Ian Oakley - my role in his downfall

I had a small role in the selection of Ian Oakley - the man who has now pleaded guilty to an extraordinary campaign of harrassment against his Liberal opponent - as the Conservative candidate for Watford.

It is now the fashion to invite journalists to interview applicants in the final round of the seat selection. And I was asked to be the interviewer in Watford.

I asked Oakley and the other candidates questions, one applicant after the other, in front of a meeting of party members. Members were then asked to vote on the candidate they liked best.

Oakley wasn't intellectually the strongest candidate but I understood why he was selected. He seemed the most experienced of the finalists and the one most obviously ready to be the PPC.

When I was asked by friends, I said I thought Watford hadn't necessarily selected the best future MP but they had chosen the one who seemed most assured, self confident and politically mature. I thought him a very stable, solid choice even if he didn't do all that much for me.

There wasn't the smallest sign that he was, well, basically bonkers.

The episode is yet further demonstration that in politics it is impossible to predict where scandal will come from.

UPDATE: Pamela Goodwin posts the following brilliant comment on Conservative Home:

I never knew where the Watford Gap was, clearly it was between this guy's ears.

Comments

[Charles Vintcent]

Just shows how inadvisable it is to let a journalist anywhere near important decicion making. They should be given the decision after it has been made, never be allowed to influence the outcome of any debate.

[Peter Barnes]

I post this under a pseudonym. I used to work with Oakley and he was a complete weirdo. Yelling at colleagues down the phone, randomly making up insulting and defamatory comments about other colleagues and a compulsive liar. He was "asked to leave" after only 2 months.

I'm only glad he was found out before the election campaign started.

Your part in his downfall is secondary to those of us who kept quiet and and didn't inform CCHQ of his mental issues.

[pedant]

To be fair, the Lib Dems often make me want to do that sort of thing....

[Jake]

Why is the headline "my role in his downfall"? Surely your role was in his ascent?

[Andy Devine]

I also worked with Ian and he is one of the nicest guys you could meet. He is obviously working through some mental issues right now and I hope he gets better soon.

[Janice]

The title is misleading - what has the author done to contribute to Oakley's downfall?

[Paul W.E. Ingham]

Reading the litany of harrassment and vandalism admitted to by Ian Oakley; it is easy to conclude that as a ppc he was "a few leaflets short of a full delivery". Comparing Danny's assessment of him and that of his former colleague "Peter", he clearly had at least two sides to his character.

However before coming to any real conclusions it would be interesting to know:
- Oakley's background and motivations.
- The political atmosphere in and out of the council chamber in Watford, which I suspect was fairly fetid.
- The pressures put on Oakley by Conservative Central Office to deliver as ppc in an obviously vital seat.
- The capacity of his local constituency Party to campaign and support him.
- A full analysis of the LibDem's campaign and methodology, in particular their own capacity for fighting dirty and "black-ops".

[Dan]

It seems to me the Tory line is two fold:

Firstly, that it is no longer anything to do with them and secondly, Oakley is clearly psychologically flawed.

Neither are good enough - firstly he was their candidate and organiser when these offences took place. Secondly he was clearly motivated (and admitted to in court) by political advantage - so it is perfectly possible he thought this was rational and winning at all costs was necessary.

There is of course the other issue of the remaining 75 offences Oakley has not admitted to. Who in Watford Tories committed these if not Oakley? And what did the rest of the association know about his activities (some of which are on CCTV)?

[Jill]

I think commenter "Jake" has a point, Mr. Finkelstein. You participated in the process that led this crackpot to move up to be an MP candidate. However, you weren't responsible for selecting him. It's fortunate his criminal behavior came to light before the election. Perhaps a psychiatric evaluation should be made a standard requirement for all MP candidacy applicants!

[Guy Herbert]

I'm afraid all political organisations attract people who are "basically bonkers" - and quite indistinguishable from the really useful, energetic people you desperately need until they are given the scope to start making significant waves of their own motion.

[Alix]

"The title is misleading - what has the author done to contribute to Oakley's downfall?"

It's one of Spike Milligan's war diaries. Don't read it on a packed commuter train because you'll make those little embarrassing snorty-laugh noises.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adolf-Hitler-Part-His-Downfall/dp/0140035206

It is genuinely odd what a complete curveball personality problems sometimes are. I've seen this elsewhere in politics (in the Lib Dems in fact, though thankfully not among any level of the candidature). No blame can attach to the Tories or anyone else for selecting him. I have some experience of how normal these people can appear.

But, and it's a big but, once the local Tories were working with him as the selected candidate - or even before that as manager for the previous candidate - they *must* have tumbled to something. This is where the true outrage lies. It took "Peter Barnes" above less than two months to work out that something wasn't right.

The local Lib Dems have gone through something spectacularly horrible, but at least there may be some psychiatric explanation for it. Not so with Oakely's colleagues - unless they're *all* bonkers, of course.

Where were the local Tories when Oakely was spray-painting "perv scum" on the side of someone's house?

[Peter Hughes]

On the penitent stool, however, not even a hint of an apology ! Like Cameron and the "Hug a Hoodie" gaff you appear not to understand waht the word APOLOGY means

[Alix]

Incidentally, it has just come out that Ming Campbell wrote to David Cameron a couple of years ago to express concern about unacceptable behaviour from the local Tories witnessed by Ming while on a visit to Watford. Nothing like this, but shouting, jeering, public abuse etc from Oakely and others. I'm waiting for confirmation, but it seems Cameron replied that the behaviour reported to him was "what party leaders should expect".

Sad, if true.