At just before 4pm yesterday Bob Spink rose to his feet in the House of Commons and announced that he had resigned the Tory whip. There is some confusion as to exactly what happened and when but the basic story is this: Mr Spink has been enmeshed in protracted difficulties with his local Conservative Association.
Much of this is thought to have stemmed from his having an affair with the wife of the Association's Deputy Chairman, and employing their daughter whilst still a student. Next week he faces the latest in a series of deselection attempts and he asked the Tory machine to come to his aid. He threatened to withdraw from the Tory whip if that help wasn't forthcoming. CCHQ had already investigated the situation in Castle Point and decided that any intervention would be inappropriate.
Our view is that the Chief Whip, Patrick McLoughlin MP, took the right course of action. The party cannot be blackmailed by an MP who wants to be protected from accountability to local party members. Our general view is that incumbent MPs need to be more accountable - not less. It's an unfortunate episode and there might be a way back for Mr Spink but his actions in the last 24 hours are only likely to increase the chance of him being deselected. As others have speculated, there is a real possibility he might not sit with Derek Conway as an independent Conservative but might represent UKIP.
By way of postscript the indispensable Revolts.co.uk website notes that Mr Spink has been the most rebellious Conservative MP with one notable exception... Ken Clarke!
"Bob Spink's departure from the Conservative whip means we lose one of the most rebellious Conservative MPs. He was the third most rebellious Conservative MP during the 2001 Parliament, and since the 2005 general election, he's cast no fewer than 27 rebellious votes against the Tory frontbench, 23 of them under David Cameron's leadership. It's worth noting, though, that he's not the most rebellious Conservative MP. That's Ken Clarke, who has rebelled a total of 32 times since the 2005 general election. Spink would have been clearly in the lead as this Parliament's most rebellious Conservative MP had the pro-European Kenneth Clarke not racked up 25 rebellious votes in favour of the Lisbon Treaty in the last few months."
Well said ConHome!
Posted by: Jennifer Wells | March 13, 2008 at 09:30
I agree. The presumption should be against interfering in an association's affairs (and I would include interfering in favour of Cameronites too).
Posted by: James | March 13, 2008 at 09:36
Spink's a complete joke. I listened in absolute amazement to his speech in the recent Pensions Bill 2nd Reading debate as he made point after point which I had been expecting to come from the Labour backbenches.
Posted by: David Mallory | March 13, 2008 at 09:43
James, fair point. However, as I have posted elsewhere, CCHQ usually ineptly calls it wrong. They absolutely should have intervened in Sevenoaks last year and replaced the Management Team. Instead, they adopted the ostrich position, the Association split in half, lost £100k and ended up in the press for losing an industrial tribunal. Excuse me if I am a tad cynical.
Posted by: Cornyn | March 13, 2008 at 09:49
I expect the party will be quite glad to be rid of Bob Spink. They don't like MPs who have independent minds and convictions.
Posted by: Chris Palmer | March 13, 2008 at 09:49
How can CCHQ claim they shouldn't be meddling in association affairs, when they sacked Nigel Hastilow for saying "Enoch was right"? They can't have their cake and eat it!!!
Posted by: Gospel of Enoch | March 13, 2008 at 09:59
Gospel of Enoch, saying "Enoch was right" has national implications. These problems are local ones.
Posted by: Michael Rutherford | March 13, 2008 at 10:40
I don't think that CCHQ mind MPs with their own minds and views, but Dr. Spink is an exceptional case.
Posted by: Walter West | March 13, 2008 at 10:46
CCHQ meddles in associations all the time, especially selections. It threatens associations with being put under "special measures" if unfavoured PPCs are re-interviewed and if favoured candidates are not shortlisted. Rochester & Strood is a classic example.
If a Cameroon MP had been subject to the treatment that Bob Spink has received, CCHQ would have threatened it with "special measures" too. I don't know Bob Spink but I cannot stand hypocrisy.
Posted by: TFA Tory | March 13, 2008 at 11:28
TFA Tory, well I certainly don't defend CCHQ's behaviour on several occasions, but I think they've done the right thing here.
A personal falling-out between an MP and his association really is no businesss of CCHQ's.
Posted by: Sean Fear | March 13, 2008 at 11:35
Enoch Powell was certainly right on the EU. His language on immigration was inflamatory and unnecessary.
Bob Spink has been victimised for his affair with a local woman activist. He increased his majority substantially to over 8,000 at the last election. He constituents certianly support him even if CCHQ is supporting his persecutors.
Contrast Spink's treatment with that of Greg Barker who cheated on his wife with another man. Barker remains a Cameroon insider and propagandist, e.g. the drivel he has written on this site today.
Double standards!
Posted by: TFA Tory | March 13, 2008 at 12:00
I never cease to be amazed at the facility so many Tory MPs have with producing the wrong, even the worst types of self-publicity at a time most inconvenient to the Party. I'm all in favour of freedom of opinion, personal activity and so on, but why is it that pragmatic commonsense, something the Party was renowned for at one time, so easily goes out of the window?
Are we begging for tighter control? Ras Putin is a brilliant role-model! To say nothing of Gordon Brown.
Alan Carcas
Posted by: Alan Carcas | March 13, 2008 at 12:07
When James Gray MP was facing deselection in Wiltshire North, the Editor (Tim) commented:
Traditionally CCHQ has remained publicly neutral in such cases but often makes behind-the-scenes calls to Association officers. Such was the case when Castle Point MP Bob Spink faced deselection problems a few years ago.
That was back in November 2006.
Posted by: Chris Palmer | March 13, 2008 at 12:13
"saying 'Enoch was right' has national implications..." True: You might get to form the next government!
Posted by: Gospel of Enoch | March 13, 2008 at 12:17
How many MPs does that leave the Conservative Party with?
Posted by: Clockwork Mouse | March 13, 2008 at 12:47
This information needs to be widely disseminated so as to prevent any NuLab spin.
Posted by: George Hinton | March 13, 2008 at 13:03
Well, that's one fewer bigotted, Europhobic, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, pro-capital punishment, hypocritical Tory MP. I'm sure we can all be pleased about that.
Posted by: passing leftie | March 13, 2008 at 13:14
"Well, that's one fewer bigotted, Europhobic, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, pro-capital punishment, hypocritical Tory MP. I'm sure we can all be pleased about that."
You get an A for effort but an F for failing to realise nobody is going to defend him.
Posted by: Dale | March 13, 2008 at 13:23
Dale said:
"Well, that's one fewer bigotted, Europhobic, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, pro-capital punishment, hypocritical Tory MP. I'm sure we can all be pleased about that."
You get an A for effort but an F for failing to realise nobody is going to defend him.
I'd certainly be interested in what it was about his behaviour or views you objected to.
Posted by: passing leftie | March 13, 2008 at 13:34
If there is any chance of Bob Spink representing UKIP on the green benches, I would welcome that indeed. My preferred choice would be for him to resign his seat to allow the voters of Canvey Island/Castle Point a chance to elect him under our banner, something I think they will do quite convincingly.
Posted by: UKIP member | March 13, 2008 at 13:48
"Well, that's one fewer bigotted, Europhobic, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, pro-capital punishment, hypocritical Tory MP. I'm sure we can all be pleased about that."
Well, a passing leftie might be pleased by the departure of someone he disagrees with, but I'm not. However, it's between him and his association
Posted by: Sean Fear | March 13, 2008 at 13:53
So "passing leftie" approves of murdering healthy foetuses! Too often, abortion is a modern substitute for contraception.
Posted by: TFA Tory | March 13, 2008 at 14:03
Spink's a fruitloop, and the parliamentary party is better off without him.
Do I sense that Conway and Spink are part of a trend, and that a gradual purge of the parliamentary party's UKIP trojans and sundry mentals, idiots and other bedblocking wastes of meat is underway?
Ann Winterton's probably next.
Posted by: Martin Coxall | March 13, 2008 at 14:25
Europhobic! - so he's not all bad.
Posted by: David | March 13, 2008 at 14:39
"Spink's a fruitloop, and the parliamentary party is better off without him.
Do I sense that Conway and Spink are part of a trend, and that a gradual purge of the parliamentary party's UKIP trojans and sundry mentals, idiots and other bedblocking wastes of meat is underway?"
It is comments like these that do the damage, don't you think there will be enough labour/ libdems attacking him AND us?
Whichever way you look at it, this means we have lost a safe seat:
Either he will stand as an indepndent/UKIP and split the vote causing labour or the libdems to take the seat or He will stand as an independent and win.
I may disagree with his views and the way he has attempted to bully CCHQ, but he is an incredibly popular mp and this is our loss. He should have been told in no uncertain terms that his behaviour would not be tolerated and then told exactly how to survive deselection.
"I'd certainly be interested in what it was about his behaviour or views you objected to."
A better question would be what about his views and his behaviou I DIDN'T object to?
But I like the idea that we have MPs with radical views that many may disagree with. I beleive Tony Benn to be a very dangerous man but I still beleive parliament to be all the poorer without him.
Posted by: Dale | March 13, 2008 at 14:58
I am always amazed at the arrogance of both some MPs and some posters on CH who seem to think that it was solely by the efforts and general wonderfullness of the MP personally that their vote went up dramatically. On the contrary an increase in majority or vote is in most cases down to the hard work and camapigning skills of the local voluntary party members working over some considerable time in that constituency. It is also affected far more by the fortunes of the party nationally and the direction of the winds of political change than it is by any personal attraction to the incumbent MP.
I am sure that there are some MPs who do have a personal vote but they are few and far between and rarely, if ever, is that enough on its own to secure an election victory.
Posted by: Mr Angry | March 13, 2008 at 16:16
Dale posted..."Either he will stand as an indepndent/UKIP and split the vote causing labour or the libdems to take the seat or He will stand as an independent and win."
Firstly, the Lib Dems have next to no chance of winning Castle Point.
Second, I can't belive that he's got a large enough personal vote to split the vote and let Labour in (overturning an 8,000 majority)... most of the people who will have voted for him in 2005 will have done so because he was the Conservative candidate, not because he's Bob Spink.
I do not belive, as you put it, we have lost a safe seat.
Posted by: John D | March 13, 2008 at 17:41
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Posted by: Votedave | March 13, 2008 at 17:44
I think people should think very carefully before commenting on this thread. I trust the Editor of this site but more facts may yet emerge. Rumours surrounding this constituency have swirled around Essex for years. It would be sad if people made remarks on this thread they may later have cause to regret.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | March 13, 2008 at 17:50
Just remind me,how many MPs have we lost this last few months?
Whatever your answer is,I say it's far too many.
Who's next to go?
Any volunteers on here today?
It was a mistake and it could have been handled a lot better IMHO.
One day perhaps we will handle our inhouse problems,inhouse.
Posted by: R.Baker. | March 13, 2008 at 18:02
Malcolm Dunn speaks wise words.
Heed them.
Posted by: R.Baker. | March 13, 2008 at 18:04
"I can't belive that he's got a large enough personal vote to split the vote and let Labour in"
Well thank god you don't run election campaigns!
1) Never underestimate the local candidate.
2) Never underestimate the underdog.
3) Never underestimate the incumbent.
4) Never underestimate the martyr.
Posted by: Dale | March 13, 2008 at 18:10
"I think people should think very carefully before commenting...
..on scurrilous local rumour-mongering.
"Rumours surrounding this constituency have swirled around Essex for years."
D'oh! Too late.
Posted by: Chad Noble | March 13, 2008 at 19:05
"Firstly, the Lib Dems have next to no chance of winning Castle Point. Second, I can't belive that he's got a large enough personal vote to split the vote and let Labour in (overturning an 8,000 majority)." the Dim-Libs overturned a 10000 or so majority in Bromley, because Tory voters refused to back the candidate and abstained. DON'T ever take your voters for granted!
Posted by: Gospel of Enoch | March 13, 2008 at 20:34
COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.
Posted by: Margaret on the Guillotine | March 13, 2008 at 20:46
"But then, he's a near-racist."
Don't forget that Tory activist Michael Ediae described a speech by Cameron as the most racist thing he'd *ever* heard.
I'd stop throwing stones if I were you.
Posted by: Chad Noble | March 13, 2008 at 21:14
im sorry but i fail to understand what Bob Spink has done wrong . All he has done is have an affair , so what that's his personal life. he was a good constituent MP and people seem to be ignoring this . We need to put his role as an MP above his personal life.
Posted by: stephen hoffman | March 14, 2008 at 00:21
personally i have no problem with rebellious MPS and this shouldn't be used as an argument against him . What do we want , all MPS to be robots , to the conservative leader's demand , i should hope not , because that doesn't sound very much like democracy to me . Like many people in the conservatives he takes a view which is different to David Cameron , he doesn't always follow the conservative party line . May i remind everyone , he wasnt in parliament to follow the Conservative's party line ,he was voted in by his constituents to stand up for them ,and follow his personal beliefs. Why does this post criticise both Ken Clark and Bob Spink for being rebellious ,i prefer those politicians any day , to some of the conservative MPS who have no backbone and will just vote for anything regardless of ideology to get up the greasy pole -it's called the rise of the career politician , give me independent minded politicians over them any day. the same by the way goes to Nigel Hastilow , Patrick Mercer and Howard Flight all fired or severely reprimanded for telling the truth or not following the career politicians path of political correctness.
Posted by: stephen hoffman | March 14, 2008 at 00:27
Enoch powell whilst his concentration on blacks in his speech was wrong , on the overriding point , that mass immigration causes divisions in society is right.To make mass immigration possible , we have gone down a multicultural path ,which has put communities above common British values , leading to an increasingly fractured society, just go to Bradford or Oldham for example to put this in action.In that sense Enoch was certainly right .
i am fed of the bunch of Cameroons who think it is their God given right to criticise anyone who is to the right of them . i have a message to cameron , the reason we're not doing as well as we should be , is because we're on the centre ground , people want lower taxes , people want the end of multiculturalism because it doesn't work , people dont want us to match conservative spending plans , people want true reform of the NHS through a social insurance style system , and the Cameroons are leading the party in a different way . They seem to be wanting to get rid of anyone or criticise anyone who is conservative ie spink , flight , brady ,mercer.
Posted by: stephen hoffman | March 14, 2008 at 00:33
Errors in previous message
*dont want us to match labour spending plans
* seems to be wanting to get rid of anyone who shows conservative values
Posted by: stephen hoffman | March 14, 2008 at 00:35
just a further point , the guy was not saying he wanted to be less accountable to his constituent . the guy who has bought the complaint against him has also tried to attack bob spink.
Posted by: stephen hoffman | March 14, 2008 at 00:38
Given the way that Derek Conway has treated his secretary and how he has paid his wife and sons sizeable amounts despite no sign of any work having been done for these monies, few people would be likely to want to sit with Derek Conway - either out of horror at what was done, or out of political expediency in that they might worry that the public might think that they were supporting him.
As for Bob Spink, as a member of BOO, UKIP no doubt will support him even if he doesn't join, however certainly having an MP would be a huge bonus for UKIP, could lead to more defections, and would raise UKIPs status in the eyes of the General Public to that of a parliamentary party.
With UKIP assistance, Bob Spink could well hold the seat and that might lead to many who had been worried that their vote would be a wasted vote under FTPT voting UKIP.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | March 14, 2008 at 02:02
"May i remind everyone , he wasnt in parliament to follow the Conservative's party line ,he was voted in by his constituents to stand up for them ,and follow his personal beliefs" How very Powellite!
Posted by: Gospel of Enoch | March 14, 2008 at 08:32
My personal views are sometimes to the left and sometimes to the right of official party policy, However I chose the conservative party as being the party that is closest overall to my personal views.
I was elected as a Councillor on a Conservative ticket and have the opportunity to air my personal views to change our direction during our group discussions ie in private.
If I should ever decide to leave the Party then I ought to resign as a Councillor and then fight a by-election to see if the electorate want me or a Conservative candidate - That is how democracy should work
Posted by: Alan.S | March 16, 2008 at 18:35