Another SNP candidate steps down
Sunday, 12 July 2009
James Dornan, the leader of the SNP of Glasgow Council has stepped down as the candidate for the Glasgow North East by election after the revelations in the Sunday Herald about breaking the charity law.
It turns out that Dornan signed his assets to an insolvency practitioner so he didn't actually declare himself bankrupt. This meant he could still stand as a candidate but he may not have been allowed to be a partner director on Culture and Sport Glasgow.
It is an odd one. If this is just an unintentional technicality then why did he step down as a candidate? He claims it was because he wanted to stop this issue being "exploited by Labour." I have to say I can't quite see the "SNP candidate transferred assets to insolvency practitioner but then was a partner director voluntarily for a charity" headline working too well on an attack leaflet.
It begs the question. If it is enough of a problem to stop him being a candidate then is it enough of a problem to stop him leading the SNP group on Glasgow Council?
It's just another problem to add to a by election campaign which hasn't even started yet, lest we forget the chain of events so far
- Grant Thoms is the obvious candidate, already PPC for the seat and a councillor
- Thoms mysteriously steps it down.
- Alex Salmond wants BBC journalist David Kerr to be candidate
- Local SNP group ignore their leader and go for James Dornan
- James Dornan steps down
- to be continued
I'm sure I'm not the only one slightly suspicious that this came out the week after the party hierarchy were denied their first choice of candidate. I remember people boasted to me after the selection that this was a symbol of the vibrant. fair, honest and local democracy in the SNP but this is somewhat odd.
Of course contrast that with Labour. We have our excellent candidate in Willie Bain already being promoted and having his profile raised. Our campaign is well under way and I, like many others, intend on campaigning they very soon.
Posts
22 comments:
sheer speculation and lies
em no it's on the BBC website.
It won't affect his position as a Councillor Yousuf, indeed both the Sunday Herald and the BBC clearly state categorically that it won't.
It was clear someone in Labour would try to make James' council position an issue so, if I may say so, I suggest you remind yourself why you are in Politics, hopefully it wasn't to go after people experiencing tough financial times just to up your chances of winning a by-election.
I don't think that question was begging to be asked at all.
If that's the case Jeff then he shouldn't have resigned as a candidate. Either it is acceptable or not.
I've no problem with someone having financial difficulties (I'm a student...!) it's the double standards which bother me.
He stepped down (didn't "resign") as a candidate because he didn't want Labour using it as an issue and letting it dominate the by-election when other issues matter more. (did you even read the BBC article? you've got 2 things blatantly wrong so far)
I guess James gave you some credit in assuming Labour wouldn't do the same at Council level but, on current evidence, apparently not.
And do you actually personally have any reservations with James Dornan being the SNP's Council Leader or are you just relying on the non-existent "double standards" as an angle to get this story out?
I suspect you aren't "bothered" in the slightest, quite chipper actually.
Now, can someone remind me about Glasgow East. Didn't one party have problems with people saying they would stand then letting their colleagues down?
Surely not. Tell me I'm dreaming ...
Folks in politics have short memories. Anyone remember the Labour shortlists for both Glasgow East and Glenrothes?
Dear Yousuf
If you check your facts then you will see that under by election rules for the SNP, candidates for seats need to reapply if there is a by-election.
Grant Thoms didn't apply to stand for the Glasgow North East seat, so he didn't step down.
He didn't put his name forward for the by-election committee to consider and was never interviewed for selection.
James Dornan was the selected candidate and he has stepped aside.
That means your post title;
"Another SNP Canididate steps down" is wrong.
I hope this helps.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Jeff are you seriously going to argue about whether James Dornan stepped down as a candidate or resigned as a candidate?
As I have said in this post I agree with you that this wouldn't have been an issue in the campaign but it's either an issue or it's not.
I remember the embarrassment of Glasgow East and the shambles of the selection. I also remember the pain that the lost weekend was to our campaign.
I'll argue for as long as you get it wrong using resigned which sounds worse than stepped down.
if it makes no difference, use the correct term.
I find your logic that Dornan has 'made' this an issue with the by-election therefore it must be an issue with the Council alarming.
LOL, your uber-partisan hack posts like this just make me laugh. No-one comes to this blog for party cheerleading as 99% of your readers are strong supporters of one party or another. So why insult our intelligence with this hack mince?
You know fine well what the implications of Cllr Dornan's trust deed would have been for his candidancy, had it went ahead. Anyone seriously involved in electoral politics can wind the tape forward and see the muck being thrown James' way by your mob. James did the smart thing to move out the limelight and allow the SNP campaign to go on with a new candidate. One who doesn't spend most of the week in London, unlike Willie Bain.
If your post really reflects your thinking, as opposed to punting the party line, God help any candidate unfortunate enough to have you as Agent.
anyway he withdrew "as a candidate because he didn't want Labour using it as an issue and letting it dominate the by-election when other issues matter more."
we wont ask what 'IT' means or why 'IT' could possibly dominate the by-election.
Unless all the media were under strict labour instructions to highlight 'IT' at every opportunity.
I do find it a wee bit funny that a Labour supporter uses the criticism "4.Local SNP group ignore their leader..". If only the Labour members of East Lothian or Airdrie were allowed to choose who they wanted! Just like the Labour members of London weren't allowed to choose Ken Livingstone all those years ago too...!
Quite right Leaves on the Line!
I think it's pretty disgusting how quickly a newspaper can rake through your past and come up with this kind of thing. It's clearly a personal issue, which James didn't think would affect his candidacy, or he wouldn't have put his name forward in the first place.
I don't think losing a week is a big issue this time around, particularly if the date for the election is November. As I've said before, Labour's cynical delaying tactics are the real problem with this by-election.
I think the raking up of the past is a shame too and I'm surprised that this has come out so quickly.
Here's a thought though. If David Kerr has been appointed a Special Advisor to the First Minister then the rules mean that he can't stand for election, I suppose he could resign although it owuld make a bit of a mockery of the whole system.
I wonder if there are any young, intelligent SNP East End councillors who live in Springburn who could be a potential candidate?...:P
Yawn. David Kerr is not a special advisor. His supposed appointment is...a wee made up tale from Labour.
By the way...when will Labour call the by-election?
interesting indeed.
but the campaign hasnt started yet because your lot refuse to call an election.
if our campaigns such a shambles why are labour so scared to face it?
Perhaps I can put the record straight about a couple of things.
Whatever may be the case in the Labour Party, in the SNP the hierarchy don’t select by-election candidates. The only reason you believe that Alex Salmond wanted David Kerr to be the candidate is because you read it in the press. Such press speculation is completely misinformed however because journalists simply do not understand the selection process.
Potential by-election candidates in the SNP are vetted by the national election committee and selected by a meeting of local members. The ‘hierarchy’ don’t have a vote. The Convener of the election committee incidentally is Grant Thoms. Since Grant did not put his name forward for the north east by-election he was not a potential candidate and therefore could not have stepped down.
As to why Grant did not put his name forward there has been much speculation about that. If Grant did not feel like taking the risk that his sexuality would become an issue I don’t blame him one bit - being a by-election candidate after all is not the same as being a candidate in a general election, which is why there is always a new selection process when a by-election is called.
I don’t necessarily think that Labour would have used the fact that Grant is gay against him by the way, but you never know what the media will decide to pick up on. That is also the reason why James has stood down. In normal circumstances the story on James would be of very little interest - it was an unintentional technicality. But in a by-election media interest is much more intense than normal, which is why James resigned straight away. He didn’t want the SNP's by-election campaign to be blown off course by it. That was the correct decision and it is a mark of James’ strength of character that he did not hesitate to make it.
James Dornan is to be 100% commended for his actions.
Although there is no suggestion of any intentional wrongdoing, the constant attacks he would have came under especially from Labour (the world champions of negative campaigning) meant the by-election would have become about personalities rather than the issues. So he did the right thing and stepped aside. What a shame more of our politicians weren't so principled (well not in recent years anyway).
Cast your minds back to this time last year when Labour were going through problems of their own trying to find a candidate. And now Labour and their masters/servants (delete as applicable) in the anti-Scottish unionist media are milking the situation for everything it's worth. Talk about being a bunch of opportunists!!!!!!!!!!
This by-election should be fought on the issues, such as the Scottish Government standing up for Scottish jobs, free school meals, freezing the council tax again, cutting prescription charges, doing something to tackle the dreadful alcohol problems in Scotland, and then Glasgow Labour's closure of local schools, London Labour's £500 million reduction in Scotland's budget, London Labour wasting billions renewing nuclear weapons 20 miles down the Clyde from Glasgow, and Brown/Darling's complete failure to get to grips with this recession.
I'm fairly sure we will see a big swing away from Labour and towards the SNP, maybe not enough for the seat to change hands (after all Glasgow is one of the very few traditional Labour heartlands still left nowadays, where many people vote Labour out of unchanging habit rather than taking a few moments to think about who to vote for, where on a normal day Labour should win hands down) but hopefully enough to make Brown and the rest of the Labour party think about changing their arrogant behaviour and not take people for granted like they have for decades.
whats the difference between stepping down and resinging?
Do not know quite how I came across this blog but if you are the level of labour activist no wonder they are in meltdown.
What happened to moral fibre and a bit of ethics.
Post a Comment