UK

Rain (AM and PM) 8° London Hi 10°C / Lo 3°C

Blears vows to 'rebuild' after foiling deselection bid

Press Association

Hazel Blears welcomed "sensible discussions" with party members after she survived a deselection vote.

The former communities secretary said the Labour party had "rallied behind me" after she kept the party's nomination for her Salford seat.

The voting was 33 against the deselection motion, 12 for and one abstention as some 80 people packed into the meeting in Salford last night.

Ms Blears said: "We have had one of the most sensible discussions that I have had about this issue for weeks and weeks.

"I'm at a loss as to how I got to this place but what I've had tonight is the first chance to explain myself properly to my party members."

In a sometimes fiery and passionate two-and-three-quarter hour meeting some party members berated Ms Blears for coming within a "hair's breadth" of bringing down Gordon Brown.

Accusations of "blind loyalty" were thrown around with the local party being left with a "lame duck" candidate for the next general election.

The level of "hostility and venom" was remarked upon as tempers flared.

Some local party members said they themselves had been verbally attacked in the street following the expenses scandal because they were known to be party members.

Ms Blears gave an explanation of her expenses citing inaccuracies in the way the media had reported the furore but apologised again for the timing of her resignation.

Some members attacked the media for wanting "the blood" of a working class Labour MP and accepted she had simply made mistakes.

Members accepted they had a huge job in turning round the party's popularity but said Salford and other urban areas had been transformed through Labour government and the fight would go on.

After securing her position Ms Blears said she would now focus on "bread and butter" politics, but acknowledged she had been made "incandescently angry" by the expenses allegations against her.

She told the BBC: "The absolute priority for me now is to be a bread and butter champion for the people of Salford, to go out there and campaign for Labour but also to expose what Tory party policies would mean to the people of this city and this is absolutely my priority."

Ms Blears insisted she had meant no harm with the timing of her resignation.

She explained: "My party were concerned about the timing of my resignation and I said before that I bitterly regret that.

"I would not want to damage the party in any way, shape or form, but what I also heard tonight from party members is that events of a few weeks do not wipe out 30 years of a record in local and national politics of fighting and being a champion for some of the poorest people in our country.

"That's what drives me, it motivates me every day of my life and now I've got a chance to rebuild and re-invigorate my politics."

She said intense media pressure had been a factor in making her position becoming untenable.

Ms Blears explained: "At that time, as you well know, I had had a couple of weeks of intense media scrutiny the like of which I had never known.

"I never want to know it again, not just on me but my constituents, my party members, my family and also clearly, there came a point where I did feel I was singled out in terms of expenses, my position became untenable.

"I genuinely thought as Jacqui Smith had said she was going, that I could say that I was going without creating such a scale of fire storm.

"Clearly that was wrong of me in hindsight."

On wearing a provocative brooch on the day of her resignation, she said: "By that time I was just incandescently angry.

"I felt that I was being run out of office on the basis of untrue allegations.

"I was angry with the whole situation.

"I was particularly angry with the media, because it has been impossible to get the message across."

The news that Ms Blears would stay in her post was met with shouts of "Hazel out" by protesters in front of Salford Civic Centre.

Stephen Kingston, one of the organisers of the demonstration said: "The reaction is that it shows the Labour party in Salford is completely and absolutely out of touch with their own voters, with the people of Salford.

"Labour is supposed to be the party of the working class, so why aren't they listening to the working class in Salford? The campaign will definitely continue. This is just the start of it."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

"Labour is supposed to be the party of the working class"
[info]sheumais wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 07:46 am (UTC)
Ha ha ha ha....

Why would it be that it wants to distance itself from the trade unions then Hazel? Why would you sneer at your own brother because he drives a bus? Why would it be that you so desperately cling to profits that should go to the taxpayer? Why do you think you are one of the most widely despised politicians?
Ms Blears Is Not To Be Trusted
[info]mike4626 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:27 am (UTC)
RESIGN
Re: "Labour is supposed to be the party of the working class"
[info]nightside242 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:44 am (UTC)
To be fair, that quote wasn't attributed to her. She'd be much more blatant about her hatred for working-class people, she's been in the New Labour government after all!
Happy days
[info]happybabe1987 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:00 am (UTC)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am a nice man. In the past I was always seeking my love. A friend told me a platform-========Cougar Circle . com =========where I knew my ideal match, a beautiful and gentle woman. I hope more and more people can get happiness there. I believe "All shall be well, and Jack shall have Jill".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Regrets
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:16 am (UTC)
Blears' only real regret is that her attempt to bring down Brown was a failure. If se really believes the public believe anything else then she is deluded and as unsuitable for office as she is given her expenses fiddling (at least in terms of the spirit of the Green Book), as unsuitable as she is given her competence in office and as unsuitable as she is given her support for immoral policies within the UK and overseas.

What amazes me is that only 46 people in Salford (maybe the others were just to ashamed to turn up?) voted. Another wakeup call folks, 46 people say who your MP is going to be...

I am sure will hear more about this (and hopefully rather less of Blears post election).
Re: Regrets
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 02:14 pm (UTC)
The 46 were members of the constituency Labour party, representing the various wards. I heard that only three wards supported no confidence motion, so the result was hardly a surprise. It wasn't an open meeting of Salford residents. Hopefully the electorate will prove Stephen Kingston's assertion that "... it shows the Labour party in Salford is completely and absolutely out of touch with their own voters, with the people of Salford".

But, with the likelihood of a low turn-out and the tradition in solid Labour constituencies that they'd send a sheep to Westminster, as long as it sports a red rosette on its fleece, bleats occasionally, and goes through the lobby with the sheepdogs - er, the Whips - biting at its heels, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hazel's beaming smile back on the green benches in the next Parliament. Whatever her alleged iniquities, she's got a bit more about her than some of the old rams that have worn holes in the leather of the Commons in years gone by.

Depressing thought. Ugh!
Re: Regrets
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 02:30 pm (UTC)
Depressingly I think john_b_ellis has hit the nail on the head. I just hope that Salford's voters get their act together and vote for some reasonable alternative. (come the revolution ect ect ect :-)
Re: Regrets
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 04:39 pm (UTC)
Used to work in Salford - for the City Council in fact - so I knew one or two of the personalities ...
Re: Regrets
[info]quietzapple wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:03 pm (UTC)
http://www.hazelblears.co.uk/ says why they will prob return her.
Re: Regrets
[info]quietzapple wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:06 pm (UTC)
46 delegates decided to back hazel Blears as the labour candidate, they will have been elected as delegates by hundreds of Laboyr Party members, who chat with thousands of Salford residents.

I bet they are in better touch with these folk than the whingers & co:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-richards/steve-richards-open-contempt-for-politicians-is-neither-daring-nor-clever-1669919.html
Re: Regrets
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:41 pm (UTC)
Richards makes some reasonable points but they are not convincing in the whole and he has problems relating the 'little lies' (expenses ect) and their acceptance to the larger lies (Ira ect) and their acceptance.

I would very much love to take up the bet but of course, probably like you, I would have no idea as to how to demonstrate it either way in a manner that might convince thee or me.

I will however correct my assumption (difficult to work out what the numbers are - if you could provide them with some certainty) that only 43 people chose Salfords MP. OK, it was a few hundred. It still stinks.

I think many of Blears' constituents would be interested in her ability to make a profit through their(tax payers) taxes (invest expenses, profit, sell on and even avoid capital gains), and I suspect that very few of them could tun round at the drop of a hat and offer a cheque for more than £10,000.

I hope she goes. Richards argues (in other pieces) that these are trivial sums. I think (can;t find the piece) that he even compares this favourably with other European countries. That is wrong. It is wrong on two fronts - (a) she (and a number of others) did not obey the spirit of the directions, and (b) getting caught on this level of (apparently - according to Richards, trivial fiddles compared with politicians that rake in hundreds of thousands) shows a paucity of ambition that itself should be condemnded. Shurely Hazel could have done better (but maybe she has?)

Politicians.........
[info]theelectrician wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:58 am (UTC)
"I felt that I was being run out of office on the basis of untrue allegations. "

So refute the allegations with evidence and sue your false accusers for libel/slander. Can't do that?

"I was particularly angry with the media, because it has been impossible to get the message across."

They were printing every word you said! Why didn't you say what your message was?
Re: Politicians.........
[info]quietzapple wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:02 pm (UTC)
They were not printing every word she said of course, and these matters are not as simple as those whose idea of politics is throwing stone imagine.

Try:

http://www.hazelblears.co.uk/a2f65696-a1f0-2294-e162-f1449f14d29a?PageId=bacf341f-b34f-4f24-55f2-2ed6a31f3b6c for her account.

and http://www.hazelblears.co.uk/ has both links to her statements and also much else which indicates she is an excellent Labour MP for Salford.
WHY
[info]cp01 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:07 am (UTC)

As one of the most unrepentant politicians, who tried to avoid 13,000 in capital gains tax liabilities, whilst making 80,000 profit for herself, and the only MP to have claimed for porn - and to still claim that she has done nothing wrong - is not only absurd - its obscene.

Fortunately for Manchester, the people will have a chance to show what they think soon, and come the election she will not be protected by the blind support of her campaign managers.

Hazel may have survivec for now, but I bet she will go in the election
Re: WHY
[info]theelectrician wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:19 am (UTC)
It was Jacqui Smith who claimed for porn (as viewed by her husband via on-demand cabel services). Get it right please.
Re: WHY
[info]quietzapple wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:58 pm (UTC)
Th claim was a genuine mistake, weren't the vids part of some package and so not immediately evident?

Many MPs work a very long week, sad that her husband strayed.

Divorce is very common among MPs, who often marry their secretaries, which is one reason why so many wives prefer to be on their husband's staff.
What's wrong
[info]kanchenjunga wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:15 am (UTC)
It goes to show that the selection sytem is doomed as too are the main parties. Anyone with half a brain would have got rid of her immediately.

To insure greater democracy the selection system must change. As an example people would put themselves forward on an individual ticket displaying their cvs, and then the constiuents regardless of party would vote for who they wanted to represent them, taking away the power of these tired disfunctional parties who have given us, over the years, a bunch of no hopers.
Re: What's wrong
[info]eve_ntual92 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 11:09 am (UTC)
Fair comment. But doubt it will happen.
Re: anyone can vote to select a candisdate
[info]quietzapple wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:54 pm (UTC)
The Tory Party in London supposedly did that to select its candidate for the London Mayor last time, and B Johnson, whom D Cameron asked to stand for selection ( fellow ex member of the notorious invitation only Bullingdon Club) won an election in which his celebrity was a major factor. People were supposed to be able to vote by phone I read, not sure if that happened.

Johnson has lost, mostly by sacking, about half of the Higher ranked Executive he has appointed, the tube is on strike, but the gimmicks are fun.

Political parties have better means of selecting candidates, and their candidates win. People prefer it that way and the polls show the Cons and Labour in leads over the others, inc independents for the next election.
Hazel Blears
[info]ivydot wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:35 am (UTC)
So it is business as usual in Salford's Labour party. Shame! This was a chance to clean house and select a new candidate. Hopefully, Salford voters will make their views heard through the ballot box.
Re: Hazel Blears
[info]quietzapple wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:48 pm (UTC)
Re: Hazel Blears
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:44 pm (UTC)
They might re-elect her but shame on them. As she has attempted to cling to influence through bad decisions and incompetent management at ministerial level. Open contempt from Blears is not clever just visceral.
Can only assume majority of people/councillors in Salford are Morons
[info]ffoulkes_aycke wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:56 am (UTC)


Just bend over and grab your ankles
Re: your gay online urges:
[info]quietzapple wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:46 pm (UTC)
Can't you find a more suitable site for your self expressions?
Livid imagination
[info]quietzapple wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:57 am (UTC)
is not the sole preserve of the online roaring boys then:

"some party members berated Ms Blears for coming within a "hair's breadth" of bringing down Gordon Brown."

Blears is partly a victim of the billionaire press, small wonder as she is so very newsworthy at the quietest of times.

A period of silence is called for, but unlikely from either side

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-richards/steve-richards-open-contempt-for-politicians-is-neither-daring-nor-clever-1669919.html

http://quietzapples.blogspot.com/
Re: Livid imagination
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 02:20 pm (UTC)
A victim? Little Hazel? As McInroe would say, "You CAN'T be SERIOUS!"
Re: Livid imagination
[info]quietzapple wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:42 pm (UTC)
John Patrick McEnroe, Jr might agree that Hazel Blears was doorstepped and bullied by the press, and has since been extensively lied about by fools.

She hasn't handled much of it well.

But she has done a lot better than most of those who like to imagine they can look down with abuse and libels on soo many useful politicians.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-richards/steve-richards-open-contempt-for-politicians-is-neither-daring-nor-clever-1669919.html

None of you is gary Cooper, and there are lots of "Ratso" Rizzos about.
Re: Livid imagination
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:45 pm (UTC)
Just a victim of her own greed.
Hazel Blears: porky little expense-fraudster, con-artist and warmonger
[info]reiksares wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 10:17 am (UTC)
Here's how this vile warmongering thief voted on major issues (from theyworkforyou.com)

Voted a mixture of for and against a transparent Parliament.
Voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban.
Voted strongly for introducing ID cards.
Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals
Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees
Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws
Voted very strongly for the Iraq war
Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war
Voted very strongly for replacing Trident
Voted strongly for the hunting ban
Voted very strongly for equal gay rights
Voted a mixture of for and against laws to stop climate change

So... a thief, a con-artist, a war-monger who voted against an investigation of her own war-mongering, who also voted to cut funding for education whilst spending it on missiles???

GET RID OF THIS FAT CRIMINAL TART NOW.
Re: Hazel Blears: porky little expense-fraudster, con-artist and warmonger
[info]quietzapple wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:43 pm (UTC)
Does your mother like you?

never mind.
Re: Hazel Blears: porky little expense-fraudster, con-artist and warmonger
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:45 pm (UTC)
Does your mother think yo think?
ROLL ON THE ELECTION
[info]rfarley wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 12:56 pm (UTC)
I shall derive great pleasure from seeing the moronic smirk wiped off this odious woman's face when she is kicked out at the next election. She is one of those crooks we despise most - a benefits cheat.
Re: ROLL ON THE ELECTION
[info]quietzapple wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:44 pm (UTC)
She'll be holding her seat, and so will you . . LOL
party members
[info]septimusgrunge wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 05:51 pm (UTC)
How do theses cretins get a position where they can foist a lame duck mp ie Nelly Pledge on the good people of Salford. Do they not hear the voice of the people, Surely they should have consulted the poor sods for their opinion.

Septimus Grunge
Re: Cretin
[info]quietzapple wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:45 pm (UTC)
Are you? Ask one of the men in white - eh?
Re: Cretin
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:47 pm (UTC)
quietzapple - you are not by any chance married to the lady in question? I can't see, other than a financial advantage why you are so protective (of your income of course)

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date