timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on May 24, 2021 22:37:00 GMT
Cakeism, pure and simple. They're not Labour when the local rag wants to run a LABOUR SLEAZE headline, but they are Labour when it counts. Perhaps you could reclassify them as the Co-operative Party? Don't bother with him. When he gets in his playpen over these matters he just becomes an even more tedious complete tosser than normal. Well, in his case there is no 'normal' of course!!! Do stop talking about yourself, it’s not healthy.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,189
|
Post by CatholicLeft on May 25, 2021 0:06:49 GMT
They have been suspended from holding office in the Labour Party not suspended from the Labour whip. In other words and for the slow learners here, they may not take any responsibility within the Labour Party. But they are still required to obey the Labour whip on the council and discharge the obligations they entered into on becoming a Labour councillor. So they still count in the Labour column. They have not defected or changed allegiance. (And that's reasonable. Why should being suspected of wrongdoing suddenly free you from the policy pledges you gave to the electors which secured your election?) Cakeism, pure and simple. They're not Labour when the local rag wants to run a LABOUR SLEAZE headline, but they are Labour when it counts. Perhaps you could reclassify them as the Co-operative Party? Don't even....
|
|
|
Post by froome on May 25, 2021 7:40:27 GMT
Just to stir the pot a bit more ... The definition of a defection, as written on the list of threads of this forum, is "elected or otherwise noteworthy individuals defecting from one party to another", which is also my understanding of the meaning of defection. In other words, to defect, someone not only has to leave one party, but to join another. In those terms, the majority of the 'defections' reported on this thread over the years should have been listed elsewhere, as many described people leaving a party but not joining another (and some of these, of course, remain as supporters of their party and even eventually rejoin them). So yes, it might be sensible for us to come up with a better wording for the overall thread, and at the same time to create separate threads within it to describe separate distinct situations, as timrollpickering has done. It is certainly worth recognising that not all 'defections' are the same, and that somebody changing parties is a very different matter from someone who steps down from their party, either by their own hamd or by their party's.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 25, 2021 8:25:27 GMT
A distinct thread is a pain, because it'll only definitely include Labour councillors. Depending on group rules, not all Conservative suspensions are 'administrative' with some groups withdrawing the whip.
It is fine to have them all in this thread.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on May 25, 2021 8:46:13 GMT
A distinct thread is a pain, because it'll only definitely include Labour councillors. Depending on group rules, not all Conservative suspensions are 'administrative' with some groups withdrawing the whip. It is fine to have them all in this thread. The obvious distinctions seem to be a) willingness - a defection is usually permanent, and I’d disagree with froome that it implies joining another Party; I wouldn’t see a difference between joining another Party or merely sitting as Independent/unaffiliated - on Stoke council we have two (possibly three, one’s ongoing) of the latter who left the City Independents in order to remain part of the Conservative Cabinet without going the whole nine yards and joining the Conservative Party; and b) permanence - a suspension, even if it includes a withdrawal of the Whip is usually a temporary thing whilst a legal or disciplinary matter is concluded and normal service resumed, whereas a defection implies a degree of permanence with little or no possibility of rejoining the original grouping. Thus a distinct thread could be designed for temporary suspensions, including withdrawal of the Whip, leaving the main thread open for permanent moves.
|
|
|
Post by froome on May 25, 2021 9:44:47 GMT
A distinct thread is a pain, because it'll only definitely include Labour councillors. Depending on group rules, not all Conservative suspensions are 'administrative' with some groups withdrawing the whip. It is fine to have them all in this thread. The obvious distinctions seem to be a) willingness - a defection is usually permanent, and I’d disagree with froome that it implies joining another Party; I wouldn’t see a difference between joining another Party or merely sitting as Independent/unaffiliated - on Stoke council we have two (possibly three, one’s ongoing) of the latter who left the City Independents in order to remain part of the Conservative Cabinet without going the whole nine yards and joining the Conservative Party; and b) permanence - a suspension, even if it includes a withdrawal of the Whip is usually a temporary thing whilst a legal or disciplinary matter is concluded and normal service resumed, whereas a defection implies a degree of permanence with little or no possibility of rejoining the original grouping. Thus a distinct thread could be designed for temporary suspensions, including withdrawal of the Whip, leaving the main thread open for permanent moves. It's not permanence as such, as somebody can defect to another party and then defect back again, assuming their old party is willing to take them back. It is more a matter of making a definitive statement of change of allegiance, and here it is more blurred. A defection to another party is a definite statement of change of allegiance. Resigning from your party is a definite statement about the party but doesn't imply a change of allegiance. In terms of this thread, it makes more sense to just define a difference between those who make the decision to leave their party, for whatever reason and outcome, and those who have the decision made for them. But in that case, the thread name does need to be widened to show it includes more than just defections.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 25, 2021 9:45:02 GMT
Don't bother with him. When he gets in his playpen over these matters he just becomes an even more tedious complete tosser than normal. Well, in his case there is no 'normal' of course!!! Do stop talking about yourself, it’s not healthy. My health is quite good actually, and for my age it is a bit of a marvel. Clean living, superb diet over many decades, never taken any recreational drugs, gave up smoking at 40, modest but continuous imbibing of alcohol and good genes. Plus gallons of tea! Or were you alluding to my mental health and creeping into polluted waters of suggesting that I might be ......ill there?
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on May 25, 2021 10:02:20 GMT
The obvious distinctions seem to be a) willingness - a defection is usually permanent, and I’d disagree with froome that it implies joining another Party; I wouldn’t see a difference between joining another Party or merely sitting as Independent/unaffiliated - on Stoke council we have two (possibly three, one’s ongoing) of the latter who left the City Independents in order to remain part of the Conservative Cabinet without going the whole nine yards and joining the Conservative Party; and b) permanence - a suspension, even if it includes a withdrawal of the Whip is usually a temporary thing whilst a legal or disciplinary matter is concluded and normal service resumed, whereas a defection implies a degree of permanence with little or no possibility of rejoining the original grouping. Thus a distinct thread could be designed for temporary suspensions, including withdrawal of the Whip, leaving the main thread open for permanent moves. It's not permanence as such, as somebody can defect to another party and then defect back again, assuming their old party is willing to take them back. It is more a matter of making a definitive statement of change of allegiance, and here it is more blurred. A defection to another party is a definite statement of change of allegiance. Resigning from your party is a definite statement about the party but doesn't imply a change of allegiance. In terms of this thread, it makes more sense to just define a difference between those who make the decision to leave their party, for whatever reason and outcome, and those who have the decision made for them. But in that case, the thread name does need to be widened to show it includes more than just defections. The problem appears to be those who have the decision taken for them; usually a suspension may be accepted for convenience by the councillor but isn’t a matter of choice. Usually, though not exclusively, it doesn’t imply any change of voting allegiance, therefore it’s not a defection. Those suspensions are being incorrectly reported by some in this thread as defections when they are no such thing, and there seems to be an unwillingness by some of those posters to even accept the difference, let alone record it as such. Therefore having a separate thread for suspensions seems to be the most logical solution.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,106
|
Post by Chris from Brum on May 25, 2021 10:34:09 GMT
It's not permanence as such, as somebody can defect to another party and then defect back again, assuming their old party is willing to take them back. "Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat." attrib. Winston Churchill.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 25, 2021 11:06:08 GMT
I am quite happy to see this as an omnibus Thread for all the dross it contains at present. We don't need separate defined thread for each nit-picking distinction of 'separation' because of the tender feelings of one Labour nit-picker. This Thread is fine as it is and run as it is and it doesn't need policing and reporting by a lurking nerk.
For me a defection has two parts, the leaving of affiliation to one party and the joining of another party. For me one has to positively defect to another party as a personal act of volition.
Being sacked, having the whip removed, being suspended pending something, losing a constituency vote of confidence, sitting apart, siting as an independent and even total repudiation of one's party are not defection. It is only defection on the actual joining of another defined registered party.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on May 25, 2021 12:04:18 GMT
I am quite happy to see this as an omnibus Thread for all the dross it contains at present. We don't need separate defined thread for each nit-picking distinction of 'separation' because of the tender feelings of one Labour nit-picker. This Thread is fine as it is and run as it is and it doesn't need policing and reporting by a lurking nerk. For me a defection has two parts, the leaving of affiliation to one party and the joining of another party. For me one has to positively defect to another party as a personal act of volition. Being sacked, having the whip removed, being suspended pending something, losing a constituency vote of confidence, sitting apart, siting as an independent and even total repudiation of one's party are not defection. It is only defection on the actual joining of another defined registered party. So can you please urge those that post people falling in to your final paragraph as defections to please cease as, as you correctly surmise, they are indeed not defections and therefore shouldn’t be categorised as such by placement in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 25, 2021 12:16:29 GMT
I am quite happy to see this as an omnibus Thread for all the dross it contains at present. We don't need separate defined thread for each nit-picking distinction of 'separation' because of the tender feelings of one Labour nit-picker. This Thread is fine as it is and run as it is and it doesn't need policing and reporting by a lurking nerk. For me a defection has two parts, the leaving of affiliation to one party and the joining of another party. For me one has to positively defect to another party as a personal act of volition. Being sacked, having the whip removed, being suspended pending something, losing a constituency vote of confidence, sitting apart, siting as an independent and even total repudiation of one's party are not defection. It is only defection on the actual joining of another defined registered party. So can you please urge those that post people falling in to your final paragraph as defections to please cease as, as you correctly surmise, they are indeed not defections and therefore shouldn’t be categorised as such by placement in this thread. No. Not my thing. Not important to me.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 25, 2021 14:12:32 GMT
It's not permanence as such, as somebody can defect to another party and then defect back again, assuming their old party is willing to take them back. It is more a matter of making a definitive statement of change of allegiance, and here it is more blurred. A defection to another party is a definite statement of change of allegiance. Resigning from your party is a definite statement about the party but doesn't imply a change of allegiance. In terms of this thread, it makes more sense to just define a difference between those who make the decision to leave their party, for whatever reason and outcome, and those who have the decision made for them. But in that case, the thread name does need to be widened to show it includes more than just defections. The problem appears to be those who have the decision taken for them; usually a suspension may be accepted for convenience by the councillor but isn’t a matter of choice. Usually, though not exclusively, it doesn’t imply any change of voting allegiance, therefore it’s not a defection. Those suspensions are being incorrectly reported by some in this thread as defections when they are no such thing, and there seems to be an unwillingness by some of those posters to even accept the difference, let alone record it as such. Therefore having a separate thread for suspensions seems to be the most logical solution. The particular issue is that the Labour rules on 'administrative suspension' are different to other parties, at least in general. The SNP have a similar command-and-control attitude so probably take the same line, but it someone is suspended from a Conservative group and has the whip withdrawn they are de facto independents.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on May 25, 2021 15:08:54 GMT
I know I only brought up the Co-operative Party as a joke, but actually, what is the position if a Labour and Co-op councillor is administratively suspended by Labour? Do they also get administratively suspended by the Co-operative Party?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 25, 2021 15:29:50 GMT
No. Separate party. The Co-op Party has its own disciplinary procedures.
|
|
|
Post by threecrowns on May 25, 2021 15:45:02 GMT
Cllr Ryan Langley of Derringham ward in Hull has resigned from the Liberal Democrat group. He was formerly the Deputy Leader of the Hull Lib Dems and I believe he challenged the leader Mike Ross at their recent AGM.
|
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by cj on May 25, 2021 19:52:08 GMT
Michael (never Mick) Jeal Labour to independent following suspension due to secretive reasons, alas my sources are not what they were...
The local press is on form, what with Mick not being the former Town Mayor that being a position that hasn't existed for quite some time.
Not sure of the committee seats either unless he groups together with the other independents, but I am basing that on out of date knowledge before the council went back to a committee based model rather than the leader and cabinet set up.
With the group leaders support I'm guessing Michael been dobbed in by a member, Karmic really with his track record...
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on May 25, 2021 20:14:53 GMT
Michael (never Mick) Jeal Labour to independent following suspension due to secretive reasons, alas my sources are not what they were... The local press is on form, what with Mick not being the former Town Mayor that being a position that hasn't existed for quite some time.
Not sure of the committee seats either unless he groups together with the other independents, but I am basing that on out of date knowledge before the council went back to a committee based model rather than the leader and cabinet set up. With the group leaders support I'm guessing Michael been dobbed in by a member, Karmic really with his track record...
I take it he's not your best mate?
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on May 25, 2021 20:43:26 GMT
Michael (never Mick) Jeal Labour to independent following suspension due to secretive reasons, alas my sources are not what they were... The local press is on form, what with Mick not being the former Town Mayor that being a position that hasn't existed for quite some time.
Not sure of the committee seats either unless he groups together with the other independents, but I am basing that on out of date knowledge before the council went back to a committee based model rather than the leader and cabinet set up. With the group leaders support I'm guessing Michael been dobbed in by a member, Karmic really with his track record...
May I point out to the Hon Gentleman that we have a separate thread for administrative suspensions. If I was half competent in such matters I would move your post to that thread. But I'm not.
|
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by cj on May 25, 2021 20:58:05 GMT
Michael (never Mick) Jeal Labour to independent following suspension due to secretive reasons, alas my sources are not what they were... The local press is on form, what with Mick not being the former Town Mayor that being a position that hasn't existed for quite some time.
Not sure of the committee seats either unless he groups together with the other independents, but I am basing that on out of date knowledge before the council went back to a committee based model rather than the leader and cabinet set up. With the group leaders support I'm guessing Michael been dobbed in by a member, Karmic really with his track record...
I take it he's not your best mate? Churlish and unpleasant he could be but I always considered Mick to be ok, relatively speaking; amongst several former comrades you could at least have a drink with him.
The karmic element was down to him getting a Labour councillor kicked out the party for signing his missuses nomination papers when she was deselected and stood as an independent, but thereby hangs a different tale of skulduggery by the seaside.
|
|