who believe in democracy and freedom of expression speak out when those values are threatened, but do so in a calm reasoned manner.
***********

Manchester LibDem Boss Upbraids NV on Critique

 BELOW John Leech, the leader of the 

LibDems on Greater Manchester Council,

queries Northern Voices, over its criticism of Andy

Kelly and the LibDem opposition on the Labour 

dominated Rochdale Council. 

Dear Brian

I would have thought that this is something you ought to be taking up with Rochdale Labour Councillors, who have given Cllr Rana this role. I am also not sure what you are suggesting in relation to Cllr Andy Kelly. He has an excellent attendance record at Council, and I think has only missed one Council meeting in 8 years. I know from personal experience that it is very tough to attend everything when you are the only Councillor, and I think that Cllr Kelly has done an excellent job of holding the Labour Council to account.

Kind regards

John Leech

BREXIT CONSIDERED by Vernon Bogdanor

ON June 23, 2016, British voters decided by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union.  Since then, British politics has been convulsed by the referendum’s repercussions. Some Remainers do not accept the finality of the vote.  The margin, they argue, was too narrow to provide a mandate for fundamental change, while some of the arguments that persuaded voters to support Leave were mendacious.  The hope that Britain could, in the words of then-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, have its cake and eat it has proved misplaced.

The hope that Britain could, in the words of then-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, have its cake and eat it has proved misplaced.

If, to alter the metaphor, one leaves a tennis club because one does not wish to pay the subscription and does not like the rules, one will not be able to continue to use the tennis courts on the same basis as the members. Therefore, some Remainers conclude, there should be a second referendum, to discover whether the British people still wish to leave the European Union.

The European issue is difficult for Parliament to resolve for two reasons. The first is that May’s government holds only a minority of seats—317 out of the 650—in the House of Commons, meaning it must rely for its narrow majority on the 10 members of parliament from the vehemently pro-Brexit Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland. But, perhaps even more important, both the Conservatives and the opposition Labour Party are internally divided between Remainers and Brexiteers. That division reflects a geographical and cultural division in the country.

The large cities, together with Scotland and Northern Ireland, welcome globalization and are relaxed about the EU’s principle of freedom of movement. They voted to remain. But smaller towns and older manufacturing areas, in which many feel left behind, are hostile to globalization and freedom of movement, which, they argue, have kept wages down and put undue pressure on public services. These areas supported the Leave campaign.

Parliament has enacted that Britain will leave the EU on March 29. After long and tortuous negotiations, Prime Minister Theresa May in November 2018 secured a deal with the EU. That deal comprises a legally binding withdrawal agreement providing for a transition period until December 2020, during which Britain will remain bound by EU rules while negotiating the final relationship. The pattern of that relationship is outlined in a nonbinding political declaration that hints at an outcome in which Britain could negotiate independent trade agreements, while also providing it with some degree of frictionless trade with the EU.

May’s cabinet, despite internal tensions between Remainers and Brexiteers, accepted the deal. But the Tories’ DUP allies were fiercely opposed to it, as they claimed that it might separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom by preventing a hard border with the Irish Republic and potentially creating a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The deal was also opposed both by Brexiteers in the Conservative Party, who claimed that it tied Britain too closely to the EU, and by Remainers—primarily Labour, but also Liberal Democrats and Scottish Nationalists—who argued that it allowed for too many barriers to the export of goods and services to the EU. This coalition of incompatibles imposed a crushing defeat on the government motion to accept the deal on Jan. 15. Just 202 MPs supported it, while 432 rejected it.

A defeat of this magnitude is unparalleled in Britain’s parliamentary history. No fewer than 118 Conservatives, mostly hard Brexiteers, voted against the deal, with just 196 Conservatives supporting it. And many of those who voted for it had no choice.  (Because approximately 100 Conservative MPs are ministers or on the government payroll, they were duty-bound to support May or resign.  This means that a majority of Conservative backbenchers were opposed to the deal.) May’s defeat, in what was arguably the most important parliamentary vote in Britain since World War II, creates a moment of acute danger for the prime minister, the government, the Conservative Party, and the country.

A harder Brexit to placate Conservative rebels would alienate Conservative Remainers. Conversely, a softer Brexit to win support from the opposition parties would increase the number of Conservative rebels.

The hope was that the deal could unite Brexiteers and Remainers. Instead it has driven them further apart. A harder Brexit to placate Conservative rebels would alienate Conservative Remainers. Conversely, a softer Brexit to win support from the opposition parties would increase the number of Conservative rebels. Indeed, there may be no deal that could hold the Conservative Party together; an alternative could end the cabinet truce and possibly lead to the disintegration of the minority government, with a general election to follow.

It has happened before. In 1979, the Labour minority government led by James Callaghan disintegrated in this way, in part because Labour was internally divided on the issue of devolving power to Scotland. Then, in 1951, Clement Attlee’s Labour government, which enjoyed a majority of only five, disintegrated because the party was internally divided between left and right. In both cases, long periods in the opposition followed.

The vote also creates a moment of danger for the country. Since Parliament has already approved a bill stating Brexit will occur on March 29, that is the default position. The exit date can, admittedly, be extended with the agreement of the other 27 members of the European Union. But those countries may be unwilling to agree if the only reason for extension is that MPs, 30 months after the referendum, still cannot make up their minds. In any case, an extension would only postpone the dilemma. It would not resolve it.

Unless Parliament passes new legislation—and there are now fewer than 40 sitting days before March 29—Britain will leave the EU without a deal.  That is regarded by most commentators as disastrous, since it would mean that EU customs duties and, even more disadvantageously, an intimidating host of EU regulations would be imposed on British exports.  It would no longer be as easy to send goods from London to Paris or Frankfurt as it is to send goods from London to Edinburgh.

The Jan. 15 vote showed what MPs are against. But there seems to be little agreement on what they are for. Theresa May is now seeking consensus through all-party talks, although she has not yet budged on her so-called red lines, namely that Britain should leave both the European customs union (in order to pursue an independent trade policy) and the single market (to avoid allowing free movement of people and the jurisdiction of EU courts).   And the opposition parties see no reason to help her. Labour is unwilling to allow its deep internal divisions to be publicly exposed by articulating a clear alternative policy. It seeks not consensus but a general election to remove the Conservatives from power.   The Liberal Democrats seek a second referendum, while the Scottish nationalists seek to exploit the government’s difficulties to further the case for independence.
There is no obvious resolution of the problem that could secure majority support.

There is no obvious resolution of the problem that could secure majority support.  Were Britain to remain in the EU’s customs union, it would be unable to sign independent trade agreements.  Were it to remain in the EU’s internal market, it would have to accept freedom of movement.  Yet control of immigration from the European Union was one of the main motivations behind the Brexit vote.
At this point, there seem to be just three alternatives. The first is May’s deal, perhaps in a slightly modified form.  The second is for Britain to leave the EU without a deal; even though most MPs are against a no-deal Brexit, they find themselves unable to agree on an alternative.  The third is for Parliament throw the issue back to the people in a second referendum, even though the prime minister has so far opposed such a move, and its advocates cannot agree on the question to be asked.  Finally, given that the country remains almost evenly divided, a second referendum would not necessarily resolve the conflict.

The issue of Britain’s place in (or out of) Europe has arguably destroyed five of the last six Conservative prime ministers—Harold Macmillan, Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, and David Cameron.  It may be about to bring down another.

Vernon Bogdanor is a professor of government at King’s College, London. His book Brexit and the Constitution will be published next year. In 2019, he will be giving the Stimson lecture at Yale University on the consequences of Brexit for Britain and the European Union.

************

David Steel: MP's assault on lads in Rochdale

by Brian Bamford

LORD Steel, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, has today been suspended by the party owing to his admission made to a child abuse inquiry about how he handled allegations about the late Rochdale MP Cyril Smith in 1979.

Yesterday the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) heard that no formal inquiry was held by the Lib Dem party into the claims against Smith, which were investigated by the police in  1969 but no prosecution was ever brought.

Addressing the the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse on Wednesday (13 March), Lord Steel said he discussed the allegations with Smith in 1979, after reading a report claiming Smith had abused boys at Rochdale’s Cambridge House Hostel when he was a Labour MP.
Lord Steel said:  'What I said to him was, "What's all this about you in Private Eye?", and he said, rather to my surprise, "It is correct", that he had been in charge of - or had some supervisory role in a children's hostel, that he'd been investigated by the police, and that they had taken no further action, and that was the end of the story.'

[Editor:  Lord Steel is wrong in describing Cambridge House as a 'children's hostel'; it was in fact hostel for teenage lads of working age]

At the time he was abusing his powers over the lads at Cambridge House, Cyril Smith had also been serving as a prominent and influential Labour councillor in Rochdale in the 1960s before later becoming the Liberal and then Liberal Democrat MP for the town between 1972 and 1992.

Labour Councilor assaulted lads at Cambridge House

The claims that Smith had abused his powers by inflicting corporal punishment upon some teenage lads at Cambridge House Hostel in the 1960s innitially appeared in the monthly paper Rochdale's Alternative Paper in May 1979, and these claims were later given national prominence in Private Eye.  In 2012, these allegations  got extensive media coverage after Northern Voices and John Walker former editor of RAP, and Paul Waugh of the Politics Home website, prevailed upon the then Rochdale MP, Simon Danczuk to include Smith's activities at Cambridge House in his planned parliamentary speech on the sexual grooming of young girls.


Lord Steel also described how he recommended Smith for a knighthood in 1988 and said that he did not pass on any allegations about the sexual abuse of children because 'I was not aware of any such allegations other than the matter referred to…which appeared to have been fully investigated'.
And he said it had not occurred to him that children could still have been at risk from Smith.

'He admitted to me that the report was correct in that he had been investigated by the police at the time and no action taken against him.
'I had already told the inquiry in writing that in my opinion he had been abusing his position in Rochdale Council [that is to gain access to council-run children's homes], but that had been properly a matter for the police and the council, and not for me as he was neither an MP nor even a member of the Liberal Party at the time.
'I was in no position to re-open the investigation.'

 Lord Steel also described recommending Smith for a knighthood in 1988 and said he did not pass on any allegations about the sexual abuse of children because 'I was not aware of any such allegations other than the matter referred to…which appeared to have been fully investigated.'

The allegations that appeared in RAP and Private Eye in 1979, to which Lord Steel appears to be refering to, focused on claims of assault against the lads at Cambridge House rarther than the sexual matters that have been more recently developed in relation to Knowl View.

Lord Steel's nomination of Cyril Smith for Knighthood

In a statement released on Thursday afternoon commenting on the media reporting of the Inquiry, Lord Steel said::  'I am reinforced in my view by reading the previous report of the inquiry sent to me today, which says inter alia 'the Crown Prosecution Service found that the advice which had previously been given could not be faulted (given the law and guidance in place at the time)' and that the honours scrutiny committee had seriously considered his nomination for a knighthood and sent a 'warning of risk' letter to Margaret Thatcher as PM, and that 'clearly she took a similar view' as he was granted the knighthood.
'It is unfortunate that some sections of the media have chosen to extract certain passages of evidence and present them without the full context.
'The inquiry has a serious and sensitive job to undertake and spinning evidence to generate sensationalist headlines only serves to distract from panel's search of the truth.'
 
Lord Steel became the Liberal MP for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles in 1965, and became the party's leader in 1976 after the resignation of Jeremy Thorpe, who later stood trial on charges of conspiracy and incitement to murder.

He was elected as an MSP when the Scottish Parliament opened in 1999, and was appointed as the parliament's first presiding officer.  He has been a life peer in the House of Lords since 1997.

*************

Turning A Blind Eye

by Les May

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL recently published it’s global rankings on public sector transparency. In the past the UK has been in eighth position.  Now we have dropped out of the top ten most transparent nations.  This fall suggests that we should not be complacent in tackling misconduct in public life.

Larger issues such as the suspension from Parliament of Ulster MP Ian Paisley for failing to declare two jaunts paid for by the Sri Lankan government reach the national press and are quickly stamped upon.  These are not the major problem. It’s the complacency about the ‘drip, drip, drip’ of seemingly minor issues of misconduct which leads to increasing distrust of institutions, officials and politicians, and ultimately to a decline in standards in public life.

In recent years Rochdale has had two issues of complacency with regard to somewhat dodgy goings on at the ballot box.  In 2016 a ‘marked register’ went missing under mysterious circumstances in the Spotland and Falinge ward.   I use the word ‘mysterious’ deliberately because no police investigation followed what might have been deliberate theft after a council officer simply declared it ‘lost’.  Other towns take matters like this seriously.

The second was a Rochdale Councillor for the same ward who admitted improperly soliciting a postal vote and then using it to vote twice in the May 2018 local election. Both of these are serious offences.  Again the two offences were treated with complacency. Instead of looking at the seriousness of the crime, which he should have done, Labour leader Allen Brett turned a blind eye to this and chose to look only at the nature of the punishment received; an admission of guilt, a police caution and no jail sentence.

In October 2018 Tory leader Ashley Dearnley raised this matter in a full Council meeting.   Unanimously Labour voted against the Dearnley motion, which is interesting.  Now I know that not all Labour councillors were so complacent as Brett about this example of electoral fraud.  The fact that the Labour vote was unanimous suggests to me that Labour councillors were instructed to vote in a particular way.  That such things do happen can be gleaned from the comment of the ex Labour councillor for Balderstone & Kirkholt who said, ‘I was being told how to vote, being threatened ...’ after resigning from Labour and joining the LibDems.

Allen Brett may have been able to brush this piece of misconduct under the carpet and keep his disgraced councillor onside in August 2018, but it may yet end in tears for Labour.

Last May the ward I live in came close to a serious upset for Labour.  Very unexpectedly the young Tory candidate came close to beating the Labour incumbent.   If he decides to stand again this year and chooses to make an issue of Allen Brett’s obvious willingness to support a Councillor who admitted electoral fraud who knows what might happen? 

******** 

Baffling Ballot Box Probe

Editorial Note:  IN May 2017, Northern Voice produced the piece of investigative journalism below in which we tried to shed light on the shady goings on in the Spotland and Falinge ward.  That was at a time when mysteriously a marked ballot register disappeared without adequate explanation.  Since then the voting irregularities of the new Councillor Faisal Rana has further damaged the image of Rochdale.

*******

In Rochdale, a lack of curiosity at the top?

Written up by Les May based on research by Carl Faulkner and Brian Bamford

THERESA May’s ostensible reason for calling a General Election is that her slender majority of 12 was an obstacle to passing the legislation needed to cope with the fallout from the UK leaving the EU.  The cynical amongst you might wonder if it was not also an opportunity to distract attention from the fact that criminal charges are being considered by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) against at least 30 individuals in the Conservative party.  Some have been MPs in the 2015 parliament and contributing to Theresa’s slim majority, some will be candidates in this election and could be re-elected.   Electoral fraud isn’t just something that happens in other countries it happens here too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud 

It’s not just the Tories who have played fast and loose with the rules on election expenditure.  In recent years Labour and the LibDems have both been fined by the Electoral Commission for breaking election expense rules.  What makes the Tory case different is that the CPS is investigating whether there is evidence that candidates and their agents may be guilty of filing false spending returns. If they are both could be charged with fraud.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alexandra-runswick/election-expenses_b_16146174.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-election-fraud-prosecutions-cps-election-campaign-result-overturn-battle-bus-a7689801.html

This type of fraud is easy to detect once you are alerted to what is happening.   There’s always a ‘paper trail’.  In fact a year ago as part of its ‘Check a Tory’ campaign the Daily Mirror put the election expenses of Tory MPs on line and invited readers to scrutinise them.  What’s much harder to detect is when a small group, with or without the tacit agreement of local party bosses, exploit weaknesses in the system to rig the ballot.  Having a system which ‘on paper’ is foolproof, is fallible if the people who are supposed to implement it fall down on the job.

In August 2015, the government put out a press release announcing that, ‘Sir Eric Pickles, the Government’s Anti-Corruption Champion’, was to review the question of electoral fraud.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sir-eric-pickles-to-examine-electoral-fraud

A year later it was published.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sir-eric-pickles-publishes-report-into-tackling-electoral-fraud 

So far so good.  But as I noted above any system is only as good as the people who implement it. This is what the Electoral Commission have to say about those people:

‘Local Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Returning Officers (ROs) manage elections, and are uniquely placed to detect and prevent electoral fraud.  They should have robust plans in place to identify any suspicious behaviour and should work with the police to investigate any potential electoral fraud.’  (my emphasis)

But what actually happens when something ‘suspicious’ does occur.   Just how easy is it to get anyone to take notice?  Things seem to have changed in Rochdale since 2011 when ex-council leader Colin Lambert was outspoken about what needed to be done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13192008 

Over a year ago Northern Voices was sent the extremely well documented correspondence between a candidate in the Spotland and Falinge ward at last years Rochdale Council elections, and the various bodies which are supposed to deal with questions of electoral fraud.  It runs to some 22 pages.

At that election a 'marked register' went missing.   It should have been handed to the Returning Officer at the point at which the ballot box and other official documents were delivered by the Presiding Officer at the close of poll. It was either accidentally lost or deliberately stolen.  There can be no reason why one of these alternative explanations should be favoured over the other.   If we are to take the fight against electoral fraud seriously the ‘precautionary principle’ suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary it should be assumed that it was stolen, the police should be informed to that effect and a full investigation launched.   It did not happen.

What is clear from this correspondence is that, in spite of Pickles bluster in The Telegraph:
'We should never be frightened to look under the rock when what is crawling underneath threatens us all. It is time to take action to take on the electoral crooks and defend Britain’s free and fair elections', when a complaint is made, no one wants to shoulder the responsibility for making sure that a proper investigation is launched.  It seems that Pickles was right about one thing, ‘the authorities are in a “state of denial” and are “turning a blind eye” to election fraud.’

Equally worrying is that the complainant, Carl Faulkner, who stood as an independent candidate, claims that he was not informed of the loss of the missing register as he should have been and that he was told ‘all candidates were informed about the missing register'.  Northern Voices made an effort to contact the other candidates to find out if and when they were told about the missing register.

Mick Coates, the Green candidate, was quite clear that he had not been officially informed that the mark register was missing.

Enquires with the Lib-Dems suggested that this was also the case with their candidate Matthew Allen, and Ian Duckworth, Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party, was unable to confirm that their candidate, Steven Scholes, had been informed either.

Wendy Cox the Labour candidate did not answer the question directly but said:  
'Thank you for your email. I have passed this to the electoral officer.'  

Quite why she felt she had to ask the electoral officer whether she had been informed, is unclear at this point.  A week later she was asked if there had been any response and replied suggesting that NV should contact the electoral officer directly.  On the 10th April the joint editor of NV wrote to the RMBC Chief Executive, Steve Rumbelow for clarification.

(His reply to the NV joint editor, Brian Bamford, is printed below together with the response of the original complainant, Carl Faulkner.  Copies of the full correspondence between the complainant and the various bodies which are supposed to deal with questions of electoral fraud can be made available by e-mail from Northern Voices.  It shows clearly that it was the complainant who initiated the contact with the Cabinet Office, Electoral Commission and Police not RMBC.)

The possibility that the register was in fact stolen has been excluded from consideration a priori, even though at the time an exhaustive and unsuccessful search was made at the polling station, and even of people’s cars.   The consequence of deciding that a register was ‘definitely lost’ not ‘possibly stolen’ is that there is a convenient ‘fall guy’ in the form of whoever was in charge of that polling station. They are deemed to have ‘lost’ it and their reputation must suffer as a consequence.

In all this the one thing that is very clear is that whoever told the complainant that ‘all candidates were informed about the missing register' was telling a porky pie. And these are the people we have to trust when it comes to combating electoral fraud.  Robust plans to identify potential electoral fraud?   I think not.

*******

Dear Mr Bamford
Thank you for your recent enquiry.  Please accept my apologies for the delay in response.
To clarify, the marked register is the copy of the electoral register used in polling stations. It serves as the record of who has voted in the election, and it is kept for a year after the election. The marked register does not indicate who electors voted for, nor does it contain ballot paper numbers. 

Legislation provides that a variety of parties are eligible to access copies of the marked register after an election. Anyone can inspect the marked register, but only certain people can purchase a copy. 

This includes individual candidates and political party representatives.  Usually, copies are requested by and provided to party representatives who would then disseminate the information to their colleagues, including candidates. 

All those who requested copies of the marked registers were informed that a register had not been returned following the close of poll and the steps that had been taken in an attempt to locate it, both immediately after the close of poll and in the days following the election. 

In addition, the Council has been in contact with the Cabinet Office, Electoral Commission and Police on the matter who were satisfied with the steps that had been taken and the measures put in place to prevent any future issues of a similar nature. 

Yours Sincerely
Steve Rumbelow

And here are Mr Faulkner’s observations:
1) Without him actually stating it, it is clear that people were only going to be informed if and when a copy of the register was requested. That is not the same as informing all candidates as a matter of course. It reiterates my position that there was a concerted attempt to conceal the incident by keeping quiet about it.

2) I feel he is attempting to downplay the importance of the marked register, by portraying it as nothing more than a post-election tool for political parties /candidates / interested persons.  This is not the case - it’s primary purpose is as an anti-fraud document - but one which can be utilised by political parties etc.

3) All contact with the police, Cabinet Office and Electoral Commission was initiated by me. They contacted RMBC - not the other way round as his response could be taken to mean.

4) What are the ‘steps’ put in place that did not exist before? The issue is not about how, who, why or exactly when the register went missing but that no candidates nor the police were informed at the time or during the following 21 days.

********

Rochdale Tory motion mocks multiple voting

A Correction!

by Les May

IN my article ‘A Breach of Trust!’ I said that the silence of the Rochdale Conservative opposition was effectively condoning the behaviour of Labour Councillor Faisal Rana who as we now all know actively solicited, and made use of two ballot papers in the May elections.

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-breach-of-trust.html

This was unfair.  After this offence came to light Tory Councillor Ashley Dearnley arranged for a motion to appear on the agenda of the Council meeting to be held on Wednesday 17 October.

The motion to be moved by Councillor Dearnley and seconded by Councillor Holly reads as follows:

‘The Communities of Rochdale deserve to have confidence in our democratic processes.  In light of his recent acceptance of a police caution relating to an electoral offence, and the consequential damage caused to public confidence in local democracy, this Council calls upon Councillor Faisal Rana to consider his position as an elected member of this authority.’

Lib Dem Councillor Andy Kelly has informed me that after the offence came to light he too wrote to the Chief Executive about this matter.

***********

A Breach of Trust!

by Les May

I had hoped that the opposition parties in Rochdale would do their job and hold Allen Brett to account for his decision not to ask for the resignation of Labour Councillor Faisal Rana who admitted to soliciting two votes in the local election in May this year.  After a single feeble complaint by Lib-Dem leader Andy Kelly, no more has been heard from either party. Indeed there seems to be no record of the Tories saying anything, effectively they are condoning Rana’s behaviour.

Disappointed, but not surprised, on 14 September 2018 I wrote the following letter to Councillor Faisal Rana.   As a matter of courtesy and for information, I sent a copy to the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive of Rochdale MBC.

“I have been aware since mid August that you have received a police caution for electoral offences relating to the poll of 3 May 2018.  Until a few days ago I had not read the transcript of the interview which you gave to Sky News.   I assume that the transcript is a true and correct record of what you said.

I am particularly concerned with the paragraph which reads:

‘I legally registered my votes by providing my genuine national insurance number, date of birth and addresses and when I received these through the post I thought it would have been OK and that is why they issued me two ballots for two constituencies’.

In my view this appears to imply that the electoral services of RMBC should have checked for a duplication of national insurance numbers and dates of birth, and informed you of the illegal nature of your actions.

From my own experience registering to take part in the ballot is an active process. It is necessary to provide an address at one is resident in order to receive a ballot paper at that address.  Ditto for a postal vote.  I assume that you are quite properly registered at the address at which you reside permanently with your family and that you legitimately used that vote in that ward.

What is in question is the ‘other’ address, which I assume was in the ward in which you stood as a candidate, and what legitimate interest you had in the property at that address which you considered gave you an entitlement to register yourself at that address and apply for a postal vote to be sent to that address.

As a resident of Rochdale Metropolitan Borough I would like answers to the following questions within 15 working days of the date of this correspondence.

What was the address used to apply for a second vote?

What legitimate interest did you have in the property identified by that address?

Were you a tenant of the property identified by that address?

Were you the owner of the property identified by that address?”

The 15 working days were up last Friday.  I have not had a reply from Councillor Rana or an acknowledgement from the other two recipients.

Councillor Rana clearly does not want us to know the address at which he registered in order to get his second vote or why he thought he was entitled to two votes.  The 2017-18 electoral register for the Spotland and Falinge ward shows that a Faisal Rana is registered at 170c Spotland Road, together with Hassan Tehzeeb and Amna Kiran.  This is a change from the three previous registers, 2014-2017, when a Susan Williams was registered at this address.

So just why did Councillor Rana think that he had an entitlement to a second vote.  Was it because he was now claiming to be resident at this address or was it that the change in occupancy of 170c Spotland Road now gave him a convenient address at which to register and to receive the papers enabling him to cast his second vote?   If this is indeed the case then it suggests that both the police and the Labour leader have not been so diligent as perhaps they might have been in enquiring much more closely into Faisal Rana’s actions and motivation. If there is another explanation, then what legitimate interest did he have in 170c Spotland Road?

A number of people, including a fellow councillor, have come forward to act as apologists for Councillor Rana seemingly without reflecting upon the morality of the act of deliberately soliciting a second vote and upon the way that his actions have tainted the Labour party.   I’ve heard stories about his being so contrite that he was in tears, that he undertook a pilgrimage out of contrition and perhaps most ludicrous of all, that he should not be forced to resign because if he did it would lead to a bye-election in the ward and this would cost the town £50,000.   None of this cuts any ice with me.

Electoral fraud is not a minor matter.   This is what the Pickles’ review into electoral fraud, Securing the Ballot had to say:

‘Electoral fraud and corruption is intertwined with other forms of crime as well. Local authorities have a large procurement role.  A group of people who cheat their way to power are unlikely to hold a higher moral standard when handing out public contracts, or when making quasi-judicial decision on planning and licensing.   Electoral registration fraud is connected with financial crime

and illegal immigration.’

In other words there is a moral as well as a legal dimension to a Councillor deliberately seeking to obtain a second vote.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/securing-the-ballot-review-into-electoral-fraud

Councillor Rana has shown contempt for electoral law and the basic premise of our democracy, ‘one man, one vote’.  He actively sought to obtain for himself a second vote, but he lacks the moral fibre to admit that he did wrong and to do the honourable thing by stepping down.  By this he taints Labour as a party that will tolerate electoral fraud for the sake of expediency.

In May 2018 a large number of Labour party members went on record as showing their support for Jacqui Beswick being elected as leader.

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/129/letters-to-the-editor/118578/letter-labour-party-members-show-support-for-jacqui-beswick

From what I hear of this lady she would not have been so tolerant of Faisal Rana’s wrongdoing as Allen Brett.   Perhaps it is time for Labour party members to once again let their views be known.

*******