Thursday, June 03, 2010

Well Done Esther! Shuker Makes a Shocker!

Maiden speeches are tricky things to get right at the best of times. But if your predecessor is Margaret Moran, it's difficult to pay tribute in the normal effusive way. Unless your name is Gavin Shuker, that is. He's the 28 year old who win the Luton South seat courtesy of Esther Rantzen. Without her intervention, the Tory candidate Nigel Huddlestone would have won. Anyway, young Gavin made his maiden speech yesterday and it turns out his contituents are less than impressed by the way in which he lavished praise on Margaret Moran - well, that's what the local BBC Three Counties Radio are saying. This is what he said about her...
Margaret Moran served the people of Luton for 13 years, a position that carries it's own unique pressures, and she deserves recognition as someone who, as part of that significant intake of 1997 Labour members, transformed fundamentally the terms of debate, not just in politics, but in education in particular.

I'm not sure that 'lavish' is the word I would describe to use those words, but they've gone down like a cup of cold sick locally. Esther Rantzen must be feeling very proud of herself.


Paddy Briggs said...

"He's the 28 year old who win the Luton South seat courtesy of Esther Rantzen. Without her intervention, the Tory candidate Nigel Huddlestone would have won.

Evidence? How do you know...?

Mr Eugenides said...

Er, Rantzen got 1,872 votes, and Shuker's majority was 2,329.

Not sure how you come up with the idea that she cost the Tories victory there.

The Purpleline said...

Sometimes Iain the vindictive streak of the homosexual springs to the fore with you.

Are you saying that independents should never stand for fear of taking Tory votes. Get a life man you are very silly sometimes.

James Chard said...

I totally disagree with you (and those complaining on the radio), Iain. A tradition of politeness is one worth upholding.

In general, new MPs have found something decent to say even when following more infamous characters than Moran. I would expect and hope that those MPs filling the decidedly small shoes of former members caught up in expenses scandals follow a similar approach. It isn't condoning past wrongs to show a little bit of civility when the baton is passed on.

Robert said...

My goodness another seat that Dave's Conservatives lost because the voters exercised their right to vote for some one else other than your precious Dave.

These and the 900,000 that voted for UKIP cost Dave the election. Never mind it may be 1.2m at the next election or more if we have any form of PR.

bear of little brain said...

Iain, I think you are being very unfair to Esther Rantzen.

Surely in a healthy democracy, anybody who wishes to should be entitled to stand in an election.

No one was forced to vote for Rantzen. If people were voting for her over the Tory, then that's the Conservative candidate's fault for not doing enough to win those votes.

So you'd be better off blaming the Conservatives for not fielding a good enough candidate and not running a winning campaign.

John Babb said...

I'm afraid you and many are guilty of double standards.
What is the difference between Shuker and all those praising the skills of David Laws when they know of catalogue of offences over expenses he made. (Not to mention his hypocritical statements when the nature of his expenses was not spotted last year.)
In reality no one is all bad and Margaret Moran may well have done some praiseworthy things as an MP.

You are pathetic.

Ean Craigie said...

It seems to be be nasty to Iain day today. Dont know where or what The Purpleline is but that statement is really over the top.

All I can say is hear hear Iain you nailed it.

David Boothroyd said...

I'm afraid this is a pathetic post. It is accepted custom that however infamous the previous member is, the maiden speech should find their good points. In any case, Gavin Shuker seems to have got round the problem of saying something nice about Margaret Moran in an interesting way - by praising the collective achievements of a group of which she was part, rather than praising her personally.

Read it yourself here and then see if you agree with Three Counties Radio's interpretation of "lavished praise".

Blackacre said...

As you say, it is hardly effusive and I am sure that she did contribute something in 13 years which it is only polite to recognise. The yahboo politics of constant attrition is a real bore.

Weygand said...

I understood that that dreadful woman er Ms Rantzen was an Independent candidate challenging the behaviour of all parties at Westminster.

As such, and given that Moran was not a candidate, I do not see why she would care one way or another whether Mr Shuker was elected or not - and given that her life seems to be me me me - am confident that she doesn't.

Anonymous said...

It's not Rantzen's fault, but the fault of First Past the Post, which allows the vote to be split in this way.

Unknown said...

Purpleline: your comment about homosexuals is as impudent as it is absurd, and besmirches you more than Iain. I am sure if you offer an apology with grace, Iain will accept it with generosity.

Having said that, Iain is talking rubbish, not because he's a homosexual but because he's just being a partisan crosspatch this morning and not thinking straight. Firstly, he got his sums wrong when calculating the winner's majority and secondly, he assumes that the Tories had some sort of right to the seat which votes for Esther Rantzen 'stole'. People can vote with their hearts to put somebody in, or tactically, to keep somebody out. That's their right in a democracy and no candidate has any right to a seat. My Tory MP lost his seat after 27 years because 4,000 Labour voters and a smaller number of disgruntled Tories switched to the Lib Dems, who won with a majority of 800. He accepted the loss with grace and dignity, realising he had no right to the seat if another candidate won a majority.

The Purpleline said...

Anna & Ean Craigie

I will not offer an apology to Iain as I believe I have identified a trait in his character, which is open for discussion on here and elsewhere.

Do I believe Homosexuals are more vindictive & spiteful? well yes I do hence my comment.

Iain's blind defence of the indefensible because Laws was a nice Homosexual was pure theatre, it was so over the top and obvious that his sexual affiliation was governing his thoughts on the subject.

The rather caustic anti Esther bashing by him is poor taste, she is a good women who has done very well in her life protecting Children >childline< in my opinion it makes her a stand out candidate for parliament. Why should he abuse her for standing? We must stamp out this professional bitchy comments from the political classes and their placemen and let the people decide and decide they did.

With Iain you have to ask why did he support this Tory was there something attractive about his political view or was he just a passing fancy.

Hope Iain lets this one through, because it should be a wake up call to him from a strong supporter of Iain Dale who only wishes him well & success with this Blog and his career on radio.

The homophobic implications in both your comments lends me to realise that where homosexuality is involved no comment is allowed, well I do not hold with that position, when they are wrong they should be challenged and if it is a trait common to that group then I have every right to draw attention to it. Iain does not need to publish it, but good on him for allowing debate.

So to Ean Craigie the purpleline has contributed on this site for a very long time, it is not a flying visit or unwarranted attack on Iain, so please do not try that old chestnut.

The purpleline can be found mentioned in despatches in the Guardian twitter and other sites
google and you will find.

Cogito Dexter said...

Purpleline you're talking bull droppings. It's as simple as that.

Simon Gardner said...

Yet more of Iain Dale whinging about the grossly undemocratic and bent electoral system without actually wanting to do anything about it. Give us a break.

I presume you will now start campaigning for STV? Thought not.

Nigel said...

Purpleline, I believe I have "identified a trait in your character" - you are a confused woodenhead.

Were I not heterosexual myself, I might be forced to conclude that I had identified a trait common to the group.

The Purpleline said...

Nigel, you are quite correct there are many traits in the hetrosexual community, some good some bad and some very worrying.

However, Iain has been very vocal in recent times pushing the GAY agenda through his biased comments.

We all do it I guess if we are pushing a point.

What amazes me on here is the attacks because I have had the courage to question Homosexual traits and not one of you has defended Esther standing as an independent candidate. >those attacking me by the way other sensible posters have made valid points>

Blackacre said...

Iain, I presume that you are only puyblishing Purpleline's inane ranting to demonstrate how deluded he is - a bit like choosing to engage with the BNP?

wild said...

Perhaps the Labour supporters here can explain what Gavin Shuker means when, in his tribute to Margarat Moran, he asserts that the 1997 Labour intake fundamentally transformed the terms of political (and in particular educational) debate?

He cannot mean the introduction of student fees, which was sensible but something he opposes, but if he means greater bureaucratic control, accelerating the erosion of educational standards, and increasing the amount of money extracted from taxpayers in order to fund the (heavily unionised) poorly performing State sector, it is same old same old.

sportinglady said...

Iain, I agree with you.

I say it is not right that many hundreds of thousands of legal, law-abiding, licenced sports shooters are penalised for the action of one lunatic.

As for a previous rather silly comment about keeping firearms at the clubs, then it follows that all criminals and terrorists will know exactly where to find them, in huge quantities. And no key-holding officials would take on the responsibility at the risk of their life (i.e.taken hostage or worse at gun point)

I have been a lady licenced target club shooter for 45 years and I can assure you that we are heavily scrutinized by the police, and very rightly so. Even a speeding offence is recorded on our police firearms database. Every attendance at a club is recorded and submitted to the police with details of firearms used and the reason, our GP records are checked, and any show of anger or rage can result in the revocation of licence, stringent regular checks are made in our homes, and much much more

My heart weeps for those stricken in this dreadful happening

Stono said...

didnt Stephen Rhodes also stand for that seat as an indie, if only there had been someone in the Tory party who had been "close-friends" with him and could have convinced him not to stand, that could have given Nigel Huddlestone another 463 votes.

which still wouldnt have won the seat even combined with Esther Rantzens votes, but every little helps eh Iain :)

Unknown said...

Look on the brightside, Gavin will be in his late 50's before he gets to side on the other side of the House of Commons.

Unknown said...

As a homosexual myself I feel compelled to point out that in general we are no more vindictive as a "community" than straight people.

We are not homogenous. The only thing we each have in common is our sexual orientation and even then there are all shades of difference.

I think, if anything, Iain has seized on the Shuker "story" here with old- fashioned sectarian vindictiveness and I, like others, would want to disassociate myself from his unfortunate remarks which don't seem to respect the new politics which has hopefully arrived.

Don't *all* honourable members praise their predecessors? Regardless. It's part of the protocol.

HampsteadOwl said...


It's not often you unite everyone against you, but you seem to have managed it on this occasion. It was a peculiarly conceited post.

Huddlestone had no God-given right to win Luton South just because the previous Labour MP was a stinker. Moran's failings were her own, not those of the Labour Party, so this man Shuker is just as legitimate a successor to her as any of the other candidates would have been. As for Ms Rantzen, maybe her intervention was vain and silly and pointless, but praise be that we have a democracy that upholds people's right to do vain and silly and pointless things.

No one should criticise Shuker for being civil about his predecessor. Its both good manners and a Parliamentary convention, both things that, when last I checked, the Conservative Party believes in. Or has it fallen entirely into the clutches of graceless cry-babies like Joanne Cash.

Even Cameron himself said some nice things (and some quite witty ones too) about his constituency predecessor, the turncoat Woodward whose treachery, in my book at least, ranks higher in the annals of odium, than dodginess with your parliamentary expenses.

And finally, you really are sunk if your argument relies on the opinion of the ranters who pile in on local radio phone-ins. It's a little like calling for a character witness from among the ranks of the misogynists and perverts who inhabit Guido's blog.

All in all, given the unanimity of the negative reaction to this, it was probably a good day for you to have had your Blackberry stolen