The Field files
TCF, Dec 2009:
[T]here is any event no guarantee that Field isn’t simply biding his time in a fairly safe Labour seat before switching sides after the election.
Frank Field MP, March 2010:
If the Tories want to talk to me about a job, I will be happy to.
Sunday Mirror, May 2010:
David Cameron has secured his first Labour “defection” by lining up veteran MP Frank Field as his anti-poverty czar.
It’s not rocket science.
And that is why I wrote the following formal letter of complaint to Labour’s National Executive Committee on 18 March 2010:
Dear….
Formal complaint: public statements by Mr Frank Field, MP
I am writing to express my concern about the public statements made by Frank Field MP, setting out an apparent willingness to take a post under any Conservative government.
My own view is that such public statements may be incompatible with his remaining a Labour candidate in the forthcoming general election.
There is now a very real possibility that in the event of the Conservatives forming the next administration either with or without minority party support, Mr Field will be invited to take up a position within it. In the event of him taking up such a position without the explicit authority of the PLP, this would mean an almost automatic withdrawal of the Labour whip.
Given this, it is surely untenable for the party to maintain its support for Mr Field as a Labour candidate pre-election, in the knowledge that it might effectively be campaigning for a non-Labour MP. As you know, such actions would be outwith the constitution of his own CLP, and put it in a very difficult position.
As you also know, Labour members up and down the country have been disciplined or expelled for actions and statements considered by the NEC to be to the detriment of the Labour party’s reputation and electoral chances. I trust Mr Field’s public profile will not mean that he is treated differently.
I look forward to hearing from you in due course about what action has been taken, although of course it is possible I may hear about it in the press first.
No action has yet been taken in respect of my complaint, although it has been acknowledged. I wrote a follow up letter to the General Secretary of the Labour party just hours before the news of the offer to Mr Field from the Tories was made public.
Had my complaint been acted upon, it is just possible that Mr Field would have been deselected and that we might now have a Labour MP for Birkenhead who shares some Labour values and objectives. Instead, if Mr Field does take up the position offered, we will have an MP who will either crosses the floor of the house or continues to be an acute embarassment to the party.
The culture of the Labour party needs to change, so that everyone within the party is treated equally, whatever their public profile.
it’s becoming a bit of theme you not being listened to what with Ed M et al; not on, this leftie hears your words, chin up!
Not really a surprise is it? Always been an odd type of sanctamonious anglican Tory if you check out his history.
And as with many prating christians a hypocrite too, has attacked those on benefits for years but turned out he knew how to work the MPs expenses system very well and then was one of the first to say he would not pay back what was due. Hey Frank on benefits that would be a criminal offence!
Field has had a thing for that there should only be “one benefit” for all claimaints whether they are unemployed, ill, single mothers or whatever. I think Cameron has said he wants to “reform” the benefits system into there being just two benefits for all claimants.
If it’s any solace these “Tsars” usually end up being as effective as a chocolate teapot. I worked a bit with Kenneth Hellawell, the first “drugs tsar” under both the Tories and New Labour. The Home Office and Dept of Health ran rings round him, he eventually twigged he was just being used as sort of figurehead and jacked it in in disgust.
What a thoroughly First Past the Post way of thinking, the idea that politicians should not work across the benches in any way whatsoever. I assume you’re the sort who think the Liberal Democrats as traitors for going into coalition with the Conservative party.
Vinny — though Field doubtlessly claimed some expenses, I think you’re making the mistake of assuming wrongdoing without due cause: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5364720/MPs-expenses-Frank-Field-the-maverick-but-modest-MP.html
Whether or not people here assume that MPs shouldn’t work cross-benches really depends on what you mean David. Should the MP of one party without reference to his colleagues, his CLP or the manifesto upon which his election was predicated decide to work with another party? No of course not. There’s no justification for it really, anymore than there is justification for the Lib-Dems abandoning half their promises – as they will learn at the next election. You’ll find that the electors tend to expect the parties to stand by their promises. Whether or not that makes the Libs traitors isn’t for me to say – I’m not a Lib-Dem.
I suppose it is better for the Lib Dems to stay out of power and implement none of their promises?
It’s difficult to see that they’re implementing any of their promises now. More of a stretch still is to say that they’d never have managed to implement any of their promises whilst not becoming the government – especially in the context of a hung parliament.
Well. The pupil premium, the tax cut for sub £10,000, the economic council, some of the banking reform policies, I believe also capital gains tax increases. Plus the fact they are in Government so they can move policy towards their positions (and there is already evidence this is happening viz the dropping of the Tories’ inheritance tax plans). The evidence is that people vote more on positional values than by specific policies (British Electoral Survey 2001) and perhaps they’re wise to do so; governments’ lives seem substantially dictated by events to which stated policies can only offer guides as to how they’ll react.
Of course one could speculate that they’d get more through being in a hung parliament without anyone to support their policies and without government time with which to submit bills. I think that’s quite a hard sell.
@ David Webber
Saint Frank was asked to repay £7000 expenses by Sir Thomas Legg, the independent auditor, he refused.
In the words of the Torygraph “The public rejection of Sir Thomas’ “arbitrary and wrong” rulings on expenses claims represents the most serious challenge yet to the audit process
£7000 is two years worth of the average Jobseekers Alliance. And Field not only wants a single benefit, he wants it at a lower flat rate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6364765/MPs-expenses-Frank-Field-joins-revolt-by-refusing-to-repay-7000.html
Jobseekers Allowance not Alliance obviously.
I wish there was a Jobseekers Alliance.
Even with a bloody huge majority, Barney, Labour came close to having amendments contrary to government policy attached to a lot of its laws in the second term. This increased in the third term with the cut in the majority. A minority government would almost inevitably lose a lot of these battles – to the benefit of the Lib-Dems and Labour no doubt.
As for the things the Lib-Dems have got out of the current coalition, especially when they refer to Tory policies that the Tories have shelved, I’ll hold my judgment for now – but the ‘key’ things the Lib-Dems have campaigned on in many of their marginal seats – like PR or anti-nuclear power – are simply being ignored.
I take your point that they would have got some stuff through. I was guilty of hyperbole. But I still maintain they will get more through this way. But I guess we’ll never know.
On another point, I imagine you are currently glowing with rage about the BA injunction. Apparently the key case is Metrobus in the Court of Appeal last year. It looks at the human rights arguments surrounding the right to withdraw labour.
Here is the link:http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/829.html&query=Metrobus&method=boolean
Hope that is interesting/useful.
Oh, bloody good – cheers for this. My article is already written, and I mentioned in the draft that I couldn’t find any decent summaries, as the mainstream media are sodding useless.
Frank Field also uses researchers from Christian Action Education and Research(CARE) a fundamentalist christian organisation, described as architects of last two attempts to restrict abortion- both of which relied heavily on emotive misleading rhetoric- Care offer themselves as a pregnancy counselling service to young people- talking them out of abortions.
They are closely linked with the Conservative party, especially Nadine Dorries etc
Depply Flawed: Interesting. Any sources on that?
With regard to the position offered to Frank Field by the tory party,should he take
up this position,then if he is an honest man he will resign his seat at Westminster
and re-submit himself for the party of his choice,liberal or conservative.This will
give people such as myself,who gave him my vote as a labour candidate a chance to get rid of him and put a true socialist in in this constituency.If what Frank Field and the Liberals have done is what they call cleaning up politics then please let us have the old honest politics of my youth.