Oh dear, Iain has a piece on his blog about an article in Tribune which points at Ruth Turner as having acted improperly in a the deselection of a sitting MP. Apparently, the deselected MP, Iain Stewart, has made a formal complaints after he was told it had already been decided he was "going to the Lords". The suggestion is is that this decision came from Ruth Turner in some way.Ms. Turner is starting to look like she might have a bit of a thing about deciding who should get peerages doesn't she? Perhaps we could coin a new term for the fetish, peeraphilia* has a certain ring to it doesn't it?
* All rights reserved to me.
3 comments:
Iaqin? Is this some fancy Lordly name? Mr Stewart may however be pleased to have a bolt hole on the red benches if people in Salford Central, Bolton South, Bethnall Green and Bow or for that matter any other seat that is yet to selecting their candidate. Ruth Turner only has an input in her home constituency selection process.
The allegations were far wider than that Chris. What are you covering up?
Not covering anything up, honest guv. I know nothing. Just ill-informed opinion and surmise.
Except that while this is an allegation that Blair's people had decided that should Mr Stewart fail to find a seat they do consider him eligible to possibly become a working Labour peer. This is a pretty useful reserve parachute to have I'd have thought? Unless Lords is abolished soon!!
What else is there?
Contrary to the spin that Mr Stewart is a dangerous leftie compared to Hazel Blear his voting record is near identical. Ditto Keeleys.
And whatever these allegations are they could well be more to come in the opposite direction. One NEC member was so confident that Stewart would beat Keeley hands down that he advised staff members to abandon ship.
Keeley won I believe because she simply worked much harder to get the votes she needed.
Post a Comment