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
-
"... ex Cllr Stanton he knew the implications of speaking out against a collectively agreed decision would likely incur his suspension. Am sure the same would apply in any Tory or lib dem administration. It's called collective responsibility."
"Am sure."
Am wrong.
-
-
Q: "Did I believe I would be suspended for my actions at the Nick Walkley merging" .
A: No. I was never suspended from the Council and Nick Walkley was never merged. -
-
Permalink Reply by Antoinette on
-
No. I tried hard to ignore it but I just can't let that pass. Whistle-blowing on the future?????? How can you whistle-blow on something that hasn't yet happened?
-
-
As I've posted previously, Antoinette, councillors are not employees. So the whistle-blowing in this case is by analogy.
Okay, you find it counter-intuitive to see Cllr Gideon Bull as a whistle-blower because he believed there were serious concerns with something which is about to happen. Which led him to speak-out: disclosing his concerns as questions to the cabinet.
This is what the ACAS website says.
"Qualifying disclosures are disclosures of information where the worker reasonably believes (and it is in the public interest) that one or more of the following matters is either happening, has taken place, or is likely to happen in the future."
Six headings are then given, the key one is- "A danger to the health and safety of any individual."
-
-
"Qualifying disclosures"....what did he "disclose"... absolutely nothing....all the information was already in the public domain... He is not a whistle-blower by any logical or legal definition.
-
-
-
Antoinette, I don't want to seem discourteous, but really you and I have to agree to differ.
-
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Train guards used to do it all the time. Blow the whistle and the train starts.
-
-
Some further thoughts on this, Jeffrey.
I've been exploring more of the material on the Kings Fund website about the Francis Report. It struck me that another way to formulate your second question is to ask about abuse by the more powerful over those with less power.
One of the podcasts on the Kings Fund website is of Professor Rhona Flin on: Building a safety culture in the NHS. In a brisk and businesslike talk she refers to some of the tools used in the airline and offshore oil industries to learn from accidents and secure "a Culture of Safety". Which included a survey where 46% of the crew of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig "said that some of the workforce feared reprisals for reporting unsafe situations".
Professor Flin also mentioned situations where: "managers are hiding the survey reports in a drawer because they don't like the look of the data".
Pointing out that "these are like hydrocarbon bombs in the middle of the sea".She also refers to the important role of leaders in modelling behaviour.
________________
In my view, we don't need to stretch the analogy too far to see the parallels with Haringey Labour "leadership". How can an organisation have a safety culture when even the mildest, well-intentioned questioning leads to a punishment reprisal? Which of course poses a threat to everyone else. Speak-out and we'll expel, gag, or punish you.
A culture where people supposedly offering leadership stress not fresh air, new ideas, transparency, and openness; but secrecy, silence, and group loyalty over the interests of our residents. Including some of the most vulnerable people in the borough.
Professor Flin says that part of the definition of a safety culture "emphasises that culture's really about patterns of behaviour. So if we want somewhere to focus attention and we want to change the culture, we're really interested in what do we do to change behaviour. risky behaviour, uncaring behaviour, unsafe behaviour?"
Can I suggest that the what we don't want our local Council to have is a culture of: 'Don't Tell, Don't Ask', keep quiet; or expect to be gagged or booted out.
-
-
I'd be grateful if someone would point us to links to the Labour Party's rules and the Haringey Labour Group's standing orders upon which Liz McShane relies. Thanks.
-
-
Try emailing the internationally famous Cllr Liz McShane. liz.mcshane@haringey.gov.uk
Alternatively tweet her: @lizmcshane
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I think these are the most up to date Labour Party rules
http://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Rule-Book-2013.pdf
As far as I'm aware the only standing orders are those contained in the constitution of the London Borough of Haringey
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/local-democracy/about-council/council-co...
-
-
As I recall, Michael, there was a big update for 2014 following the Collins Review. In any case the Party Rulebook is updated every year after the Party Conference passes any changes needed from Conference resolutions and any wider legislative matters affecting the Party.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
