Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

Councillor Gideon Bull Suspended

Below is the email sent to party members. His crime? He asked questions about the risk to old people if the Haven Day Centre closes.

Democracy is officially dead in Haringey.

Dear redacted

Re: Suspension (removal of the whip) of Councillor Gideon Bull

Please see below emails (verbatim) from the Chief Whip of the Haringey Labour Group regarding the suspension of Councillor Gideon Bull.

I am conscious that the Tottenham CLP has many new members and there maybe confusion about what this means. By way of a brief explanation and foresee questions you may have:

  • The CLP only deals with the disciplinary of members if the case they have been accused of is in regards to their membership of the Labour party.
  • All Councillors belong to a Labour Group (as well as a CLP), in Haringey they belong to the ‘Haringey Labour Group’ as Councillors are borough-wide based on the geographical boundaries of Haringey Council. (i.e. there is no such thing as a Tottenham Labour Group as Tottenham is a Parliamentary Constituency boundary not a Local Council Boundary).
  • If a Councillor is subject to disciplinary based on their role as a Councillor (not as a member of the party), then the case is dealt with by the [Haringey] Labour Group.
  • The Labour Group can impose action on the membership of Councillors to the Labour Group and not his Labour Party membership.
  • As Councillor Gideon Bull’s case is about his role as a Councillor it has been dealt with by the Haringey Labour Group.
  • Councillor Gideon Bull’s suspension is a suspension from the Haringey Labour Group and not from the Labour Party. Gideon still remains a full member of the Labour Party.
  • A suspension from the Labour Group means he is still a Councillor for the London Borough of Haringey as he has been elected to serve for 4 years.
  • The technical term for this action is called the “removal of the whip”.
  • The ability to remove Councillors from their role is covered by the Local Government Act and Representation of the People Act which has specific rules when Councillors can be removed from their role as Councillors.
  • The decision to ‘remove the whip’ (suspend) is not an action that can be taken by one person, it is subject to a vote by the whole of the Haringey Labour Group. In this case the vote concluded to suspend Councillor Gideon Bull.
  • The local MPs, the Assembly Member and MEPs have no vote and no decision making powers over the removal of a whip of a Labour Councillor.

As Gideon is still a full member of the Labour Party, he remains the Vice Chair of the Tottenham CLP and Secretary of the White Hart Lane Labour branch.

Councillor Gideon Bull has the right to appeal the decision to London Regional Board. If Councillor Gideon Bull decides to appeal and is successful then the suspension is withdrawn and you will be informed.

I hope my attempt to explain has helped.

As this is a decision by the Haringey Labour Group and not by the Tottenham CLP, I cannot not respond to any questions about the decision and I am writing to you solely to share the information.

Regards
Seema Chandwani
CLP Secretary | Tottenham

Emails from Liz McShane - Chief Whip of the Haringey Labour Group To Be Shared With Members.
(Please note there are two emails)

Dear Seema

This is to formally notify you that the whip has been removed from Cllr Gideon Bull, following the Special Labour Group meeting on Thursday 21st January,  where the Labour Group voted for the recommendation.

The period of suspension is for 3 months,  from 21st January 2016  to the end of the day on 21st April 2016.

I have written to Cllr Bull to confirm this and to formally notify him of the terms of his suspension.

Regards
Liz

Second Email [Following Request for Reason]:

Dear Seema, 

You can say it's because of Gideon’s intervention at the Cabinet meeting on 10th November, where he spoke out against an agreed group decision, that the Labour Group voted  on a recommendation to withdraw the whip based on  concerns about comradely behaviour and collective responsibility in accordance with the Party’s rules and our own group standing orders.

Regards 
Liz

Link to the meeting http://www.haringey.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/191461 the relevant part is 1 hour and 22 minutes.

Views: 9801

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on January 27, 2016 at 23:14

Eddie thanks to the Council's marvellous webcast service, the public can hear and watch these speeches for themselves and for themselves, judge how great was the uncomradely behaviour and seriousness of the Comrade's offence to his Comrades.

[ Cabinet 10 November 2016 here and top ]

Punishment in these circumstances, in my opinion, has been a disgusting episode.

In case the Council experiences in the next 12 months any technical difficulties with the recording, I think it's possible that someone may have re-recorded both audio and video elsewhere, for safety's sake.

Permalink Reply by pamish on January 28, 2016 at 1:03

GB speaks at 1h 22m, then again after a reply.

SP's bit is not flagged on the menu column, can anyone find it?  

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on January 28, 2016 at 6:55

Pam, Cllr. Peacock speaks in Agenda Item No.9 (Approval of a New Commissioning Model for Children's Centres in Haringey) at shortly after

02:08:30

I understand that—in respect of this contribution—Cllr. Peacock was given a "Warning".

Permalink Reply by P Knight on January 28, 2016 at 10:19

Makes you wonder what is was that Bull asked that annoyed them so much.

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on January 28, 2016 at 14:09

IF they were guilty, they were guilty equally.

I say neither were guilty.

I was at the scene of the alleged crime (uncomradeliness). I listened to the alleged crime. Thanks to modern technology, others may hear the alleged crime again. In each case, I admired the delivery of the alleged crimes.

It must be an easy to accuse a Comrade of uncomradeliness, to fail that test and to find a Comrade guilty. A sad day for democracy in Haringey.

Permalink Reply by Lydia R on January 28, 2016 at 14:50

I think you've missed the point, Clive.  It may not be such a good day for democracy, but it is a splendid day for the furtherance of comradeliness.  Surely that is the really important thing? 

Old people die, eventually, but comradeliness goes on for ever.  In Haringey, comradeliness goes on for ever and ever and ever and ever...

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on January 29, 2016 at 10:36

P.Knight, "What was it that Bull asked that annoyed them so much."
It was simply the fact that they he and Sheila Peacock dared to open their mouths.
To resist intimidation and speak-up and speak-out and in public .

How dare they utter a whisper of a hint of a murmur to suggest the Supreme Dear Leader and her cronies might have got something wrong?

Such an outrageous uncomradely thing to do! What sort of Party do they think they are in?  It may have the words 'democratic' and 'socialist' on the membership card, but under the Muswell Hill Colonial Administration their clear moral, political and comradely duty is to agree, smile, nod and kneel.

Permalink Reply by Justin Hinchcliffe on January 29, 2016 at 10:41

Deutschland83 - watch it, peeps. 

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on January 29, 2016 at 12:26

Alan I think what P Knight was getting at, was why was Cllr. Bull punished more severely than Cllr. Peacock for what was the same alleged crime (i.e. uncomradeliness for speaking out in public about Adult Social Services).

It could be that Cllr. Bull's past form includes putting himself forward for an elected office, i.e. for Leader of the Council, twice. This doesn't appear on any charge sheet and these incidents have the status of neither convictions nor spent convictions. However, it could be seen by some as evidence of disloyalty and uncomradeliness.

I believe that competitive elections for public office are a part of democracy, including those held within a Party. Being a Cllr. can be a punishing business, but this punishment reflects more on the punisher than the punished.

I will be interested to see if this matter comes to the attention of the Labour Party's new leader and if so, if he chooses to do anything about it.

Permalink Reply by Justin Hinchcliffe on January 29, 2016 at 12:41

I suspect that they would have got even more flack had they suspended an 84 year-old councillor who has given her life (& more) to the local Labour Party and has served the borough since 1994 - making her one of the oldest councillors (in every respect)  Sheila and Gideon have both said and done things which warranted having the whip removed. But not on this occasion. The leadership's behaviour is utterly bizarre and disgusting. It is an attack on democracy itself. The only good thing, as Zena noted, is that it reminds voters of their cruel closures programme. I understand that, as well as branding, some of these bigwigs work in public relations. Incredible, isn't it? #Fail #Morons

Permalink Reply by Antoinette on January 28, 2016 at 9:39
This is the kind of thing that puts ordinary people off politics and politicians.... more and more I find myself agreeing with Billy Connolly when he said that the desire to be a politician should automatically bar you from ever becoming one....
Permalink Reply by Justin Hinchcliffe on January 28, 2016 at 18:28

More on Labour's internal woes. The HEADLINE says it all, really. 

RSS

Advertising

© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service