Posted by In last weeks’ News, Councillors Goulden and Goulden exclusively revealed that the alleged Facebook profile of Labour candidate Sam Whittington was the final straw.
In the week that also saw Liberal Democrat Cllr Geoff Juby bitten in quite an awkward place by a dog whilst on the campaign trail, the Gouldens broke their silence for the Medway newspaper.
‘Derogatory and disgusting’
‘We were going to stay until after the by-election,’ Val Goulden was quoted as saying. ‘Until we were shown something she had posted on her Facebook page.
‘What she said was derogatory and quite disgusting.’
The interview explains how they have been increasingly fed up at being ignored – even though Tony Goulden was the Labour Group Whip.
And despite being councillors since Medway Council’s inception over a decade ago, the Cllrs Goulden were allowed no input into the selection of the Labour candidate.
‘Democratic and Fair’
The News feature also highlighted the reaction of two Medway bloggers – AlanWCollins and Labour activist Tristan Osborne – and another commenter on this very website.
In a recent Opinion article (‘Like rats fleeing a shrinking ship…‘, 12 August 2009), AlanWCollins said that ‘rising a three-week-strong member to the office of candidate by the local party simply just does not sit right in local politics – even if you do have the backing of the local under-fire MP’.
One-time commenter Angie Hill was also quoted, responding that ‘it is not the fault of Ms Whittington that due to her hard work and faultless campaigning, that she was brought to the attention of the senior members of the Labour party’.
Meanwhile, Mr Osborne had stated that the selection was democratic in its nature. ‘Sam was democratically selected. She contested with a number of other very strong candidates. The candidate selected reflected the will of those in the audience and the membership. The process even took some time to make it fair to all those involved’.
There is now less than one week until voters go to the polls – and if Labour’s controversial candidate selection proves to be fatal, then, as one local commentator noted, it will be ironic, tragically for Labour, that the date of the by-election falls on the seventieth anniversary of the British declaration of war against Germany.
2009 By-Election
September 3, 2009
| Candidates | Party | Votes | |||
| Gary Allanach | Liberal Democrat | - | |||
| Tashi Tamang Bhutia | Conservative | - | |||
| Brian Cartwright | Independent | - | |||
| Robin Charles Johnson | UK Independence Party | - | |||
| Sarah March D’Angelo | Green Party | - | |||
| Brian Christian Ravenscroft | British National Party | - | |||
| Sam Whittington | Labour | - | |||
Related posts
I fail to see what 70th anniversary of Great Britain declaration of war on the Third Reich has to do with the Labour party selection process
The most interesting disclosure in all of this was that the Gouldens had been planning to leave the Labour Group for some time anyway. It looks as though, even without this by-election, the Labour Group would have lost two of its long-term members and been down to at most eleven members — a fifth of the membership of the elected Medway Council.
Personally, I have found all of this rather sad — but perhaps I was if anything too close to the people involved, most of whom I don’t dislike.
Perhaps after a cooling-off period, something good will rise from the ashes.
By the way: I notice that the two candidate websites aren’t being updated…
Well the Nazi party was a socialist fascist movement, and Labour are…ahhh, now I see.
“The only thing you can be certain about in politics is that you can’t be certain about anything,” said the late Tony Banks, former Labour MP for West Ham. It seems the Labour party in Medway are attempting to hammer home this point with the biggest mallet they can find.
Politics is rarely celebrated as a noble profession, but you could be forgiven for thinking (or perhaps assuming) that years of dedicated hard work and loyalty would earn you a certain amount of respect among your political peers. And yet, as recent events in Chatham’s Luton and Wayfield ward have shown they earn little more than an entitlement to a swift kick in the teeth.
As the daughter of Councillors Tony and Val Goulden, I have watched these events in disbelief. I have watched as party colleagues – some who laughably called themselves friends – turned against two of their own. I have watched as my parents agonised over what to do. I have privately supported their decision. I have read the press reports and blog entries with their own version of events.
Now I would like to give my views publicly.
Much has been said about my parents’ decision to resign the Labour whip, but not one commentator has grasped the real point. Their resignation has been painted as a protest against Labour’s by-election candidate, Sam Whittington; the assumption has been made that they have a problem with her personally. As if they woke up one morning and thought, “not keen on her, let’s resign.” Ridiculous.
To the best of my knowledge my parents have never met Ms Whittington, never been so much as introduced – and there-in lays the point. When it came to choosing a by-election candidate the Labour party in Chatham and Aylesford – under the leadership of Jonathan Shaw MP – didn’t even consult their sitting Luton and Wayfield Councillors. Their opinions were not sought, and when they were given regardless, they were ignored.
You may ask “why?”
Mr Shaw and his colleagues would tell you that under Labour by-election rules they can choose to exclude the sitting Councillors from the selection process. While I seriously doubt the rules were designed to prohibit polite consultation and information giving, would this be the same rule book that states someone must be a member of the Labour party for at least six months before standing for election? Funny, as I understand it Ms Whittington was signed up in order that she could stand. One rule for one…
Neither my parents nor I on their behalf have a personal axe to grind against Ms Whittington, but I think serious questions should be asked as to why Labour in Chatham and Aylesford would seek to break party rules, sidelining and alienating longstanding and loyal councillors, to put forward an un-proven party supporter when more qualified candidates existed.
What did Mr Shaw and other senior members of the local Labour party hope to achieve by excluding my parents? What was the point?
I have been a member and supporter of the Labour party since the tender age of 16, when John Prescott and the Rolling Rose tour came to Chatham’s Central Hall full of hope for the future. I campaigned long and hard for Mr Shaw in two general elections, I volunteered on Labour’s media desk at Millbank in 1997 and I have worked for three Labour MEPs. In 16 years as a Labour supporter and activist I have been both inspired and appalled by politics, (it has an ugly face, let’s be honest), but in all that time nothing has been bad enough to shake my commitment to the party, until now.
And if it feels this way to me, how must it feel to my parents. My Dad has been a Labour man all his life. Both my parents have represented Medway proudly as Labour mayors. Just how badly they have been made to feel that they would take this decision, I can only guess at.
My message to Mr Shaw and those who seem to blindly follow him: 1997 was a long time ago, strong Labour people are now, more than ever, thin on the ground. You cannot hope to survive if this is the way you treat those who have shown you loyalty.
Mr Banks said there was only one certainty; my parents have two. That they have been utterly betrayed and that as Independent Councillors they will continue to serve their constituents as they always have, consistently and bloody well.
I am grateful to Michelle Southby for her contribution, and have linked to it from my own ‘blog item on the by-election earlier today, urging anyone thinking of voting tomorrow to read it.
The Goulden were lazy and useless councillors – no different from tory councillors. they merely cared only about being Mayor. If they were that important how comes Ms Whittington get over 1000 votes. 3 Councillors leaving within couple of weeks and a Gurkha, 18 points behind and with a hugh party machine behind them – 4 votes.
The Gouldens have never represented constituents and Luton and Wayfield will be better off without these self obsessed glory supporters. Nice as it is to back useless parents – i think if lady Goulden stood outside Ridge Meadow School or Wayfield shops – with ‘i love my mum and dad’ eggs would be coming her way.
I wonder how long it is before the fame seeking Vally Goulden is licking ears to become Mayor. A daughter’s loyality is great but bias too the extreme.
I am told that the Goulden clan were god parents to their former disgraced Cllr Dennis’ children and were great friends. They helped him become a cllr and were big chums. I can imagine how ashamed they now feel – hopefully sharing a glass of red and discussing their failings.
As a Luton and Wayfield resident we say get rid of these two ind cllrs – and before tony the bridgewarden sells us down the river again. and maybe lady Goulden shoud submit divorce papers to separate from her disloyal parents.
Ashamed and angry constituent
Thank you, Mr Finch for proving my point. Your vitriolic, ill informed attack just goes to demonstrate how low Labour in Chatham and Aylesford have sunk. Many congratulations.
No thank you Ms Southby. As you are their little baby you cannot be objective . The true is gauge is how many local residents have come out to back them, None is the answer, apart from the blessed conservative assocation.
They are a none entity.
How long before they are asked to become Mayor. This will prove that you are a child just sticking up for her deviant parents.
My sympathy to you when they are ousted. I hope you come back on this compelling blog and try to defend them again. Good luck
just to add; “The biggest was ignoring Tony and Val Goulden, two ex-Medway Mayors and (more importantly) two highly popular, hardworking local councillors.” Lol.
It is something that it takes a journalist to state how hard working someone is. Where are the comments from local residents. None……
Sorry Mr Collins – i am disappointed my last comment has been disregarded. All for full and free comments.
S Finch – your comments were not disregarded, and the impatience with which you stated that they were insults me.
As you will have realised by now, I am a lone blogger. I don’t have a team of people working for me to assist me in what I do. I don’t even have a second hand to help me.
As much as it may surprise many visitors to realise, I do have a life beyond the computer screen, so, in the absence of any help, this blog may go days without posts, and comments may go days without being approved.
Although I try my hardest to avoid the latter, the best promise I can make outside of my University terms is 48 hours to moderate.
This blog does all it can to allow for free and full comments. I have approved 1,284 comments since the blog started in December 2006 – and, to the best of my knowledge this late at night, I have not refused a single comment save for spam.
This website aims to encourage healthy debate – compared with both Sam Whittington and Gary Allanach’s websites in the Luton & Wayfield campaign, which both provided a one-way mouthpiece and no possibility of public comment on their pages.
However, I would like to remind users of this blog’s present Comment Policy – in particular Part 1 (“No offensive comments will be published … Offensive comments include sexually and racially offensive comments, personal insults and swearing”).
Whether it be against other people who have commented, or people who are being commented about, personal insults will not be tolerated. I have offered a little amount of leverage recently for users to make their point, but I would politely remind all users that there is a limit.
This blog encourages healthy, and constructive debate, and all comments are to be personally respectful of others, whether or not you agree with their comments.
Rant over!
My apolgies
Just to help with the mayor qualification question touched on by S Finch above…
While they were in the Labour Group, under the former “points system” their group at least would have had the opportunity to nominate Mayor and Deputy Mayor approximately every four years, with the then membership. In the Independent Group of three, this would be about once every twelve to fifteen years, or perhaps even longer(!)
Fortunately, that rather contrive system has now gone; but I can’t see any way that leaving the Labour Group has done anything to aid the cause of becoming mayor again for either of the Gouldens. I just can’t see how that’s an issue for them now — they’ve both done it, and they’re surely moving on to other things.
I’m sure this “ayor” business is a red herring, folks, and is best forgotten about with regard to the subject of this thread.
Just out of interest: I’d like to know on what basis S Finch makes his comments. Such writings remind me so strongly of the known (and paid) Labour “trolls” that — although I don’t believe Mr Finch is another of those — it does nturally enough make me suspicious of such neagtive allegations with out anything to back them up.
My own observations were far different; and I suppose I did have a broader perception than it would be reasonable to expect any individual member of the public to know, so I don’t condemn out of hand those others’ perceptions.
However, placing the boot on the other foot, would those such as Mr Finch like it if someone were to make similar unsupported allegations about him in his own field of work?
Although some might (very conveniently) claim that it is different for elected politicians — and there is a grain of truth in that, but no more — that is still no excuse. Only the “low lifes” such as the disgraced Damian McBride and his ilk would ever try to hide behind such a defence — and I’m not sure even they would do so in practice…
In reality, it is a case of “sauce for the goose”, and although the Gouldens had (and have) their faults, I’d expect — not here, as it wouldn’t accord with Alan’s comments policy, but via a link to a post elsewhere — actual hard evidence to support S Finch’s allegations. Otherwise a retraction and public apology is in order.
Well Mr Finch (just playing a hunch here, but is that your real name?) you do come across rather like a spoilt child stamping his foot in the corner.
Just an observation, but you would do better to proof read your vitriol before publishing. If I must be insulted, it would be far more appetising if it were at least served up in decent English. Furthermore, as Mr Ward points out, it would also be prudent to back up your hypothesis with evidence.
But come, we could trade insults forever, and while it is amusing to rile you, I’m fairly certain that the baiting of wounded creatures was outlawed in Britain in 1835.
I would second Mr Ward’s call for a retraction and apology, both to my parents and myself. Your comments are highly offensive, unnecessary and fly close to the wind, legally speaking. Were I not so amused by your foot stamping, I might actually be offended.