Tory bloggers bemoan the enforced change, but point out that "they could not go to the person who came second in the poll, without it looking like they were choosing an Asian in preference to a white British candidate".
I wonder what the born-again Labour Party members at Socialist Unity would make of that ?
"Once the Labour Party NEC decided to suspend Rahman as candidate, in the face of Gilligan’s Islamophobic witchhunt, then they could not go to the person who came second in the poll for the Labour Party candidate selection, John Biggs, without it looking like they were choosing a white British candidate in preference to a Bengali. So they have ended up imposing the unloved Helal Abbas, who has little support. "By putting John Biggs second in the poll, Labour activists of all ethnicities were indeed choosing him in preference to Abbas, who came third - on grounds presumably of proven ability (former council leader) and voter recognition. That was apparently OK as long as he was second - it was just putting a white British candidate first in Tower Hamlets that was unacceptable.
I can appreciate the realpolitik of it - and a Majority Rights type would doubtless say that the voters of Tower Hamlets would be rationally voting for their ethnic interests - but I say - and see - leftist hypocrisy - what we're seeing in Tower Hamlets is the sort of thing that white voters simply aren't allowed to do without having the BBC and Guardian on their backs until they cry 'Capivi!'.
It's also an interesting insight into the voters of Tower Hamlets - presumably the local Labour Party know and accept what their constituents would feel about a white candidate.
We seem to be further than ever away from a time when John Biggs can be judged not on the colour of his skin, but on the content of his character.