By our Political Staff
ELSPETH KING has decided not to resign but to stay on as curator of
the People's Palace, according to close friends who are deeply disturbed
by left-wing attempts to hijack the campaign to secure professional
justice for her.
They are among a minority of her supporters advising her to abandon
her formal complaints against Glasgow District Council where the affair
has produced a major political crisis.
The appeal against the decision not to appoint Ms King, curator of the
People's Palace for the past 16 years, to the new post of keeper of the
city's social history is due to be heard next Friday under the council's
grievance procedures.
There is considerable irritation at senior level in the district
council over the Elspeth King campaign, which is regarded as highly
manipulative. There is also frustration that the official side of the
story cannot be put since Ms King has invoked the grievance procedure.
This has silenced the council for the moment.
Various perceived shortcomings in Ms King's attitude and performance
would be highlighted by officials should the matter go as far as an
industrial tribunal, and some of her friends have been warning her that
she would be ''cut to pieces'' at it.
It is being emphasised that Ms King has not been dismissed but that
she has failed in open competition to win a senior post for which she
applied. Mr Mark O'Neill was preferred. Senior officials have been
exasperated by references to his Irish background by individual
commentators and letter-writers in the Glasgow Herald. These are
regarded as ''racist''.
It is said that Ms King is difficult to work with and is obsessively
defensive of the People's Palace. It is also denied that the People's
Palace has been ''starved of funds'' as her supporters have alleged.
The King affair is now being used, it is claimed, by various dissident
left-wing groups, some of them crypto-communist organ-isations, whose
intentions are to stymie the proposed development of Glasgow Green for
leisure and tourism.
They also want to topple Mr Pat Lally as leader of the Labour group,
instal a left-wing leadership and reverse the council's policies of
developing the city in partnership with the private sector. They are
exploiting the genuine admiration, among all social groups in Glasgow,
for Ms King's achievements at the People Palace.
Senior officials are alarmed by what they see as a threat to the
council's whole policy for the Year of Culture, and some of Ms King's
supporters were appalled by the way in which the meeting on Thursday
night, called to co-ordinate efforts on her behalf, was taken over by
left-wing groups.
The relationship between Ms King and her employers is felt to have
deteriorated to a point where compromises are hard to imagine. But it
would be regarded as helpful if Ms King withdrew her complaint under the
grievance procedure.
Any upgrading of her post there, to recognise her particular personal
contribution -- a comparison is being made with a ''personal'' chair
created by universities for distinguished academics -- could hardly be
contemplated now by politicians who feel they are fighting for their
survival. Nevertheless, a compromise of this kind might be the only way
out.
The affair has created problems for Councillor Lally, who is on a
council visit to the Soviet Union. A meeting of the Glasgow District
Labour Party on June 28 is expected to be very difficult for him.
By then it is estimated that the majority of constituency Labour
parties will have passed motions supporting Ms King and calling upon the
council to reconsider its decision. That, in itself, may be difficult to
do, given that Mr O'Neill would be entitled to take action himself if Ms
King was subsequently given the job to which he has been appointed.
At the same meeting a motion will be brought by the Transport and
General Workers' Union noting with disquiet and concern the management
of and political interference in trade union affairs by certain elements
of the council's Labour administration.
If a parallel is drawn with this issue and the Elspeth King affair --
and privately, the same parties are being associated with both --
Councillor Lally could be in for a rough ride.
The Elspeth King affair in itself is unlikely to be seen as big enough
to threaten his position as council leader. However, the combination of
criticism over
that, taken alongside attacks on the council's running of the Year of
Culture and the proposed development of Flesher's Haugh at Glasgow
Green, are being seen as adding up to a crisis of confidence in the
Labour group leader.
No particular councillor is being seen as heading a revolt against
him. There is generally recognised to be a core group of 18 left-wing
Labour councillors, another group further to the right loyal to Lally,
and another group in the middle, the critical factor in this issue.
Ms King's lawyer, Mr Rod McKenzie, of Harpers, said yesterday that if
she is unsuccessful at next week's appeal proceedings, she will bring a
claim of sex discrimination by the council to a industrial tribunal.
Senior officials believe this claim to be ridiculous and are preparing a
powerful case to disprove it.
Mr McKenzie said that he was not being permitted to represent her at
Friday's meeting. The council's disputes procedure was silent on this
point and it had ''chosen to interpret them that I am not permitted to
be there. We feel that is wrong and will be letting the council know''.
A group of around 100 of her supporters protested outside the City
Chambers yesterday. Their attempts to have a delegation received by
Labour councillors including deputy leader Bailie Jean McFadden and
Councillor Charles Davison who chairs the arts committee were rejected.
Mr Stewart Maclennan, an executive member of the city Labour Party who
stressed he was speaking only as an Elspeth King supporter, said: ''The
way we have been treated is appalling. Has no one told the Glasgow
councillors that the walls are coming down all over Europe and they
should not be erected here.
''We, as members of the Labour Party, will not tolerate our
councillors acting in this way. We already have strong indications that
a majority of members may soon be coming round to the thought that a
full review of the case should be carried out.''
Mr Maclennan added: ''Pat Lally has been hiding behind this nonsense
of the case being sub judice which has been exposed for the sham that it
was. He has nothing to hide behind now and as soon as he returns to
Glasgow he should speak to the people he is supposed to serve and tell
them what is going on.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article