This morning Paul Offer has resigned as Conservative candidate for the City of Chester. I reprint his resignation statement below in full. It does not make happy reading. I have met Paul a couple of times and my information is that he was a hard working, well regarded candidate. He was fasttracked for reselection having fought the seat at the last election. The Party needs to investigate his allegations in full. Chester is a good example of a seat which the Conservatives should never have lost. Paul Offer's allegations may point to some of the reasons why it has been difficult to win back."It is with deep sadness that I resign as the Conservative’s Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the City of Chester.
For the last three years I have dedicated myself to Chester and to working for the people of Chester, so that they could get the representation in Parliament that they deserve. My commitment to the city and to the Conservative Party has been unfaltering, but I am not prepared to tolerate the infighting that the Conservatives are so well known for.
I must stress that the vast majority of the local members have been truly wonderful to me and Trudy and our two girls and it has been a real pleasure knowing them. Many members have contacted us over the last couple of weeks encouraging me to stay in Chester, and their words have been truly appreciated.
I will take considerable credit for turning Chester from what Labour regarded as a safe seat, into one of the most marginal parliamentary seats in the country. I have also played a central role in turning the Conservatives from the smallest party on the City Council to the largest. It was mentioned on Friday 1st December that one of my faults is that I have probably campaigned too hard!!!!!!! It saddens me to see that the local Conservatives Association has self-destructed and undone so much of the good work that has been achieved during the last three years.
Ten days ago, a meeting was held between me, two of the Association Officers and regional representatives to discuss my future. The conclusion from that meeting was that there was no case against me with regards to de-selection. It was agreed that all parties had made mistakes, so we would regroup and focus on winning elections as one team. However, others within the local Conservative power-base were clearly not happy with that decision and appeared determined to force me out. I must point out that there has not been a single occasion this year when the Officers of the Association have called me to a meeting over concerns with my performance as a PPC and I am not aware of any complaint ever having been made to Central Office.
I was prepared to stand my corner and fight for my continuation as Chester’s PPC, but when the campaign was turned against my wife and attempts made to contact my ex-wife of 15 years to try and dig up some dirt, I realised that I was wrong to believe that a sense of decency would prevail. I realised it was time to go.
I remain totally committed to the Conservative Party and believe that David Cameron’s agenda is the right agenda – his major challenge though is to change the attitudes of some of the people running his Associations. I have witnessed sexist bullying (and) heard racist comments [deleted section]. I believe that such abhorrent prejudices have no place in the Conservative Party and I refuse to work with people who have such opinions: I cannot say anymore about these as a formal investigation is already underway.
Chester Conservatives are only four seats away from taking control of the City Council, but I hope the electorate will question whether the Conservatives are fit to run the City. Most of Chester’s Conservative Councillors are decent, honourable people who are there for the right reasons, but some are more interested in the power than they are the City or its residents.
I have several commitments to Chester and I shall continue to honour those. A friend and I were about to announce one of the biggest challenges that members of the Party has ever undertaken in a bid to raise awareness of, and funds for, local charities. We intend to continue that commitment to Chester and we will announce more in the New Year.
I thank everyone who has supported me over the last three years and apologise to anyone who feels let down – this has not been an easy decision to make. "
COMMENT: I thought long and hard about posting this in full - and there will no doubt be some in the Party who think I shouldn't have. Washing dirty linen in public is never very edifying. But these are serious allegations and they must not be swept under the carpet. They demonstrate just how far from reality some local parties and local councillors have become. And before our opponents start shrilling too much about this, everyone knows that some of these attitudes are prevalent in all parties. One lesson to draw from this is how difficult it can be for candidates to get on with their jobs if they are prevented from doing so by their local party. There are always too sides to every story and I am sure Chester Conservatives have a very different perspective to Paul Offer. But they must answer his allegations fully whether in public or to the Board of the Party. ConservativeHome has already highlighted this week the problems in Plymouth Sutton and Westmorland & Lonsdale. From what has been said there it seems CCHQ is determined to get to grips with local associations who are either constantly squabbling or not performing. In my view it's not before time.
UPDATE: I have just had a call from a senior member of Chester Conservatives, who was not willing to go on the record, but disputes many of the allegations made in Paul Offer's statement. He asked me to remove one passage which is considered defamatory. On reflection I have agreed to do so.
87 comments:
Plymouth Sutton,Westmoreland and now Chester,and all the others,all suffering from the heavy hand and interference of CCHQ.
The adverse press coverage in Plymouth Sutton,for the Conservatives generally is bad,
so ensuring we will never make a mark of success in the City for a generation.The negative media coverage will be every where.
Perhaps the roots lie in the management of Associations by CCHQ even to the extent of influencing the type of Candidate through the A list.
Last year we saw the difficulties of the Falmouth and Camborne seat which emanated around Ashley Crossley and the consequences of conservatism's near total implosion in Cornwall generally.
Lets get back to the self control and finance of Associations and non interference by CCHQ. CCHQ will never in a month of sundays achieve top class management of the Political Volunteer class.
"none of this comes as a surprise", you could have added, given its the tories we're talking about...
I must add that in Chester's case there has been no interference from CCHQ, even though I have been shouting from the roof tops asking for it before the whole Association self-destructed. To turn against my wife who has shown totaly dedication to the local Party, and try and drag my ex-wife into this, shows that there no limits for some people. The personal cost of being a candidate for the last three years has been in excess of £150,000 and I feel let down that the Party was powerless to intervene. If that genuinely is the case, then our Party's constituion is seriously flawed.
I am in despair. I loath lying Labour and all that it stands for and the thought that some man from Scotland plans to rule me for the next Ten Years makes me feel ill.
Read all the articles in Daily Telegraph and you will see that Gordon Brown is an economic disaster waiting to happen!!
Then all I read about are Conservative Associations arguing with one another!! Get real !! Unite and fight!!
Labour are an easy and arrogant target.Just one small example.For every 5 pence Brown spends on defence he spends 29 pence on Welfare!!Think about it!
Well done Iain this is the kind of thing that you should be highlighting- it warms me as a neutral towards the Conservative party because it shows that they don't tolerate ridiculous behaviour by people and it also on the other hand makes it more possible for the conservative party to connect with people like me becuase you aren't being dragged back by idiots like these guys in Chester. The last thing is that there is no way that the Tories will attract people into their party if these are the attitudes in the local associations so throwing them out is a good idea.
Daisy do you really want a party with local chairmen who are as the allegations say in Chester they are racist, sexist and think that disabled people ought to be starved to death. If you do, let me just tell you that you will never win an election.
Oh and I withdraw all these comments about Chester obviously if the allegations aren't proved- but in general I do think there are some rotten Tory associations and cleaning the Augean stables seems like a good idea.
This sounds absolutely tragic. I am just very glad that in my recent experience in Braintree and now Witham we have encountered none of the problems that have so badly afflicted Chester.
So he doesn't like the chairman - that is about all we know. He should have tabled a motion of no confidence at the AGM saying he it was either the chairman or him, put his case forcefully within the meeting & I suspect, taken his lumps. There is no point in more public conflict.
The situation is made more difficult because we have a part time Chairman of the party.
The position should be full time (or a CEO appointed). If CCHQ was fit for purpose and led (full time) then the regional and constituency officer problem would be tackled.
Until CCHQ is better led and gets real credibility, the regional and local operations will not be properly reformed.
That said Ian should not have aired the points about individuals, that is just ammo for the opponents.
I have to say I am horrified that a PPC's wife and ex wife can be drawn into a party matter.
So many people are working so hard to get a Conservative government elected and then we have incidents like this.
It makes my blood boil!
As an Association chairman I am not surprised at what Paul has said. I & my officers are fighting to reform and modernise the association (with I think the support of the majority) but there will also be some real dinosaurs. They don't recognise that unless we renew and attract younger people, most of our activisits will have died in the next 10 years or be too old to do anything. The status quo is not an option.
Paul don't give up on the party, we need people like you to help renew the party.
Your comments about some of those attitudes being prevalent in all parties is spot on. But I think this is more about David Cameron's one-sided, lacklustre leadership than a few bigots stuck in the past. Cameron doesn't appear to understand the meaning of a broad church. If he does, he hides it well.
Many Conservative Associations are controlled by a small cabal of narrow minded selfish Luddites usually with forceful (in the Maxwell sense)personalities. They often have years of service and so are indulged. Hang out the washing and expose them. Remember bad currency drives out good.
If I were in Chester I would stand in Mr Offer's corner and urge resistance.
Paul, could I have your email address? Thanks, Justin justinhinchcliffe@hotmail.com
I hope you follow this one up, Iain. I'd like to know how the other individuals/groups respond and what the word is on the unofficial grapevine.
Washing dirty linen in public is never edifying but better by far than allowing things to fester until they stink to high heaven.
And why do I get the feeling that there's a lot more to this than meets the eye?
I feel let down that the Party was powerless to intervene. If that genuinely is the case, then our Party's constituion is seriously flawed.
CCHQ could definiely have intervened if it had wished to do so. The Constitution gives it carte blanche to put any local Association in special measures - support status - and has done so in the past (Slough) or threatened to do so (Arundel), and, if reports from Westmorland are to be believed, continues to do so now.
I'm therefore intrigued to know why CCHQ decided not to 'intervene' to save Paul Offer. Why did they turn their back on his pleas for assistance?
Given that we've decided to have public internecine warfare about this I really think CCHQ needs to come in hard to show that we're serious about change.
Not that it should all be in public, mind... I feel sorry for Paul, and ideally he'd still be trying to fight from the inside, but given he's gone I don't think it's helpful to significantly harm ourselves even more about it.
This makes my blood boil. If it happened in somewhere like Easington that'd be bad enough, but in a marginal seat where we are rapidly taking back control? It beggars belief. I know a couple of chester tories who were effusive in their praise of Paul Offer before last years election and know how gutted they must feel now. I hope CCHQ will bash more than a few heads together and if the chairman's comments turn out to be true, he should have his membership revoked. There is some hope. Remember all the controversy in Slough last year? The tories went on to slash the labour MP's majory in half after lots of terrible publicity.
"And before our opponents start shrilling too much about this, everyone knows that some of these attitudes are prevalent in all parties"
Erm, actually no. I don't think sexist bullying, racism and a desire to starve disabled children are prevalent in all parties! Unless 'all parties' is defined as the Tories and the BNP...
This is absolutely abhorrent. Paul Offer was a fantastic candidate for Chester and worked tirelessly to get elected. I really hope Paul finds a seat that he deserves because we need more MP's like him.
This just shows how a few destructive people in an association cause havoc.
There is turmoil also in Wirral West that was highlighted in an article in a local newspaper last week: http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpooldailypost/news/regionalnews/tm_method=full%26objectid=18185455%26siteid=50061-name_page.html#story_continue
I truly despair. How are we ever going to win power with so much infighting?
I support Ken from Gloucester, I am considering for the first time in Thirty Years voting Conservative to get this government out. For me this is a huge decision. If dinosaurs, racists and supporters of eugenics can find refuge in the Conservative Party it is not where I will place my support
Iain, many years ago a Conservative Councillor at Barnet, said to me,(I'm paraphrasing a bit here) - "Politics is a filthy stinking business, it always has been and always will be".
I never fail to be amazed at the pomposity of would-be MPs. "I thought long and hard about posting this in full" - why? What on earth difference could your cutting and pasting something freely available on the web make to you or anyone else whether you posted it, 'in full ...', or not?
I think the letter is very one sided and note that everyone is rushing to condemn the association. I bet there is more than one side to the story (there always is).
Interesting....
Go to icchesireonline (it's the online version of the Chester Chronicle) and in the search box enter "Is it all over for Offer?" to read a report from 24th November.
The final paragraph is particularly intriguing.
Paul - like Davidg says CCHQ certainly aren't powerless to intervene. They could have put Chester into supported status, as they seem to have done in Westmoreland & Lonsdale and as they did my association prior to the last election (in our case it was partially because there was a faction within the local party who had supported a different candidate to be our PPC and refused to accept the result, though there were also membership "irregularities").
If things were as you describe in Chester Conservatives, then they could have (and arguably should have) put it into supported status.
Nicholas Bennett - don't assume it is the "dinosaurs" opposed to modernisation. Look out for the husband and wife team of councillors - Mr and Mrs Moseley. Caroline was added to the A list. Stephen is building an empire - ward and county councillor - and very "active" in recruiting people/potential councillors. Not saying that they are behind all this but there are plenty of players in this game with different angles.
But what's the story?
It's alright complaining about washing dirty clothes in public, but this story doesn't.
It's difficult to come to a view on allegations unless they're actually made.
Iain, Great that you are giving this issue some coverage.
This goes much deeper than anyone who has posted on this issue has acknowleged or perhaps knows.
There is a deep sickness here that is strangling the Conservative party.
Following the collapse of the party in the 90s the last remnants of the party contained a core element of those who built their own mini empire and powerbase.
It is largely Masonic, it is connected to or perhaps part of the establishment and today threatens all attempts to grow grass roots support.
There are many associations sitting on assets and cash that should be used to recruit memebers and fight elections but they prefer to keep their cabals well funded instead - their groups of hand picked councillors and others who help each other rather than representing their electorates.
Anything that you and others in the Blogosphere can do to expose this deep sickness is sorely needed.
But there are those who fear for their safety in saying what they know.
The full statement is available at pauloffer.blogspot.com
Washing dirty linen in public demonstrates to everyone who cares to see that the cleaning up is done thoroughly.
I thought long and hard about posting this in full - and there will no doubt be some in the Party who think I shouldn't have. Washing dirty linen in public is never very edifying ID
So what's your point? Does this have any heuristic value? Its a petty squabble, worthy of the local rag, not this quite important, dignified blog, and of no interest whatsoever to non-Conservatives unless he is shagging donkeys, and then Guido should have done it.
The conservative party like any organisation suffers from bullying and problems with the management of change, I should know i worked at cco sometime ago and the vile and reppelent nature of a few individuals still resonats with me. They are the inner tory tosser to borrow a fraise. The vile and despicable behaviour of a few should not be associated with the kind and thoughtful nature of the many. Every organisation has it's rotten apples, it's just unfortunate as a society ie. the uk as a whole we are so bad at treating the rot.
Andrew Jones
In the case of Chester's Association and others I know of in a different region there is a huge question mark about the effectiveness of the regional officers.
They in turn require a CCHQ that is staffed with experienced people.
If an Association has declined, what did the regional folk do apart from watch?
Allo, 'allo, 'allo, what's all this then ? Seems a bit strange that any body would want to contact his ex from a long time ago. Doesn't seem like cricket at all.
Come on Iain, who do you think is stirring this up ? Is this a case of brown-nosers somewhere wanting to ditch him in favour of a diversity candidate ? Seems an odd way of going about it ?
Paul - if you are on-line why not let us hear it from the 'horse's mouth'?
You don't sound like a 'happy chap'.
I didn't think Chester was that sort of a place. I thought it was a kind of sedate Welsh version of the City of York.
p.s. I do think you did the right thing though, there is no point in staying where you are not wanted.
If you aren't appreciated there, I am sure you better off somewhere you will be valued. Best of luck matey.
Ah, but isn't Mr Offer complaining about councillors ? Complaining about councillors being useless is rather like complaining about dogs barking.
It is part of the canine 'job spec' to bark. It is an essential requirement of councillors to be useless - they wouldn't be available to do the job if they were any good. Even if they were, a council wouldn't let them where there was any danger they might improve things or change the status quo - it might show up how crap the rest of them were.
My question is why would crappy councillors be allowed to have anything to do with a Conservative association ? Surely they should be kept apart in the same that dogs and cats should be kept apart to prevent the inevitable fighting that would ensue ?
I don't think Cameron can personally tidy up Constituency troubles. Maude is the Chairman.
It would be interesting to know whether this is at root a personality thing or a policy thing. If the latter, it is surely an indication that DC is dragging the associations where many don't want to be.
It does however sound a bit like the McCartney's divorce, with all sorts of unsubstatiated (and probably untrue) allegations being leaked to the media in order to get the best separation settlement.
Whatever happened to publish and be damned? A senior conservative, who did not wish to go on record, and yet you removed a passage from the text? Given that Paul Offer has already published the full text, uncensored, perhaps it should have remained unmolested? If you are going to give in to such little pressure at this stage, what a push over you are going to be if you become a MP. Stand up and be counted or don't stand up at all, I thought it was the LibDems that sat on the fence?
What a sorry state of affairs. Like Guthrum, I was seeing the Conservatives as a decent runner against nu-lab and worth considering voting for.
It really does fly in the face of what the Tories have worked so hard to achieve.
Well done for highlighting this. Honesty and transparency are key factors in winning votes.
I personally think the best bet here is to public bring those responsible to buck following a full investigation and provide a full party vindication to Paul Offer.
'I personally think the best bet here is to public bring those responsible to buck..'
Que ?
Wouldn't all this 'ppc' nomination stuff be better opened up to public scrutiny ?
I'm thinking all the lines of 'Come celebrity canvassing for the PPC X - Factor'. The 'celebrity' A-listers would be joined by local nonentities and the public would get to vote them off until the Party Candidate would be left standing.
Fly-on-the-laundry-wall cameras to capture all the dirty linen being washed and the Conservative Assoc. to give 'suggested marks' which the public could ignore in a Brucee Forsyth stylee.
Iain
Some people think that you should have kept quite on this.
This would have played into the hands of the oposition in chester.
I have worked in various Councils, and the council grapevine is a better source od information than any government comunications system.
By now every one in Chester will know more about this than Paul Offer does. It is guaranteed that Labour would have all the details to throw in DC's face.
I think the letter is very one sided and note that everyone is rushing to condemn the association. I bet there is more than one side to the story (there always is).
I am a grassroots member of Chester Conservatives. I will not give my name at this stage, but intend to do so at some point.
Believe me this statement from Paul is not one sided, Paul gives an accurate description of the way things are in Chester, and I can confirm that this 'libelous' comment about the disabled was made, I have it sourced several times.
Most of the membership of Chester have no hesitation in backing Paul, and it is just the few power-mad idiots at the top who don't back him. I don't have a position within the association and am not a councillor so I probably can't comment from this perspective, but I have met Paul many times over the three years he has been PPC. He is an excellent candidate and I hope the national party will intervene and have Paul reinstated
Iain, you've got my respect for posting this very newsworthy issue, but I do have to question why you would remove a section of the memo at the request of someone who won't even go on the record in his defence of the request! He wants the record altered, but he wants to be off the record, himself.
I don't think that's fair to the author of the original memo. You should repost it in full, along with the notation that someone who doesn't want his name attached to the request has asked that it be censored.
If the problem is that the passage in question is actually defamatory, that's a problem for the man who wrote the passage, not for you for reporting that he wrote it.
If he can't stand the heat.
What does he expect politics to be. You have to fight for what you believe in and never give up no matter how hard it appears. I think the party is better off without him.
What a shame that Paul Offer felt he had to go and give the Lib Dems a slogan for their Chester Focus scummy sheets.
I note that the Association on its website has stayed polite and respectful.
If Paul Offer is in the right here (and nobody knows do we) then he stripped himself of his digbity.
Incidentally go to Google News Search and put in 'Chester Paul Offer'.
Can I just make clear to all those who have criticised me for deleting a sentence, you can criticise all you like but I do not remove things lightly. I am not a lawyer and I do not wish to spend money on lawyers.
If you wish to read the offending sentence Paul Offer has it on his blog at http://pauloffer.blogspot.com
If he can't stand the heat.
What does he expect politics to be. You have to fight for what you believe in and never give up no matter how hard it appears. I think the party is better off without him.
Have you actually read the statement. This guy's own party rang his ex-wife to see if THEY could dig up any dirt!!! This isn't what you expect from your own party!!!
I remember once riding up from London on the train with Ken Hargreaves. At that time Ken, a friend of my wife's family, had lost his seat in Hyndburn and was working for Cental Office with a project to "knock some local parties into shape."
He was not a happy bunny.
"Sounds to me as if a lot of paty memners don't know the second world war has ended," I said sympathetically.
"A lot of them don't know the Napoleonic wars have ended," he replied.
I think it was a very good idea to raise this Iain. Sure you may give ammunition to your enemies but by getting this out in the open you're giving support to those fighting for change within the party.
If the problem is that the passage in question is actually defamatory, that's a problem for the man who wrote the passage, not for you for reporting that he wrote it.
Not quite true. If the defamation is repeated, those who repeat it are also potentially guilty of libel. While threats of litigation are being banded around, for Iain to remove it from his blog is just common sense.
Iain,
From my limited knowledge of Libel, the fact that you are referring others to the libellous statement also endangers the foundations of Dale Towers!!
Gawd, this is real tin hat and flak jacket stuff!
Achilles
In terms of libel law, Iain as publisher as well as Paul could be sued.
However, one of the important things for any individual in life is to maintian their credibility and self-esteem.
If it just appeared as "Paul Offer resigns" without him being able to present his side of the story, then there would be all sorts of whisperings against him, especially from those who wanted him de-selected. It would look bad perception-wise for him.
If he is forced to publish his resignation letter, then that is the fault of those who pushed him into defending himself.
Was there a policy aspect to this? Is there an anti-Cameron hardcore in Chester? Or was Paul just too successful making the old farts jealous? Maybe they'd prefer a failure that they can compete with. Sounds like little people in a little pool with nothing much else in their lives, terrified of losing control. Such people take a lot of shifting, but someone should do something to clear them out IMO.
Iain, I can understand your concern about being sued and blogs are just as vulnerable as other forms of media. But why do you conform to the "on/off the record" distinction?
Chimera, oh give me a break. I really am sick of this. If you don't like the way I conduct this blog feel free to take your custom to the 60 millions others blogs out there. Or hey, you can even start your own up.
Iain
I specialise in prison law and media consultancy. You have merely repeated what is already in the public domain, it is fair comment. Phil 1.42 provides the link for the piece that you removed. How far distant does that remove you from the scene of the "crime"?
I suspect political arm twisting rather than legal big stick is at play here. In any event, I don't scare easy and I am a man of straw, in the eyes of the law I am not worth suing, therefore if you want to post something you are not sure about feel free to use my blog...
I've just read the part the was deleted over at Paul Offer's blog. (Thanks for link)
It's not something I haven't heard bandished about at Liverpool Council by staff. Comments passed such as that have been tongue and cheek, followed with a naughty giggle and a comment of that's bad you're going to hell.
The usual comment made was known as "The Hatrick" muslim, disabled and gay. You could simply get it all.
ian g (several hours ago) said
"I don't think sexist bullying, racism and a desire to starve disabled children are prevalent in all parties! Unless 'all parties' is defined as the Tories and the BNP... "
You want to visit certain Constituency Labour Parties in Scotland, matey.
PS. Perhaps he should have suggested that John Prescott should not have been fed from birth. I feel that this would have had more universal appeal.
It would be nice if such idiotic antics were confined to one political party and one local association. Unfortunately, the role of 'Little Hitlers who worry about their own place in the hierachy of things if there is real success led by others' is one that will be recognised across the political spectrum. Especially pertinent is Paul Offer's phrase:
"there has not been a single occasion this year when the Officers of the Association have called me to a meeting over concerns with my performance"
It is almost ever thus. These folk work behind the scenes with long knives and wicked whispers. For people with so little substance, they do an awful lot of harm.
Given how hated the Labour Government is - not least in its Northern heartlands - it takes a very special sort of creativity to contrive ways to lose to it at the next election.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives seem to have that creativity in abundance.
I have connections to Chester and can vouch that Paul did a good job. But to go public with these allegations, rather than deal with them quietly in the party organisation, is to deliver a naturally Conservative seat to another hopeless Labour placeman - and incidentally to allow a once beautiful city to continue a depressing slide into corruption, decay and decline.
I am sure he has his reasons, but this is very disappointing.
The very latest court finding on the blog issue offers greater protection for blogs. If you post what you believe to be true, you are all right. This doesn't mean that you think what Paul said was true, but rather that you truly believe he said it.
Media, including blogs, are allowed to quote people, regardless of how inflamaTory the quote is. Indeed, it's a major part of their job.
Iain, you made it clear you didn't censor it lightly, but I think it is clear that you did censor it wrongly. You had a request to remove the quote; you've had at least a half-dozen requests to reinstate it, and some of those people left their real names.
Someone said: "While threats of litigation are being banded around, for Iain to remove it from his blog is just common sense."
It's also good manners.
Surely it would be a clearer position to refer all readers to the statement on Paul Offer's blog rather than waiting for them to get half way through and finding a bit missing?
Well this has certainly caused a reaction on Iain Dale's Blog and ConservativeHome.com
I have no desire to drag this on for ever, but I would like to respond to some of the comments that have been posted.
Firstly, may I stress that my resignation letter was not written on the spur of the moment - it was drafted and revised over a few days and several people read it beforehand. Every word in it is true. It was not easy to do and this is not a personal vendetta against one individual. I have fought this seat for three years, at huge emotional and personal cost, never mind enormous financial cost - so any decision was not taken lightly.
Yes, I could have just gone quietly, but if I had done so nothing would change. But I could also have gone with a much much bigger bang: I decided not to.
If we are going to win the next election we have to win the hearts and souls of the electorate. To do so we have to prove that as a Party we really have changed, from within. I am totally committed to David Cameron's agenda, and we need to be honest about the extent of the change that has to be made. Changing the logo is fine, it helps change the image, but our Party is not just about image, it is about people and attitudes. They have got to change and what I hope I have done is raise the awareness of the need to make that change. You need to take the linen out of the laundry basket before you can wash it. This is not so much about the particular issues or allegations that I have made, but about the fact that people with those views are able to run this Party on the ground and nothing is being done about it. Like I said, those opinions have no place in the modern Conservative Party and we must do everything we can to root them out. CCHQ have been aware of the problems in Chester for a while, yet nothing seemed to get done and to have gone quietly would have served no purpose.
If we were just two months away from a general election, I would agree that this could cause harm to the Party, but we are not, so now is the time for openness and honesty and not cover ups. We cannot continue to fail because we fail to addres the issues we have within the Party.
This may have harmed any chances I had of a political career in the Party - I know that and considered that before I posted my resignation letter. That is a risk I have taken, but if doing so causes a reaction that speeds up the process of change within the Party and in the longer term makes us more electable, then so be it. To be a good politician one also has to be true to oneself and that is what I have done. It has been a very very difficult decision, but I believe it is the right one.
With regards to writing the Lib Dems next strap lines - do people not think that the Chester Association has to take responsibility for that? I do.
I'm puzzled why Paul Offer did not just tough it out, and what were these mistakes made by all sides?
A a sad and sorry tale but one which is depressingly familiar.
I have met some pretty distasteful characters in the Labour Party in my time, but only Consrvative Assocations seem to turn up what can most politely be described as social and cultural relics.
Some have washed up here from other shores like so much driftwood. Others seem to lead a hermetically-sealed existence that excludes women and minorities for anything other than sub-human abuse. Why some Associations continue to tolerate these cranks is beyond me.
It is precisely the reason why CCHQ is right to take a professional interest.
I have spoken to a Chester Councillor tonight and quite frankly if half what I am told is true then good riddence to Mr Offer.
He seems to have missed out an awful lot of what has been happenning. I think it is honourable that the association is remaining respectfully quiet as is the local council group.
I've read this story and the comments several times and I still cannot find any allegations agains the candidate. How on earth can people say 'this is the modern Conservatives for you' if they don't know what he's been accused off and how he responded. For all we know, he's murdered the chairmans cat!
The candidate himself has made a long comment justifying what he did without mentioning why he did it. It's Alice in Wonderland stuff.
How can we come to a view on this unless we have the full story?
By all means delete dodgy comments from the candidate, but at least tell us what's been going on.
I understand the Association has decided to keep a respectful silence.
I understand the Association has decided to keep a respectful silence.
It's a shame they couldn't have done this three weeks ago instead of leaking false information to the press.
IF the serious references which Mr Offer made to the senior Party member in Cheshire were not true, he will be sued out of his pants, surely?
I am not sure that "ignoring such statements" constitutes a 'respectful silence' rather than 'keeping one's head down'.
As an opponent of Toryism I still have to respect Offer's 'rather sharp' style brough a level of improvement in Conservative vote in Chester which, if repeated across Britain, would have made a difference in Parliament.
Presumably the Liberals will now have a field day? It would be great to see England's first Chinese-origin MP replacing that awful Russell woman.
The problem with your edit of Offer's statement is that it makes the accusation of racism seem stronger when in fact the out-take concerns quite a different matter. Paul Offer has kept it intact on his site. iCCheshireonline meanwhile reported the rift a couple of weeks back with an insinuation in the tail about Paul's conduct in regard to one of the new blue councillors.
yes here is the story
------------
Is it all over for Offer?
Nov 24 2006
Tory candidate fighting for future after Association questions his 'poor judgment'
Exclusive by David Holmes, Chester Chronicle
CHESTER Conservatives' parliamentary candidate Paul Offer will today face a showdown which could mark the death knell of his political career.
Mr Offer is meeting at 4pm with Chester Conservative Association chairman Brian Crowe and two regional officers where he will be asked to resign or face a vote of no confidence by local members at a special general meeting.
A senior source told The Chronicle the local Association's officers had lost trust in Mr Offer because of his 'poor judgment' and he had failed to win over the party's activists who are essential in mobilising Tory voters.
This is despite the fact he reduced Labour MP Christine Russell's majority to just 915 at the last election.
There has been unease that Mr Offer, who lives with his wife Trudy and two young daughters in Warwick, has not yet moved to Chester, although his £500,000 property has been on the market.
Paul Offer played down the significance of today's meeting and said: 'I understand it to be an internal meeting. In the last five years I have never had a conversation about meetings held with party officials.'
Chester Association president David Pickering described himself as 'a fan' of Paul Offer but acknowledged there were issues.
He said: 'It's quite right the association questions the performance of anybody doing such an important job. That's the same if you're managing a business or anything else. I don't think that's unreasonable. In what spirit that will take place, I don't know.'
Mr Pickering said it was inevitable there would be 'tensions' while Mr Offer was not permanently based in the city.
'It's far easier to commit yourself if you are actually here,' he said. 'I think he has every intention of moving.'
Mr Pickering said now was a good time to 'sort out good lines of communication' given the crucial local elections next May when the Tories hope to gain control of the Town Hall.
Mr Pickering said Chester's Labour MP Ms Russell had 'not overtly done a lot for Chester' and the Tories had a good chance of taking the seat next time.
Association chairman Brian Crowe said only: 'It's no comment until we have something to tell you.'
City and county Cllr Stephen Mosley, whose wife Caroline is on Tory leader David Cameron's A-list of parliamentary candidates, said: 'I'm going to give you the same answer, I hope, as everyone else has given. I'm not going to talk about it.'
...It looks like the end of the road for his car
Paul Offer's problems appear to have increased this week after the white 14-year-old Rover he drives was spotted apparently abandoned in the public highway, with a flat tyre and not displaying a tax disc, outside the home of Tory Cllr Marigold Roy who was elected to Chester City Council in May.
What a pompous prat Paul Offer sounds. Is he so lacking in self awareness that he can write such precious PC piffle? For once it seems the Real Conservative Party rather than the Cameron Gate Crashers have triumphed.
Does anyone with an independent mind seriously think for one minute that Chester CA 'kept a respectful silence' or, indeed, that Paul Offer's failure to move to the city was the real issue?
Codswallop. As the not very carefully contrived Chester Chronicle report showed, the anti-Offers were whispering like megaphones.
Pathetic with a dirty great P.
So er. . .where is this "senior Chester Conservative willing to go 'on the record'"?
Is there any co-incidence that the Councillors are knocking Mr Offer, who was re-selected pre-A'list, and there is a Chester female councillor on the 'A'list who therefore did not get a chance to stand against Paul Offer?
Presumably the Liberals will now have a field day? It would be great to see England's first Chinese-origin MP replacing that awful Russell woman.
Actually, Mia Jones has never been anywhere near China. She is Malaysian, and very unpopular (but still more popular than Chester Labour Party). I agree with you on Russell though.
To all those who have said Offer should have kept a 'respectful silence', surely this would have been an endorsement of what the officer in question said, on all sexist, racist and anti-disabled comments.
I have a lot of respect for Paul for putting his principles before his career, which is something that too many politicians forget.
I hope, should I ever encounter a similar situation, I would have the courage to do what Paul did.
Ah so!
Probably the biggest Lib Dem rise in vote share of any candidate in the UK in a non-target seat is 'unpopular'?!? Obviously they use a different dictionary in Chester.
Did no one ever tell you that a massive number of Malaysians are of chinese ethnicity?
If the stuff about contacting his ex-wife is true then no wonder he was forced into what he did. That alone, before anything else is beyond the pale.
All those waffling on about keeping quiet live in the 1950's deferential world that most Conservative Associations still live in.
The world has changed, all people have a right to keep their credibility and pride and not be told to go away, keep your head down, be quiet and be a good little boy.
Grow up.
So we are STILL waiting for that 'official Conservative source' to come out her as promised 'on the record'?
Have you been 'conned' Iain?
PS Mia Jones' mum and dad were both Chinese herbalists (from Malaysia) so anon above is right and the other anon is wrong!
PS Mia Jones' mum and dad were both Chinese herbalists (from Malaysia) so anon above is right and the other anon is wrong!
Yes, but Mia Jones herself was born in Malaysia.
This week's Paul Offer story from the Chester Chronicle:
http://iccheshireonline.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_headline=this-offer-ends-06%2D12%2D06%26method=full%26objectid=18231180%26siteid=50020-name_page.html
Pillock - I said 'Chinese origin'. being born in Malaysia (or former East Germany)does not affect one's ethnic origin, which in Miaa Jones' case is Chinese.
And if you do not understand the importance of this to Malaysians (and the people of Singapore), you know nothing of Malaysia.
Pillock - I said 'Chinese origin'. being born in Malaysia (or former East Germany)does not affect one's ethnic origin, which in Miaa Jones' case is Chinese.
And if you do not understand the importance of this to Malaysians (and the people of Singapore), you know nothing of Malaysia.
Lib-Dem Pillock - Where you are born is your nationality. I am of irish desent, but I was born in England, therefore I am English. You can say Mia Jones is of Chinese origin, but you can't say she is Chinese, you can say she is Malaysian. It's not hard.
Post a Comment