Latest post on Left Futures

On the narcissism of Simon Danczuk

Hand on Danczuk and the Sunheart, I’m not Simon Danczuk’s biggest fan. Of all the Labour MPs of this Parliament and the last, his record has been downright appalling. At times when UKIP were surging, he courted will-he-won’t-he defection rumours in the gutter press. He’s taken to the airwaves to attack socialists as the equivalents of the BNP, and we shall not forget that Danczuk was paid handsomely by the two most right-wing rags in the land to dump all over Labour’s general election efforts, and then use those same pages to say oh-so provocative things about the party that has provided him a damn good living. As far as I’m concerned, he’s no better than a scab, a Westminster equivalent of a working miner who taunted pickets with wads of fives and tens. He brought himself and his office into disrepute a long time ago, and it’s a miracle it’s taken this long for him to get his comeuppance.

Better late than never, I suppose. And it’s fitting his former employers The Sun and The Mail are the ones to stab him in the front, to borrow a popular Westminster phrase. I’m sure readers know the allegations made about him by now, and seeing as he’s owned up we can treat them as established fact. Let’s just be clear though, what any MP or anyone in the public eye does in their private lives is matter for them. It only becomes a topic of concern and therefore the party’s, and possibly Parliamentary standards, when moral transgression puts them on the wrong side of political norms, rules, and perhaps the law. It is therefore right the party have swiftly suspended him pending an investigation. It’s exactly what has happened in dozens of cases involving lesser known party representatives over the yearsPlease take note, Jacqui Smith. Nevertheless, I agree with Jon Lansman: Danczuk is entitled to fair treatment and a fair hearing by the party.

I want to move on to something more substantial, what you might call the figure or person of Simon Danczuk. Or, more properly, his narcissism. The last time this blog looked into narcissism was – ironically – in the case of the paedophile rock star, Ian Watkins. While Danczuk has not plunged into the depths of criminal depravity, framing him in terms of a sociological understanding of narcissism makes a lot of sense of his behaviour. Starting with Danczuk’s own account of his actions, he’s variously described his behaviour in terms of suffering depression, having a drinking problem, and possessing a “weakness” for young women.

While he does deserve a smidgen of credit for avoiding a non-apology, we are being invited by him and those who alibi him to view his behaviour as the playthings of characteristics somehow external to his character, a bit like Nigel Farage blaming his own xenophobic comments about Romanians on tiredness. Now, of course, none of us are prisoners of our problems and our desires. We, as social beings, are a culmination of all the relations that have ever bared down on us since before we were born. These however do not determine who we are, but they condition our existence, our thoughts, our decision-making. The same is true of one’s addiction to the bottle, one’s mental health, one’s sexual predilections. But what they cannot do is excuse our actions.

That we are conditioned by our social being does not alter the fact we choose what we do. Social structures structure our agency, but they do not determine it. The same applies to mental health conditions. The fact of the matter is that the self-important, self-publicising Simon Danczuk we know and loathe is a creature of his own concoction. In her series of interviews over the new year, his recent ex-partner Claire Hamilton portrays a man prepared to do anything to get his name in the press, and say anything to inflate his already swollen bank account. A typical exhibit is his recent call for overseas aid to be scrapped and spent on flood defences instead. Effectively, he’s Westminster’s own Katie Hopkins and it’s unsurprising that they would have a long-running coverage-generating feud with one another.

We all know that Westminster is pathologically self-referential. As the seat of government power its comings and goings receive a great deal of media attention. There are people paid to write about it, film it, interrogate it. There are even absurd hobbyists providing comment about it off their own bat. And, as we know, if you’re lucky (and wily) enough to become one of its inhabitants, a gilded existence can await: £74,000/annum, staff, living costs, power, a profile and, for some, a certain aura that attaches itself to the office.

All of these are very attractive to prospective MPs, and helps explain why everyone who was anyone in my local party flung their keys into the fruit bowl when the constituency became vacant in early 2010. Okay, you do have to fancy yourself a bit to take on the responsibility of being an MP, but for people of a certain personality type it’s easy to get seduced by the conceit attached to the position, that to have got through a selection and bested an election requires something lesser folk haven’t got. A bit like a business owner who thinks their success has nothing to do with the work and ingenuity of the staff they employ. This is Danczuk down to a tee.

Over 20 years he’s time-served as a councillor, a regional board member, a campaign manager; so having dragged himself through the structures of the party and having seen many a selection, election, and career fall by the wayside it’s understandable why he thinks himself a bit special and therefore entitled to behave as he does. His Parliamentary position flatters his ego, and what flows from that – the press attention, the telly appearances, the selfie-loving Karen, and, of course, sexting with a young women 32 years his junior all flatter his ego.

And his political interventions, if they can be called that, around the floods, around Jeremy’s leadership, around Ed Miliband before him, even with regard to the late and unlamented Cyril Smith, are each ostensibly about other matters but ultimately it is Danczuk who is at the centre. This is Danczuk the courageous naysayer and campaigner, or rather Danczuk inviting people who follow such things to see him in this light. In the most self-referential of locales, he is the most self-referential of its citizens.

That in mind, I’m afraid anyone hoping that Danczuk will do the decent thing and resign his seat are going to be disappointed. If he gets expelled by the party (which is likely) but the police and the Commons take no action against him (which I also think is likely), he’ll soldier on as an independent. There is no job with a nice salary waiting on the outside, and no one that would give him a serious media gig. His bankability with the gutter press is dependent on remaining a Labour MP. Once gone, no one will care for his anti-Jeremy and anti-party ranting. Though some might shell out for a well-publicised journey through rehab, and he has the right kind of tarnish attractive to producers of Celebrity Big Brother. Either way, the time is soon when Danczuk and his galloping narcissism shall disappear from our political horizon. Let us hope no one fills the huge gap his ego leaves behind.


  1. Mervyn Hyde (@mjh0421) says:

    His local party should be doing all they can to rid themselves of this self seeking self publicist, and select someone with real grit and determination, to work for their constituents interests.

    1. James Martin says:

      I agree Mervyn, but one of the problems with the long-running Danczuk scandal is the way he and his inner circle have bullied and dominated his CLP for years, driving out previously anyone who raised questions against him. For example, when seemingly credible allegations from Karen’s family (that they still maintain are true) that he assaulted her while drunk when on holiday and left her in Spain at the airport without money, a number of local Party members correctly called for an investigation of his actions due to the serious damage the rumours going around the town were doing to the Party. The result was Danczuk successfully lobbying to have 5 long-standing members expelled (one had been a member for 60 years). Other members resigned in disgust or felt they had to keep their heads down. A sobering account of this, including a call that these ex-members need their cases reviewed and the expulsions overturned, is here: What the balance of forces are now I don’t know, but hopefully the fact that he is no longer untouchable combined with new members that have come in since the leadership election could be enough now if the NEC doesn’t do the right thing and expel him anyway.

      1. Mervyn Hyde (@mjh0421) says:

        Thank you James, I do understand now, It is funny though how such nonentities climb so readily out of the woodwork to condemn Jeremy Corbyn, and like Michael Dugher on tonight’s Channel 4 News where they claimed he was doughty fighter, but someone I had never heard of before.

        1. Robert says:

          Bt the voters may well like him, then he may well stand against labour and get in as an independent .

          He should have never got the job in the first place.

          1. Rod says:

            No chance of Danczuk winning as an independent.

            Not that he’d risk it – the humiliation would be too much for him.

  2. Peter Rowlands says:

    Can you all please stop. This is the third article about the appalling Simon Danczuk, who has effectively committed political suicide and shouldn’t now be much of a problem. I think there are more important things to discuss.

    1. David Pavett says:


      1. David Ellis says:

        Yes it is the ones who have yet to commit suicide that will be the problem. The sleepers who if Labour wins a majority in 2020 under Corbyn on an anti-austerity ticket, which he should do, will split away from Labour and prevent him forming a government. Perhaps all New Labour MPs that have not been de-selected by 2020 should face an anti-austerity candidate?

        1. John P Reid says:

          how about every mP who was in Ed miliband shadow cabinet and stood in a pro austerity platform at the last election is deselected, Abbott, Thornberry,the Eagles, Benn, Burnham and Ed himself

          1. David Ellis says:

            Not sure what point you are trying to make. A silly one no doubt but if you cannot see the danger of Labour under Corbyn winning a majority in 2020 which is more than likely after four more years of this vicious Tory government or would be if Corbyn pledged to campaign for a LEAVE vote in Cameron’s EU referendum and then being robbed of that victory by New Labour MPs joining with Lib Dems and Tories to make a government of national emergency or some such then you must be blind or deliberately trying to politically disarm the labour movement in the teeth of such a threat.

          2. John P Reid says:

            My point was calling for
            MPs to be deselected because they aren’t in agreement with Corbyn, a anti austerity nan, then as we stood on a pro austerity policy in 2015 is everyone ho was on the front bench for the last 5 years,that they weren’t sincere at the time

  3. John P reid says:

    Just to point out she was 31 years his junior

  4. J.P. Craig-Weston says:

    Given the choice and there always was that choice, (certainly as an aspiration,) who would you, (or any sane person,) rather have been, David Cameron, (or almost any example of our contemporary political low life,) or David Bowie and which of the 2 haws really contributed the most to my life.

    It’s a no brainier, much missed.

    “We can beat them, just for one day.”

    David Bowie, Heroes

  5. stewart says:

    sex and personal vanity has always been the downfall of mps who think they are more important than they are,this man is toast,he is finished.

© 2024 Left Futures | Powered by WordPress | theme originated from PrimePress by Ravi Varma