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 | TottenhamEmails 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.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Antoinette, we will have to agree to differ.
-
Permalink Reply by Antoinette on
-
Well in the absence of any actual arguments on your part, I guess we will. I would simply ask you to define what the term "whistle-blower" means and then explain how Cllr Bull fits that definition.
-
Permalink Reply by Lydia R on
-
What's going on here? I find myself sympathising with Cllr Stanton WITHIN FOUR DAYS of finding myself in agreement with Mr. Foxe. 'scuse me, I'm just popping out to the offy for a bottle of brandy.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Alan Stanton has always made clear his Party allegiance.
In making your remarks, should you not consider declaring your Party allegiance and that you stood in the 2010 election in Tottenham Green Ward under the name William Hoyle?
CDC
Haringey Councillor
Liberal Democrat Party
-
-
your obsession with declarations is rather pathetic.
My understanding is that such declarations are one of the 'House Rules' of HoL.
Such declarations aren't always necessary, but in the case of a former Haringey Council Election Candidate for a major political party, where there's an attack a former Haringey Councillor of 16 year's service, I think there ought to be a voluntary declaration and with good grace too.
To return to the real subject: serving Councillor Bull has been punished unjustly and the decision on his Appeal reinforces the poor treatment.
-
-
You think my opinions will be discredited by because I was once a Tory candidate.
No that's not what I think: after all, the Conservative Party has on occasion fielded impressive candidates. I think your credibility is in question because you denied that you were related to William Hoyle.
--
One does not even necessarily have to agree with what Cllr. Bull said, in order to believe that he (a) had the right to speak as he did and (b) he should not have been punished for that.
-
-
Clive, Mr Hoyle often tells you and me about what we think and sometimes what we feel. Though without knowing either of us, nor very much about us. He disagrees and scorns what we write. Yet he can't seem to do the obvious - simply agree to differ and not read what we post.
But anyway, let's please focus on the important issues - which include the questions which Cllr Gideon Bull raised at the cabinet meeting.
I didn't realise till yesterday that one reason he was delayed in raising some of these matters was because he had temporary health problems and was in hospital.It's utterly dismaying to me that Cllrs Liz McShane and Peter Morton have wasted time and effort in an unnecessary disciplinary process to silence Gideon Bull. While, to the best of my knowledge, they've never given comprehensive answers to the questions he raised.
I don't know whether you've found time to watch the video interview with Sir Robert Francis. If not, you may prefer to view it more comfortably on Vimeo with a far better image. It's just under ten minutes. https://vimeo.com/112280675Francis is impressive - not least because, despite a lawyer's concern to weigh his words carefully, his compassion shines through. I would ask you to suggest that your Council colleagues view it and reflect on possible implications for Haringey.
One small quotation:
"People raise a concern. And instead of people looking dispassionately at the facts of those concerns, actually working out what has happened - it always seems to be a good place to start there; as a lawyer that's what we always do - instead there's an immediate focus on the people. And you know, it must be someone to blame, or whatever. And usually means everyone is defensive. And instead of actually contributing to the examination of the problem and - if there is a problem, the solution of it - everyone goes to war."I've suggested that Gideon Bull is blowing the whistle - asking serious and important questions about anticipated problems with the plans formulated by Peter Morton, his colleagues and their staff. Instead of listening and focusing on the questions he's raised they have "gone to war". In almost a textbook example, they've pretended that Gideon Bull is the problem, and blamed him for raising his concerns.
I hope your colleagues and open-minded Labour councillors will now join in doing what should have been done in the first place. To pose the questions once more;and pursue answers.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Clive, there are others who post on here and have actually held political office who do not declare that. That doesn't make their opinions any less valid.
-
-
What is the scope of the doctrine of collective responsibility? How do we avoid it being abused to leverage the power of the few over the many?
-
-
Jeffrey, that's a great question. My understanding is that it applies to members of the Council Cabinet, no matter how strongly a member might disagree with the agreed policy of the Cabinet as a whole. If they still disagree, they need to leave, as on a bigger scale, Michael Heseltine did over Westland.
Councillor Gideon Bull was not a member of the Cabinet. The doctrine of Collective Responsibility becomes ever more invidious as it is extended.
The Council Chamber actually heard real debate. Normally such argument is held behind closed doors. I was within metres of Gideon Bull as he spoke and he spoke well. It wasn't trivial: the future of adult social services is a matter of wide, legitimate, public concern.
Had he not raised this, he would have been failing in his duty a Councillor and he would have been failing his residents.
-
-
I agree with the idea of collective responsibility if it is backed up by real democratic decision making. Which begs the question: is the Cabinet model a democratic one?
-
-
Jeffrey - Mr Hoyle poses as some sort authority on this - not just in the Labour Party but in the LibDems. Despite this claim, it appears to me that he is factually wrong.
In my 16 years on the council I have never heard of a doctrine of collective responsibility and certainly not one which gagged a backbench councillor. (It is not the same as the whip system.) Nor has anyone referred me to a rule in the Party's current Rulebook which sets out any such rule or doctrine which requires "backbench" councillors to shut up. I am of course open to correction if someone would like to point me to the particular rule.
As you probably know, the concept of collective responsibility has a rather nasty history. It is however applied in a constructive way to the UK Parliament and the position of cabinet members. It seems to have been imported into local government since the Leader/Cabinet model was adopted. The attempt to extend it to all councillors of the majority party is of course very much in the interest of an autocratic Leader.
As I've mentioned before on HoL I recall a number of instances where "backbench" councillors have publicly challenged the leadership line. It is false to suggest that they would have known this would automatically provoke suspension and loss of the whip.
Speaking out at a cabinet meeting is simply not the same as voting against the whip in full council. In any case, as I've said before, I can recall many instances where councillors voted against the whip; or abstained; or took the third option of being in the toilet.
As a councillor I spoke out publicly on many occasions. As have other "backbench councillors". It's actually a sign of health inside a Majority or Minority political Group when this happens. As Cllr Clive Carter says, people do have a responsibility to speak out.
As you might have read on this discussion thread, I was challenged with the view that Gideon Bull was not a "whistle-blower" but a "dissenter". That's an interesting point.
Perhaps it's easier to see whistle-blowing when someone expresses concerns about what has happened or is now happening. Rather than what might happen if a certain course of action is taken.
However, I'd suggest that the recent case of "Barbara" may highlight things in Home Care/ Day Care provision which are already going wrong. And that these may show systemic problems which are likely to worsen.
But I also think that whistle-blowing should and can quite legitimately be applied to raising concerns about future events. Provided these are substantive concerns, based on reasonable information. In Gideon Bull's case the information was run past outsider professionals who have also raised doubts.
But labels aside, what is reprehensible about saying something like:
'Look I'm really worried about this? For the following reasons. I want to raise questions even at this late stage. Please take me seriously and perhaps think again."
Haven't we all at some point had serious doubts about a plan or proposal that someone else was planning to undertake? Shouldn't we speak up? Isn't 'better safe than sorry' preferable to keeping quiet and then having to live with the bad consequences'?Together with other local councillors I raised issues about a Family Centre before the death of Victoria Climbié. Some prominent councillors at that time failed to ask questions about a range of things within Children's Services. It was one of the main criticisms of the Laming Inquiry Report. After she died I wish I'd shouted loudly. And I decided never again to hold back when I thought things might be going wrong.
You ask how do we avoid "collective responsibility" being abused? Quite simply by rejecting any such rule and instead stressing and extending the "Duty of Candour". to achieve an open transparent culture.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
