It seems that Nigel Hastilow really did resign himself. Some of us had thought that maybe he had been "resigned", if you see what I mean. An article on the TELEGRAPH website reports what he said in an interview this morning on TALKSPORT where he refused to accept the terms of a statement drafted by Andy Coulson. Part of the deal was, so he says, that he would, in future, have to submit each article he wrote for the Wolverhampton Express & Star to CCHQ for prior vetting. He decided this would compromise his integrity and that he'd rather resign.
In theory this is no different to the BBC asking to see articles written by its employees before they appear in the media. However, I have to say this has given me real pause for thought. I am not a candidate, but I am on the Party's approved list. I too could not accede to any similar demand. I have to say that in all the time I have written this blog I have only once had a complaint from the Party about something I had written, and that was more than a year ago. I both refused to back down or apologise, as I thought it 'fair comment' at the time and still do.
There have certainly been occasions when I have been tempted to write something which might have come back to haunt me, but each time I have counted to ten and thought better of it. It's called self censorship.
There has to be an unspoken agreement when you become a candidate. You just don't do anything which would bring the party into disrepute. This doesn't mean you necessarily become a robot, but it is perfectly possible to make a point without appearing to be disloyal. You just have to avoid saying something which anyone with half a brain can see would be used against yourself and the party. And that is where Nigel Hastilow went wrong.
Danny Finkelstein reckons the whole episode is not about whether Nigel Hastilow is a racist - it's whether he's an idiot. I think everyone is entitled to one error, but with Nigel there was an unfortunate track record. Writing a blog or a newspaper column can be fraught with such dangers. But if he wasn't clever enough to spot the dangers, would he have made a very effective MP? I guess now we'll never know.
58 comments:
wasn't it the Wolverhampton Express and Star that did for Powell after they tried, and failed, to find the woman he claimed had had dung shoved through her letterbox?
not commenting either way, mind, just struck me as interesting.
Iain, unfortunately, the Conservative Party does have quite a lot of "form", when it comes to dumping on its candidates/MPs, in recent years.
After witnessing the treatment meted out to Danny Kruger, Howard Flight, Patrick Mercer, Nigel Hastilow et al, for straying slightly off-message, I have to say that I am hugely grateful to Shireen Ritchie, Simon Burns, and Trish Morris for rejecting me, when I applied to get onto the Approved List.
This is not the behaviour of a disciplined Party, but rather, a Party that still lacks self-confidence.
Sean Fear
So if he'd agreed to the conditions, CCHQ would've been happy for him to continue? And would've been happy with the media scrum? Are you serious?
Ask Howard Flight how it works. Spellman sacked Hastilow. End of.
Iain- Another post where you manage to talk about Hastilow without addressing the central question- Do you think it's acceptable for a tory candidate to speak approvingly of Enoch Powell or of immigrants "getting the Red Carpet treatment.
Contrary to what you might say this isn't about media management, it's about what people in your party believe. If you believe hastilow was wrong say so, if you think he was right, say so.
It's pretty simple.
PS. See, I can manage this comenting malarkey without being abusive. shame the same can't be said for some people, eh?
Yeah, we never will know now, good riddance to bad rubbish, etc. But it is your talent at the art of self-censorship Iain that would make you such an excellent candidate. Step forward the new candidate for Halesowen and Rowley Regis.
Self-censorship is what the people in the Eastern Bloc did.
Idiot....Finkelstein
Not much need to Google that one ....
Sorry, off topic, but can anyone confirm that I was not dreaming when I heard Labour School's Minister Jim Knight say on BBC's PM: "16 year-olds will not have the option of doing nothing. They must either work or sign up for training."
He was challenged on this by an incredulous Eddie Mair, but insisted it was Labour policy.
the message is clear: vote Brown, get Stalin.
Hastilow is neither a racist nor an idiot. He's a good man who spoke the truth, and a sad loss to the Conservative Party. Nearly as sad a loss as the "leadership" of Bottler Cameron and his cowardly ilk. Who will now speak up for what most ordinary people, regardless of politics, think about uncontrolled immigration?
Why didn't you back this man up. All he did was to come out and say I'm thinking what the people are thinking and if you actually engaged brain instead of cowering behind the sofa from the race hustlers you would probably have come up with some useful ammo.
Say for instance Gordon Brown's use of my party's favourite phrase "British Jobs for British workers" line or how about comparing what Hastilow said to what Labour MP Margaret Hodge said when speaking on the same subject back in May
You know you've been in opposition for 10 years and you still haven't mastered that in any significant way, what on earth makes you think you could run this joint should you be fortunate enough to get voted in.
Weak, effeminate and totally gutless just about sums up the Tory party and I'm glad I left when I did
Iain: "In theory this is no different to the BBC asking to see articles written by its employees before they appear in the media"
No, absolutely not so. Prospective candidates are not employess. As such they do not owe any allegiance to the party of their choice. Indeed, one might argue that the Party actually owes them some loyalty.
Coulson, if he believes that he has this right, should seriously reconsider his position.
Hastilow was, simply, unwise. As a potential MP he should have been much more astute than that. Unless, that is, that he didn't particularly care about reaction to his comments. In any event, he has to live with the consequences.
Ergo everyone who pracitices self-censorship (for example, refraining from yelling out "Fire!" in a crowded theater) is a Frank Zappa fan!
Iain, may we have a post on the benefits of mass immigration?
I think, reading his article, he had already engaged in a little self-censorship. He specificly did not say Powell was right but that in his constituency "many people say "Powell was right"".
This is clearly factual & I think the Tories could have defended his right to say that & asked his opponents to say specificly what they disagreed with (which would have been fun) without endorsing him. That would probably have done them little harm & considerable good.
On the other hand if he resigned before being pushed that is his choice. Equally he could have said he would accept future censorship, but when this happened would not do an article that week. He was not being asked to say things he didn't believe in (as everybody in Parliament has to vote for things they don't believe in) but merely to refrain from saying things. So long as it is not done to often that goes with the territory of party politics.
The important & unfortunate thing about this is it has given the MSM a chance to circumscribe, even more, the limits of political debate in this country. The good thing is that anybody online can see what he actually said rather than relying on the MSM interpretation of it as we would have had to a few years ago.
This attempt at censorship typifies the reason I did not renew my party membership - Campbell = Blair2.
What did he say wrong? Enoch was probably the most learned and erudite politition of the last century, moreover he was correct in 99% of his statements IMNSHO
No Hastilow isn't an idiot. The entire race/immigration question will NOT be adressed until WE have had a referendum as to whether to allow it(ie) incomers to stay). Is 'Britain' a racist country? Define racist? If that means extensive 'white flight' from areas like Blackburn, Leicester, and parts of London- then it's a 'Yes'. Honesty please when dealing with the issue. Would I like to live in an area dominated by 'ethnics'- the honest answer is no.
"The entire race/immigration question will NOT be adressed until WE have had a referendum as to whether to allow it(ie) incomers to stay). "
What period will this cover? 10 years? 20? 50? Will I be allowed to stay, given my family have only been her 150 years?
" Would I like to live in an area dominated by 'ethnics'- the honest answer is no."
That's lucky. They wouldn't like to live next to you either. Neither would I.
I'm sorry. I worked in Midlands when Powell spoke. He did terrible damage to race relations and the CP.
Anyone who gratuitously says he supports Powell is asking for trouble. Period.
That does NOT mean to say don't discuss immigration. Powell spoke in a way that made matters much worse and deserved to be made an outcast. At the time Birmingham landladies had signs saying "No blacks and Irish" and a CP election in Wolverhampton had posters saying "If you want a nigger for your neighbour, vote Labour".
If you support Powell, you are tacitly supporting that.. because that was the oposition at the time.
All this censorship is drivel. No-one is preventing a discussion on immigration: it is clearly out of control . BUT to evoke the meotion ridden angst of 40 years ago is just plain stooopid and he should have known better.
He did not so he was either thick or being deliberately malicicous.
It would appear most of the contributors here either are ignorant of or chose to forget what a terrible atmosphere the Powell speech was delivered in.. and how much worse it made things.
I make no apoligies for the language above: that is how the Conservative Party of the day conducted itself in the West Midlands.
If any of you condone that, count me out. Fortunately the CP leadership has more sense.. and I remind you all after his speech Powell was (rightly) ejected form the CP.
So at the same time MPs are angling for an above inflation pay rise they are being prevented from expressing free thought or anything other than the party line......
In a perfect world Hastilow would have been allowed to stand (or fall) for election based on his sentiments, the electorate would have decided whether this was in sync with their concerns. Of course, as the BBC showed only too well yesterday with the complete blowing up out of all proportion of this story and wheeling out endless Labour drones to play the racist card, UK PLC (fully paid up EUSSR member state) in 2007 is far from perfect.
here are the two self-censorship options:
self-censorship option A
you are concerned that your comments may cause offence or be misinterpreted mischievously
self-censorship option B
if you don't do it yourself, someone will do it for you
immigrants have given us ten years of low inflation and colossal house price growth.
now that would be interesting. why doesn't one of the PPCs publish that and see if it's OK.
Of course Powell was wrong; we don't want to let the facts cloud our judgement do we?
Mr Unsworth - how can you say that candidates owe no allegiance to their Party!
They legally adopt the Party name on the ballot paper, Party volunteers work for them (for nothing) and raise funds for their campaigning. If candidates don't want that backing, and the discipline that goes with it, they can always stand as Independents.
Powell was a very clever man, but one who completely misunderstood how to put his views across on this issue, and was rightly sacked from the Party. It was incredibly foolish of Hastilow to invoke Powell's name, and it would have been far cleverer to quote Brown and Hodge.
Personally, if I were the Party Chairman, I'd be inclined to have Mr Hastilow's head shoved on top of a pike on Tower Bridge.
madasafish.
I too remember signs in pubs and coffee bars (remember them?) saying No Coloureds or No Blacks. There was also a pub in Queen's Square Wolverhampton which had a sign No Whites!!
I know, as I knew Enoch Powell, that he was not a racist and objected to those signs.
The problem is people have been brainwashed by the BBC and the left inspired media and politicians and The Rivers of Blood Speech is quoted by all but not understood by any of them.
Enoch was right and any intelligent and calm look at many British Cities , Towns and villages will tell you that.
Is it for the better?
"Madasafish said...
I'm sorry. I worked in Midlands when Powell spoke. He did terrible damage to race relations and the CP."
What damage to the CP pray? We won the following General Election two years later in June of 1970- there was an above average swing to the Party in the West Midlands and indeed in the East Midlands.Struck me as a good deal or would you rather have Harold Wilson for another four years?
the problem as i see it is that he said he agreed with Powell. if he'd simply said that's what people were saying, he'd be fine. He just didn't realise the backlash it would cause.
and well done to him for stepping down! cuts the story dead, and allows him to retain a shread of dignity.
if only Labour MPs who get into trouble like this had the same amount of decency...
Strapworld "I know, as I knew Enoch Powell, that he was not a racist and objected to those signs.
Enoch Powell "the citizen should [not] be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to an inquisition as to his reasons and motives for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another”
In fact he specifically argued that "those signs" should be legal and allowed to continue. Now, you might want us to believe that this was from a deep libertarian basis, that he hated discrimination, but hated state intervention more - but I'm afraid not many may believe you...
Only party aparatchiks need apply -Has it really come to this?
No wonder politics is such a turn off. Yet - the irony of this artificial debate between the fake hysteria of Aunty Beeb and the knee jerk reaction of the balless Tories is that outside of political anoraks the man in the street doesn't give a toss anymore.
Hats off to Nigel for not apologising - now that is a breath of fresh air!
I'm afraid Mr Hastilow should have foreseen how his comments would be used against him by his opponents,any mention of Enoch Powell(good man imo)was bound to bring the ridiculous cries of racism.I think he left the party no coice but to get rid of him,after Camerons speech which was well recieved for this buffoon to say what he said was just brainless and was bound to bring the rascist underbelly cobblers from Hain,Kelly et al.
As for the people who say they won't be renewing their party membership or bothering to vote next time I hope we can assume they won't be appearing on this blog grizzling about the labour government theyve inflicted upon us.
The tory party may not be perfect and i may not agree with everything they say but i'd rather be on here moaning about a tory government than another labour one.
People need to realise the only way to get rid of Labour is to vote Tory.
if Hastilow really did resign because Coulson demanded a pledge that all his public utterances be vetted by CCHQ then he was right to do so. Political parties are not employers, and anyone in politics who says and does unwise things will pay the price personally. Some officials of Reading Labour Party demanded the same of me. I said no and (after a struggle) they got me deselected. I would rather have been deselected than submit every statement and press release to a small group of unelected, unaccountable men, and so should it be for Hastilow. Whether he is either a racist or an idiot (he may be either, both or neither) is neither here nor there in this case.
In an age of image-driven politics and controlled media coverage, Hastilow may have slightly mistimed / misjudged his comments - but that doesn't mean he was wrong. Spelman has made this a million times worse.
@ Judith. I recognise but disagree with your views on loyalty.
When candidates put themselves forward there is no suggestion of contractual (or moral, maybe) obligation. The fact that party (paid and unpaid) workers support individuals is therefore largely irrelevant. It's in the Party's interests to appoint candidates with potential for success. If candidates prove to be an embarrassment, the Party has an absolute right to sack them (i.e. withdraw its support) - without redress. Equally candidates can walk at any time, and sometimes do. So this is not a question of loyalty - it is a question of mutual benefit.
And let's not forget that these are candidates only, not sitting MPs. I'd argue that elected MPs do owe their parties a degree of loyalty. More importantly, they owe their electorates rather more.
As to Powell, yes a much misunderstood and remarkably clever man, but politically a little naive.
a CP election in Wolverhampton had posters saying "If you want a nigger for your neighbour, vote Labour".
If you support Powell, you are tacitly supporting that
Nope. That was the slogan of Peter Griffiths in the 1964 election, for the Labour seat of Smethwick, which is the other side of Dudley.
Powell was a fluent Urdu speaker, who famously said "I have and always will set my face like flint against making any difference between one citizen of this country and another on grounds of his origins." Which is not a tremendously racist thing to say.
But, you know, don't let inconvenient things like history get in the way of a good ad hominem trashing, will you?
Anonymous 7:59 said...
"Will I be allowed to stay, given my family have only been her 150 years?"
Obviously a marginal case that would have to be reviewed before a decision being made, though from your tone it seems likely that you would all be best served by placement in a country entirely committed to hating English people.
Hastilow is a bigot and a racist. He attempted to whip up hatred against certain groups of people (Scots, Muslims) to his own advantage. The man is a disgrace and I for one am celebrating his downfall.
I have only one thing to say to Hastilow:
"OCH AYE, IT'S TIME TO SAY GOODBYE"
I hear he didn't like gays much, or people with Aids.
Iain,
Selfcensorship is lying by omission.
What kind of politics will this lead to? Et tu, Iain?
And why aren't you demanding that the Conservative Muslim Council either apologize or resign, for their support of homophobic hate preachers, and the attempted gagging of Cameron himself by trying to tell him how he should talk about and not support 'Zionists', plus a whole lot of other things that actually DID bring the party into disrepute?
To various inc Judith, Enoch was not sacked from the Party. He gave the speech in 1968 and remained a Conservative MP until 1974 when he chose to leave over Europe. He of course,joined the Ulster Unionists, and continued to serve as an MP until 1987.
Nor, as others have pointed out, was he a rascist. He had strong views about the practicality of integration - views which our cities prove rather accurate - but that is not the same thing.
Anonymous 10:33 V good!
Chuck Unsworth is correct when he notes that a candidate owes a party no loyalty while he is just a candidate, and it's in the party's interest to select candidates who are sensitive to their area and the local concerns. This, an ex-local newspaper editor clearly is.
Mr Hastilow was obviously responding to worries he knew were held by many of his putative constituents. David Cameron appears to be saying that the candidate had no right to signal to these constituents that he understood their problems with immigrants and would address them.
How else were local voters supposed to know that he had grasped one of their major, perhaps the overriding, concern? By intuition? Get out the Ouija board? Attend a seance?
Tell me, how else was Mr Hastilow to let the voters know that he understood their issues and had an interest in working to address them?
That's democracy, something the ex-Bullingdon Boy and elitist with a sense of entitlement doesn't understand.
David Cameron is a thoroughly dislikable person. He cares nothing about the British voter and everything about getting his own feet under the desk in Downing Street. Anyone who says anything independentlyh - see Patrick Mercer, who didn't even say anything incendiary and was defended by black soldiers who had been under his command; and now see Hastilow will be disposed of.
Cameron's dictatorial tendencies are now well known and it would be a brave or foolish candidate or MP who essayed an opinion that hadn't been stamped APPROVED by Cameron.
Every time he dismisses a major concern of the electore, this autocrat shovels voters over to the BNP and UKIP. The voters sniff duplicity. Lorry loads of them are fleeing because they don't see Conservatives addressing the major issue of the day and they will not trust them with their future.
the issue is not one of whether candidates should be able to have their own views..but of whether we ought to allow comments that will simply make race relations worse. If you look at conservative home you will see the racist underbelly of the tory party is alive and well.. and people need to know about this before casting their vote.
There is a good article in the current Speccie about this. The gist was that because we are in the EUSSR we no longer control our borders and therefore we are going to be a high immigration country, whether ruled by Liebour or the Tories, until such time as we aren't in the EUSSR any more.
There is mass EU immigration, however, because there are jobs that the welfare class are not prepared to do, that Poles and Lithuanians are. Cameron could, however, adopt Wisconsin's approach to benefits: you can't have any, unless there's no job you could possibly do, and there's a lifetime cap in any case. This will force the welfare class off the dole and into those jobs, and at that point, the supply of jobs for EU immigrants evaporates. So they'd stop coming; and meanwhile, Cameron's proper border police force keeps out the non-EU health tourists from Africa and Bangladesh.
The problems of excess immigration and of there being 5.4 million people on benefits are not two problems at all, they are the same problem. People come here because we speak English and there are jobs that anyone can do. If we filled all those jobs with those we currently pay to be idle, by tightening the rules on welfare payments, there'd be neither jobs nor dole to lure Romanians over.
The thing is, if he'd been smart he could have made the point very effectively without even mentioning the name of Enoch Powell, a name which sends shivers up mainstream Conservatism and probably still will do for another 20 years at least. That he did not seem to realise that simple truth is actually a better reason for him to resign/be sacked that what he actually said.
jane [8.35 AM] Good for you! A lesser woman would have quietly toed the line.
Antonia Bance, deputy director of Oxfam's UK Poverty Programme has learnt the art of self-censorship where the Labour Government is concerned. She writes: "I think I’ve moved a bit politically, and my allegiance to the party has hardened, meaning that I am both less likely to criticise the government’s actions (particularly since Brown took over) and more likely to self-censor when I want to shout about how wrong they are. Hey ho."
Anonymous 2:20 - Oooooooooh! The socialist thought Fascists have a new phrase to play with that should at least see the year out! Cool! If they use it often enough, they can get phrase "racist underbelly of the tory[sic]party" woven into the landscape and featured on a number of 'balanced' BBC programmes and accepted as a fact.
In fact, the race relations industry could get "the racist underbelly" of the Tory party outlawed! Or better yet, they could bring a new Act to outlaw the Tory party itself for having a "racist underbelly".
By the way, Anonymous 2:20 - how can a "racist underbelly" be "alive and well"? Does it have a little pulse? Does this racist underbelly have a little mouth to express itself? Is it independent of the overbelly? Is there a whole set of internal organs we hadn't heard of before? An underkidney, for example? An under bladder, for taking the piss out of the thought Fascists?
PS Anonymous 2:30 - Re the "racist underbelly". Listen, is racing underbellies legal in Britain? I heard they were going to ban it. Still,I supposed one could always join a group of unbelly racists and practice in France. And how do you find a racist? I don't want to race my own in case I fall off.
Or maybe Anonymous 2:20 was referring to a sub-species of underbelly known as Down Under Belly. Those independent Ozzie sheilas could probably race their own, though.
On the other hand, Anonymous 2:20 may have been thinking of the under Delhi Belly, and I place this mapwise somewhere in the vicinity of Bangalore. That's a long way for an underbelly to race, even if desperate from vindaloo.
"People need to realise the only way to get rid of Labour is to vote Tory."
People need to to realise that the point is to get rid of the policies the lib/lab/cons all agree with.
"There is mass EU immigration, however, because there are jobs that the welfare class are not prepared to do, that Poles and Lithuanians are."
Stuff and nonsense.
Employers (- mostly scumbag tories) do everything possible to only employ the likes of Poles and Lithuanians. Keeping vast numbers of British workers unemployed keeps wage pressure down and profits up. Plus, the employers are more likely to get State handouts to employ immigrants. Plus, the immigrants can go home after 10 months with a full refund of any tax paid (minus NI), buy a flat, have a holiday, and come back to do it all again. Plus, HR departments do everything possible not to employ anyone at all in order to make themselves look important, but naturally don't apply that to immigrants 'cos that would be racist.
Mass unemployment suits tories and the English-hating nulab. We had full employment in the 60's and tories hated it: all that choice and self-betterment for ordinary people - how awful.
Self Censorship is a newspeak word for 'weak with no convictions'
A politician should at least understand what he believes in, otherwise, why have politicians?
Maybe the time has come to remove the whole concept of parties and to only vote on the individual?
It would certainly make the whole industry of politics more honest.
Unfortunately, people like yourself would be tossed by the wayside for not having a back bone!
Roll on iparliament!
As foe Powell, the lady in his speech did finally identify herself recently on her deathbed.
It is a shame that the population of the UK can be manipulated so easily by a few threats by loudmouthed simpletons in positions of prestige.
When you consider London is almost at a point where there are more non UK born residents there than there are locals, it makes you wonder if it should still be called the capital of the country?
V- interesting posts,V.
Re the population of London, who I assume the British generously allow to vote despite being itinerant foreigners, this is another reason Boris Johnson is not a good idea. He is appealing to a particular type of English person and you don't see too many of their ilk in London, except during the day when they commute in.
I just don't see too many Somalians an Romanians being beguiled by Boris.
The polpulation of London comprises Londoners, not "itinerant foreigners". Ironically, by picking out Romanians for your ridiculous argument, you've picked out one EU nationality that is restricted from moving here.
Anonymous - around half of the people who live in London these days are foreigners who will stay for a few years making money, then move on. Itinerants with no roots in the city and no concern for its future.
They make money by commuting in! Your point was ridiculous.
You mean half the population who actually live in London are unemployed?
Verity, I'll ignore your obtuse remark - we'll only sink further into the morass of poor thinking.
Wouldn't it be better if Boris actually tried to win the votes of as many people as he can, with Cameron's help? His appeal shouldn't be to one "ilk" (I suspect you wanted to say "colour" but baulked.) but to all ilks.
No,anonymous 4:23 - don't ascribe your own hangups to anyone else.
Why do you assume that I have any interest in people's colour? People are the way they were born. It's the habits and beliefs that some - of all ethnicities - pick up along the way that put one off.
I sense that you protest too much. You haven't been around much, have you? You are a very silly individual if you think that the wit - or what passes for it - of Boris is transcultural. It's very British. Brits - of any colour - get his humour. Foreigners - of any colour - will not get it. Please run along before I get the flea spray out.
Your point about Romanians and Somalians had nothing to do with humour and everything to do with race. That "puts one off", and it's no use back-tracking and trying to cover your embarrassment by making a weak joke.
Boris' wit is as silly as yours - trans-cultural? I'm not sure - there must be pusillanimous dullards in other cultures who would "get it".
I suggest you use powder or pills to deal with your problem - spray is easily inhaled and i wouldn't want you to damage what remains of your roasted brain cell.
By the way, did you know there's some idiot(s) pretending to be "Verity" on Iain's thread about lawyers' fees? They're demonstrating that they know nothing about economics -I think you should complain!
Post a Comment