Simon Danczuk: a knave, or just another victim of a capricious media?

In the forty-eight hours since I posted this piece, there has been a deluge of further revelations from Simon Danczuk himself, his two ex-wives, the recipient of the text messages and miscellaneous 'passers-by'. In light of these, it is hard to retain much, indeed, any sympathy for Mr Danczuk, who appears to be a pretty repellent individual. But the principle that everyone deserves a fair trial remains a valid one, and I still believe that people who suffer from mental health issues deserve the support of their employers as far as is possible - MJV, 3 January 2016

The front page news in the Sun that Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, was caught sending text messages of an unwise nature to a seventeen-year-old who had applied for a job in his office is just the latest in a series of bewildering events in the life of a man easily described as controversial.

What seems so strange about the affair is that, given his clear passion for campaigning on behalf of those abused in childhood, he should not see the contradiction in behaving as he did towards a young woman.

The Labour Party has, in suspending his membership, done the only thing that it can do, given the way an unsympathetic media treat such matters. After all, to be seen to dither on what appears to be an open and shut case leads to day after day of hostile coverage, as Liberal Democrats have learned in recent times. It merely allows 'senior figures' to comment, often unhelpfully, for or against the accused and, given that most such people rarely know how their organisations' disciplinary processes work, they mostly act to make matters worse rather than better.

However, the formal suspension out of the way, what matters next is what the Party leadership do.

Mr Danczuk appears to have been in difficulty for some time. The failure of his marriage, reported through the particularly distorting prism of the tabloid media, has been a car crash, and as both sides seem to have thought that disclosing the minutiae of their personal lives is the best policy, it has merely snowballed into the sort of reality show that entertains a particular type of audience. Let's be honest, little has changed in that sense since the era of 'penny dreadfuls' and public hangings.

At some point, it might have been better had wiser advice been given and taken to deal with the matter behind closed doors, but many of us are wiser after the event, aren't we?

He has been very honest about the impact of events on his emotional health, and perhaps he feels that, by talking about it openly, he can better face things. I have to admit that I don't think that it's working for him. But he is clearly in a bad place, because either the most recent events are a reflection of his true self, in which case he isn't fit to hold public office or, hopefully more likely, they are a symptom of his problems.

I sense that he needs support, and that is where his Party should come in. MPs in neighbouring seats can chip in with his casework, the Constituency Party leadership can help with his local office, and he can be given the time and space to sort himself out. Meanwhile, the disciplinary hearing needs to be processed quickly, fairly and tactfully, protecting those involved and punishing appropriately if punishment is due.

We had a similar experience here in mid-Suffolk with David Ruffley and his well-documented mental breakdown in 2010, and the period he took to deal with his problems was dealt with quite smoothly, albeit that his story ended badly (and deservedly).

I fear that it won't end well for Mr Danczuk, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the matter. In a political environment where weakness is ruthlessly punished, even if he turns out to have been foolish rather than something more sinister, opponents both within his Party and beyond won't hesitate to use this as a stick to beat him with.

The lesson that some might usefully learn is that people are complex, and that sometimes they fail, or are flawed. And perhaps in understanding that, and dealing with politicians as the people they are rather than as your prejudices label them, we might get a better politics.

Taking a deep sigh, and finding something else to do...

Liberal Democracy has been good to me personally. I've met fascinating people, done interesting and, occasionally, useful things, I hope. I met Ros, who has made my life better in a whole bunch of ways. The past week has been deeply dispiriting though.

It would be foolhardy to describe those aspects, on either side of the argument, which have depressed me most and, to be fair, there have been participants on both sides who have led me to wonder whether or not I am the right sort of liberal to be at home here, or perhaps, an acceptable enough liberal.

And yet, one hesitates. I am deeply fond of my Local Party, for all its idiosyncrasies, and I enjoy what I do at a European level. I like to think that, all in all, my contribution is a useful one, and that I serve those who I represent to the best of my ability.

But my confidence is shaken, rather then bolstered, so perhaps it is time to take some time out, particularly from the online debate, which seems to have taken a turn for the rather less pleasant.

Don't mind me, I'll shut the door as I go... 

Dear Nick, would you mind awfully keeping out of the disciplinary process?

I note that, according to the media, Nick Clegg is being called upon to expel Mike Hancock from the Party, in just the same way that he was called upon to expel Chris Rennard from the Party not so long ago. And, regardless of the offence, I have the same advice for him and the Leader's Office - stay well out of it, and offer no comment other than to confirm that the matter is in the hands of those whose hands it should be in.

You see, the Leader has no more say in the disciplinary processes of the Party than you or I, a point made abundantly clear by the disciplinary aspects of its membership rules. He (in this instance) can, however, distort or damage the process by merely expressing an opinion, and we can already see how well that has gone. All that has happened is that the media have been allowed to control the agenda, and given their disdain for due process, and frequently expressed dislike of the Liberal Democrats, it can hardly be said that they have justice at heart.

In both of the cases noted above, the Leader's Office have responded by trying to manage the story - badly. All that has been achieved is to inflate the story to being one of leadership, and they don't intend him to come out of it looking good. Instead, had he said, "A complaint has been made against X and, in accordance with the constitution of the Liberal Democrats, a disciplinary process has been initiated. I look forward to the matter being handled in accordance with the Party's rules, and await the result of their deliberations.", the matter could have been properly investigated, a judgement reached and disciplinary action taken as appropriate.

But in a world where the distance to the political horizon can be measured in minutes rather than years, the temptation to treat each situation as a media test to be 'managed' leads too many key people to react rather than respond. And, given the apparent disconnect between the leadership and the voluntary leadership - the very people who manage, amongst other things, the disciplinary processes of the Party - the scope for unhelpful interference is almost unbounded.

You see, the advantage of having published rules and processes is that they deal with most situations, and provide a framework for action where they don't. They won't satisfy everyone - some people only want one outcome and don't always care how they attain it - but they will usually reach a verdict that is in accordance with natural justice and can be justified on the basis of the evidence. Of course, they aren't designed to deal with certain types of cases - issues pertaining to legality, for example - as the full range of investigative powers is not available and nor would we want them to be. But, if my memory serves, that's what the police and Crown Prosecution Service are for.

I have no real optimism that lessons will be learnt from this - there are those who, when push comes to shove, don't really like the idea of internal party democracy, or due process unless it suits. But that doesn't mean that an aging bureaucrat like me can't wish for rather more respect for those who, like me believe that respect for the rule of law is a basic underpinning of liberalism in a democratic society.

Changing the Party's disciplinary rules: you may not like what you get

There aren't many of us who read constitutions, even within a political party as full as anoraks as the Liberal Democrats, a point that has given me great entertainment in the past, and the occasional political coup de theatre. I might well be correct in suggesting that not many Party members have been involved in its disciplinary processes. But, having written the framework for dealing with disciplinary matters in the East of England, I ought to offer some thoughts before the bandwagon to rewrite the disciplinary rules rolls too much further.

The rules are, in part, required to protect ordinary members from abuse of power

One of the best ways to remove dissent is to (ab)use the disciplinary powers available, so you want rules that protect the eccentric, the argumentative and the socially awkward within reason. Therefore, you can't have processes that make it too easy to punish people. You have to have the right of appeal, you have to allow the accused to construct and present a defence, because, no matter how unpleasant the nature of the complaint is, he or she has rights that we, as liberals, cry out for elsewhere.

Justice should be efficient, not hasty

Both complainants and accused have the right to see that complaints are dealt with within a reasonable time scale, as is currently the case. Process can be a pain sometimes, but trust me, shortcuts tend to generate much more pain over a lengthier period.

The process should be clearly explained and accessible to most, if not all

There should be some simple rules to start off with. Complaints should be in writing, rather than made as part of a conversation. The rights of both complainant and accused should be clearly stated, preferably in writing. Privacy and confidentiality should be respected, especially that of third parties.

Prejudicing a disciplinary hearing by calling publicly for a particular outcome rather compromises those who have to make any decision

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of a case, having a senior figure call for a particular outcome from a disciplinary hearing tends to create a momentum all of its own. Unfortunately, in a democratic political party, especially one with as many civil libertarians in it, riding roughshod over the sensitivities of those who believe in due process is unlikely to end well.

It has taken twenty-five years for the Party's disciplinary rules to evolve into the form that we see before us, and some pretty clever people have striven to provide the best framework we can have. It won't always make sense, and it may lead to some unexpected consequences.

So, think long and hard about what you might want from revised membership rules, because, if we get this wrong, we may have quite a long time in opposition...

A new complaint handling framework for the East of England

The position of the Regional Party in terms of complaints handling has, it appears, been an issue for some time. On assuming the position of Regional Secretary, it became apparent that the role included responsibility for handling disciplinary issues, in the absence of any evident structure. Events over the past nine months have made it clear that such a situation is untenable, and I have taken this opportunity to design a process for future incidents, which was formally adopted by the Regional Management Committee in the course of its meeting last night.

It reads as follows;

1. All complaints submitted for action by the Regional Party shall be transmitted to the Regional Secretary, or in the event of a potential conflict of interest, the Regional Chair, for consideration in the first instance. On receipt, the Regional Secretary shall ascertain whether said complaint should be dealt with at Local, Regional or State Party level, seeking clarification where appropriate and ensuring compliance with the English Party Membership Rules.
2. If the requirements indicated above are met, and the complaint is accepted as being best handled at Regional Party level, the Regional Secretary shall make a report to the next meeting of the Regional Management Committee, with a recommendation for action. Such a meeting may be by e-group if undue delay would otherwise result.
3. The Regional Management Committee shall decide, based on the report of the Regional Secretary, on whether to proceed with or reject the complaint, to refer it to an investigator or directly to a disciplinary hearing. It shall not be bound by the recommendation of the Regional Secretary.
4. The Regional Secretary, or in the event of a potential conflict of interest, the Regional Administrator, shall be, in the first instance, responsible for liaison between the Regional Party, the complainant(s) and the respondent(s), which will be handled in writing. This will, normally, be done by e-mail. This clause does not supersede the right of the investigator or disciplinary hearing to seek evidence.
5. The Regional Secretary shall not act as an investigator or member of a disciplinary hearing panel, and instead shall monitor the process, ensuring that deadlines and procedures as specified by the English Party Membership Rules and by the Regional Management Committee are adhered to. A record of complaints shall be maintained, including a copy of the formal complaint.
6. In the event of a conflict of interest, a member of the Regional Management Committee shall declare that interest and absent themselves from any further discussion of the complaint. If there is any doubt, members should seek clarification.

Target response times

• On receipt of an initial approach - a letter/e-mail will be issued by the Regional Secretary to the complainant within fourteen days.

• On receipt of a formal complaint - a letter/e-mail will be issued by the Regional Secretary to complainant and respondent, and notification of the complaint will be made to the Regional Management Committee with a recommendation within twenty-eight days.

• On notification of the complaint to Regional Management Committee - a formal decision on how/whether to proceed will be taken, appointment of an investigator/disciplinary hearing panel will be made as appropriate, and a letter/e-mail will be issued to complainant and respondent, providing confirmation of the decision, within twenty-eight days.

• On receipt of the findings of investigator - a letter/e-mail will be issued to the complainant and respondent, notifying them of the findings within fourteen days.

• On receipt of the findings of a disciplinary hearing panel - a letter/e-mail will be issued to the complainant, the respondent, Membership Services (if appropriate) and to the Local Party Secretary (if appropriate), notifying them of the findings within seven days.

All other deadlines shall be as specified by the English Party Membership Rules.