Here is the text of a tribute by Andy Thomson, who was unable to get to the funeral: I had the great privilege to work with Geoff at the Labour Party research department in the middle years of his life. He and I were in fact appointed at the same time, by the then head Terry Pitt, to two vacancies as researchers at Transport House towards the end of 1968. Geoff had been doing similar work before at the head office of the engineering union, the old AEU, in Peckham. As it happened, I believe Geoff had trained as an engineering draughtsman, so he was probably once a lay member of what later became AUEW TASS; but it was his wider interest in the Labour movement generally that took him to those jobs at the AEU and then at the party. When the Labour research head's job came vacant in 1974 Geoff was obviously the best candidate and nearly all of us were delighted when he got it. Geoff and I had shared some concerns about one or two other applicants, and it was very much by mutual agreement between us that we both applied for the job, to cut the chances of someone even worse than myself getting it – but it was the right one who got the job anyway. I think we can say that it was Geoff's unique achievement that when Labour was in government in the 1970s there was a constant input to policy-making from the party outside of Parliament – a process that has not really been paraelleled before or since. While our representations did not always make a difference, they always got a hearing and often a public one. The Party organisation had become more than just an electoral machine for getting and holding power,though of course those things were as important as ever. While some strong foundations had been laid for the research department's work by Terry, and earlier by Peter Shore, it was under Geoff's leadership that it really came to fruition. Straight after the change of government in March 1974 the research department put memos in to all the new Cabinet Ministers on immediate changes they could make consistent with party policy. Although only acting head at the time, this was done very much under Geoff's leadership and inspiration. One point where we got some change, with effect for the next 12 months, was in producing a fairer distribution of the burden of domestic rates, or council tax as it is now, across most of the country. That was rough justice with both winners and losers – whole local authority areas on either side, throughout England and Wales. The Environment Secretary Tony Crosland was cursing us for months afterwards for all the flak he got from the losing areas for what we had persuaded him to do. Geoff seemed to be always proud of what we at least tried to do very soon afterwards, in critically scrutinising the government's 're-negotiation' performance before the European referendum – the first one, that is. The next year a change in the capital taxation system – the new capital transfer tax – was much on the lines that the research department had pushed for. Much more important and lasting than any of those things was the later restructuring of what became child benefit – reflecting very much what the research department had strongly urged, working with Barbara Castle during and after her time in the Cabinet. There were a great many other policy areas where the research department in the 1970s did strong work that did not quite get to producing change at the time, but had a bearing on what came to be taken further forward by the party itself, or addressed by various governments, later on. These ranged as widely as devolution in Scotland and Wales; things like education maintenance allowances, or the introduction of an independent criminal prosecution agency in England and Wales (now the CPS); and some very intensive ground work on what could be done – and just as important, what realistically could not have been done – about the troubles in Northern Ireland. Old colleagues involved in all of that work, and more – Teresa, Phil, Liz, Bert, Dick, Tim and others - are thinking of Geoff in these days. So too are those who were with us in the early 1970s; some who worked closely with us from outside the department; and others who were on the secretarial side, in those times when most of us thought we could write but were strangers to the keyboard.. One of my favourite memories, which perhaps gives a flavour of how Geoff saw the relative importance of the party itself and the Labour government, is from a researchers' meeting in the spring of 1976. Tony Duckworth, who of course was not in our department, put his head round the door to announce: “By the way, Harold Wilson has just resigned.” There were some gasps around the room, and one of our colleagues then said: “Well, we're not just going to carry on with the meeting, are We?” Geoff said: “Yes, of course we are.” So we did; and as far as I remember, the late news item did not even make it into 'any other business'. I also recall an informal meeting of Labour Party head office staff that was being addressed by Denis Healey as Chancellor of the Exchequer, where Geoff was in the chair. Geoff had been leading several of us in crossing swords with Denis on various economic and fiscal matters. Towards the end Denis said: “... And of course what nobody knows, except Geoff Bish, is what may happen to the global economy in the coming years.” Geoff could happily take that sort of irony, because of course he had a tremendous sense of humour himself. If Geoff had a particular speciality in cheerfulness and humour, it was a gift for what I would call instant parody. If ever he was in a group of us who were having to sit through a political speech – perhaps live at a party conference, or in a TV recording during an election campaign – if the speaker committed a slight faux pas, such as overstating their case a bit, it made little difference whether this was somebody basically on our side or not. Geoff had a knack of picking up the offending words with a grin and quickly repeating them – almost word for word, with a bit of poetic licence – and making it all sound a hundred times funnier and more ludicrous than it was in the first place. One instance that particularly appealed to Geoff, and needed no embellishment at all, was when Eric Heffer, in full flood of a conference oration, got slightly muddled up between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and promised to abolish the wrong one. Sometimes you have to laugh or cry. Whenever there was a reasonable choice between the two, Geoff would be with those who were laughing. Geoff was always in favour of doing things openly and above board wherever possible, and he told some of us once about a conversation he had had with Derek Gladwyn – a senior official of the then G&M Union. Derek used to chair something called the Conference Arrangements Committee - a not notably transparent little group with a big say in determining what would be discussed each year at the party conference – and of course also what there would not be time for. Geoff had said to him something like: “Wouldn't it be a good idea if we could give all conference delegates a bit of a briefing note about how these things are decided, how points of order can re raised and so on?” Always the accomplished fixer, Derek's answer apparently was: “Oh, I think it would be a shame to take away the mysteries of conference.” Geoff had not got any change out of Derek, but nor did anybody else and at least he tried. Putting together the 1979 election manifesto was a big task where Geoff played a critically important role. We held a whole series of meetings of Cabinet and NEC sub-groups. At the economic one, held on an afternoon, some of the members on either side seemed to have had rather good lunches. As it was getting under way one Minister, Harold Lever, saw that another one – Treasury Chief Secretary Joel Barnett of 'Barnett formula' fame - was closely checking a glossy printed document. He asked: “What's that pink thing you're looking at, Joel?” The Chief Sec said: “Don't worry about it, Harold, it's something you would never have seen before. It's the last manifesto.” I almost gave up in that sort of atmosphere, but Geoff was always there to pull these things together; and at the final plenary meeting, some very serious hard fought decisions were made. After the party went into opposition, inevitably it became a less happy and exciting time at the head office. Yet there was still important work to be done, and lighter moments too. One day a year or so after we had moved to Walworth Road, when Geoff was filling a vacant researcher post, he interviewed one Peter Mandelson. Geoff would have seen from the CV that Peter was on Lambeth Council at the time, which I was too, so he had asked me about him. I cannot recall now what I said: whatever it was, it certainly did not stop the applicant being called for interview. I happened to bump into the noble Lord as he now is, as he was leaving the building after the interview, so I asked him how it had gone. His response was more of a grimace than an answer. I think I probably then found a way to change the subject, but I gathered that Geoff had not been too impressed, and that Peter would not be joining us in the department. A few years later, Geoff and Peter Mandelson were of course both heading different departments at head office. Just a year or so ago, I asked Geoff how he had found that experience, since that was after my own time there. He said that mostly he had actually got on with Peter Mandelson perfectly well. That should not have surprised me, because Geoff got on well with almost everyone. While he was of course politically committed, Geoff was also open minded. If it is possible for anybody to fit both of those descriptions, he was one who did. Almost anything in life that was either good or important could arouse his intellectual curiosity in some way. As a manger and supervisor, Geoff was marvellous to work for. In over 15 years of working with him, I do not think I ever heard of him losing his temper with anyone. He could always handle the unpleasant aspects – the odd one or two people who might not have pulled their weight. The great majority of us did not need too much chivvying, because he inspired such personal loyalty and made you want to do your best. You always knew what Geoff's expectations were. If ever he had to remind you a bit pointedly that there was a deadline or a particular requirement for some work, he might say “Did you not know that?” If ever you heard that one – not the ordinary “Didn't you know that?”, but a subtle notch higher, “Did you not know that?” - you knew that Geoff was gently 'on your case'. For the great bulk of the time of course, it was nothing but encouragement, praise and plenty of patience for all his staff. In recent years we knew that Geoff's health had often not been good. We were all the more pleased that he could sometimes get to London for our occasional reunions of old research staff, and was still very much his cheerful old self when he did. Reminiscing with him one of those times, I referred to the days when, as I put it, “I was working for you.....” He said “You weren't working for me, you were working with me”. I said “No, Geoff, you were in charge and rightly so.” That was not a dialogue I could have had with anyone else I have worked for. I guess we all have our favourite memories of Geoff – some light hearted, and others that were of great importance to our careers and even our lives. We truly give thanks for his life. . Andy Thompson January 2017