Councillors administratively suspended from their party

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

Just proves party is always of superior importance than open debate and democracy. If Labour in Leicester are so scared of a debate that they have to suspend a Councillor then they deserve to lose seats on the council.

(I would say this of any party)

But I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't agree with the whipping of elected officials by parties, while members of said parties think its normal and OK. I guess bullying is the norm in politics as it in society as its easier to bully people into line than put up a good argument to persuade them. Human nature I guess.

[maxque]

Mar 4, 2023 20:25:58 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

I'm sure Pep Guardiola would be perfectly happy to see a Man City player decide at some point in a game that they want to help their opponents score a goal.

I fail to see how elected mayors help Labour in any way. The whole idea is antithetical to the ideas Labour stands for.

[tonyhill]

Wasn't it Blair who introduced elected mayors? I really don't see how the idea of elected mayors is 'antithetical to the ideas Labour stands for'. Labour is, in many respects, a party that believes in centralising authority, knows what is 'best' for people, and seeks ways to impose its diktat on those it governs. Mayors with authority over elected councillors fit perfectly into that mindset.

[YL]

Mar 4, 2023 21:48:59 GMT batman said:

Having said some of the things she has, she has been fortunate to keep the Labour Whip as long as she has. She will be no loss.

Indeed, having seen that she deserves to be out.

[greenhert]

Mar 5, 2023 7:20:47 GMT tonyhill said:

Wasn't it Blair who introduced elected mayors? I really don't see how the idea of elected mayors is 'antithetical to the ideas Labour stands for'. Labour is, in many respects, a party that believes in centralising authority, knows what is 'best' for people, and seeks ways to impose its diktat on those it governs. Mayors with authority over elected councillors fit perfectly into that mindset.

It was indeed, which paved the way for other unnecessary US-inspired posts such as Metro Mayors and Police & Crime Commissioners.

[emidsanorak]

Mar 4, 2023 21:45:05 GMT ricmk said:

What would Pep Guardiola have to say about a player who described him as “He seems to be an agent of Israel, I wonder what they can offer him.”

Cllr Nangreave seems to have plenty of previous: www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/labour-councillor-suspended-ahead-antisemitism-6226913

Her account was also alleged to have shared a post stating ‘Zionism is terrorism’ with the hashtag ‘#HangTheGoddamnBankers’.

I am not sure supporting a move to a cabinet system is a serious offence - but Cllr Nangreave has provided one of 5 signatures needed for an emergency full council on the matter when it needed a Labour vote - so actively conspiring with the opposition against her own party. Brave move just before all-out elections.

[emidsanorak]

Mar 5, 2023 10:34:56 GMT emidsanorak said:

Mar 4, 2023 21:45:05 GMT ricmk said:

What would Pep Guardiola have to say about a player who described him as “He seems to be an agent of Israel, I wonder what they can offer him.”

Cllr Nangreave seems to have plenty of previous: www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/labour-councillor-suspended-ahead-antisemitism-6226913

Her account was also alleged to have shared a post stating ‘Zionism is terrorism’ with the hashtag ‘#HangTheGoddamnBankers’.

I am not sure supporting a move to a cabinet system is a serious offence - but Cllr Nangreave has provided one of 5 signatures needed for an emergency full council on the matter when it needed a Labour vote - so actively conspiring with the opposition against her own party. Brave move just before all-out elections.

The problem was that the Labour Party did not investigate. She was then readmitted after 6 months.

[AdminSTB]

Mar 5, 2023 9:06:32 GMT greenhert said:

Mar 5, 2023 7:20:47 GMT tonyhill said:

Wasn't it Blair who introduced elected mayors? I really don't see how the idea of elected mayors is 'antithetical to the ideas Labour stands for'. Labour is, in many respects, a party that believes in centralising authority, knows what is 'best' for people, and seeks ways to impose its diktat on those it governs. Mayors with authority over elected councillors fit perfectly into that mindset.

It was indeed, which paved the way for other unnecessary US-inspired posts such as Metro Mayors and Police & Crime Commissioners.

Are Metro Mayors a particularly US idea?

[The Bishop]

Mar 5, 2023 7:20:47 GMT tonyhill said:

Wasn't it Blair who introduced elected mayors?

But that's the point isn't it - they are rather more a Blair thing than a Labour thing.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Interesting to note that of the 19 local authorities that have changed to a directly-elected Mayoralty, six have already, or soon will be, abolishing it.

[Deleted]

Mar 4, 2023 21:37:59 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

Mar 4, 2023 20:25:58 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

I'm sure Pep Guardiola would be perfectly happy to see a Man City player decide at some point in a game that they want to help their opponents score a goal.

If it helped relegate Man U or Liverpool on goals scored he probably would be.

Imposition of views within parties makes them undemocratic and ultimately feeds into lack of trust in politicians, especially at a national level.

I know the media makes an issue of different views but they only get away with that because modern politicians don't have the balls to say this is Government/Council policy but members of our democratic parties including elected members are free to campaign and vote against if they wish. (Cabinet responsibility non withstanding).

It is this lack of freedom that will prevent me joining any political party in any future I can see.

Parties exist because a group of people with a similar political views band together to advance those views. There are, for every party, certain positions that are non-negotiable, and allowing an elected representative who publicly campaigns against one of those positions to continue representing their party would be actively dangerous, and would to some extent defeat the purpose of the party existing. People who sign up to a party sign up to supporting that party's positions, mostly ones they agree with but also including a few they don't.

Now, the position of elected mayors isn't a major issue of dissent that should get someone suspended, but to say that imposition of any view makes a party undemocratic rather defeats the object of parties existing

[carlton43]

Mar 5, 2023 12:33:50 GMT @europeanlefty said:

Mar 4, 2023 21:37:59 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

If it helped relegate Man U or Liverpool on goals scored he probably would be.

Imposition of views within parties makes them undemocratic and ultimately feeds into lack of trust in politicians, especially at a national level.

I know the media makes an issue of different views but they only get away with that because modern politicians don't have the balls to say this is Government/Council policy but members of our democratic parties including elected members are free to campaign and vote against if they wish. (Cabinet responsibility non withstanding).

It is this lack of freedom that will prevent me joining any political party in any future I can see.

Parties exist because a group of people with a similar political views band together to advance those views. There are, for every party, certain positions that are non-negotiable, and allowing an elected representative who publicly campaigns against one of those positions to continue representing their party would be actively dangerous, and would to some extent defeat the purpose of the party existing. People who sign up to a party sign up to supporting that party's positions, mostly ones they agree with but also including a few they don't.

Now, the position of elected mayors isn't a major issue of dissent that should get someone suspended, but to say that imposition of any view makes a party undemocratic rather defeats the object of parties existing

You are of course correct about this and set out the basic reasons well.  It is a reason that I have had to leave 'my party' more than once.  The painful point of issue arises when one signs up for 'j' and 'k' and has to tolerate and accept the new imposition of 'p' and 'q'!  The resignation has to happen when 'p' and 'q' are strongly promoted and 'j' and 'k' are removed.  So many of us have suffered that fate.

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

Mar 5, 2023 12:33:50 GMT @europeanlefty said:

Mar 4, 2023 21:37:59 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

If it helped relegate Man U or Liverpool on goals scored he probably would be.

Imposition of views within parties makes them undemocratic and ultimately feeds into lack of trust in politicians, especially at a national level.

I know the media makes an issue of different views but they only get away with that because modern politicians don't have the balls to say this is Government/Council policy but members of our democratic parties including elected members are free to campaign and vote against if they wish. (Cabinet responsibility non withstanding).

It is this lack of freedom that will prevent me joining any political party in any future I can see.

Parties exist because a group of people with a similar political views band together to advance those views. There are, for every party, certain positions that are non-negotiable, and allowing an elected representative who publicly campaigns against one of those positions to continue representing their party would be actively dangerous, and would to some extent defeat the purpose of the party existing. People who sign up to a party sign up to supporting that party's positions, mostly ones they agree with but also including a few they don't.

Now, the position of elected mayors isn't a major issue of dissent that should get someone suspended, but to say that imposition of any view makes a party undemocratic rather defeats the object of parties existing

Oh I understand where your coming from, but it's not something I agree with so I won't be joining any parties because of that.

Many of you are happy to be prevented from campaigning for what really you believe in one area for the greater overall good as you see it; it was my dad's philosophy as a lifelong Labour man and it worked for him, for me it does not. 

[tonyhill]

I thought Blair headed three Labour governments? Will the abolition of elected mayors be in the Labour manifesto. No, I thought not.

[Deleted]

Mar 5, 2023 13:05:32 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

Mar 5, 2023 12:33:50 GMT @europeanlefty said:

Parties exist because a group of people with a similar political views band together to advance those views. There are, for every party, certain positions that are non-negotiable, and allowing an elected representative who publicly campaigns against one of those positions to continue representing their party would be actively dangerous, and would to some extent defeat the purpose of the party existing. People who sign up to a party sign up to supporting that party's positions, mostly ones they agree with but also including a few they don't.

Now, the position of elected mayors isn't a major issue of dissent that should get someone suspended, but to say that imposition of any view makes a party undemocratic rather defeats the object of parties existing

Oh I understand where your coming from, but it's not something I agree with so I won't be joining any parties because of that.

Many of you are happy to be prevented from campaigning for what really you believe in one area for the greater overall good as you see it; it was my dad's philosophy as a lifelong Labour man and it worked for him, for me it does not. 

I don't feel I have ever been prevented from campaigning for what I believe in. What I believe in is a fairer society; equal opportunities for everyone to advance and achieve their potential; and that certain right should be universal. Now, I believe a politically centre-left government is the best way of achieving that, and that the Labour Party is the best vehicle for that government.

My disagreements with my own party, and often with other parties, are over individual policies and the details of how they are carried out. Yes, there are party policies I disagree with and would not be able to campaign for, but I am perfectly happy to concede a couple of policies I dislike if it means campaigning for the goals that I actually believe in

[tonyhill]

That sounds a bit like a Get out of Gaol Free card.

[Deleted]

Mar 5, 2023 15:27:05 GMT tonyhill said:

That sounds a bit like a Get out of Gaol Free card.

In what sense? My party has a few minor policies I disagree with but which I consider insignificant in the grand scheme of things. On occasion there have been internal debates which my "side" has lost, and I have chosen to accept party democracy and stay rather than leave (both of which are entirely principled and justifiable positions). They have never advocated a policy which appalled me so much I felt forced to resign my membership.

At the end of the day, no party, politician or even other voter is going to agree with 100% of what I want. I can either have somewhere between 70-90% of it, or none of it

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

Mar 5, 2023 15:33:13 GMT @europeanlefty said:

Mar 5, 2023 15:27:05 GMT tonyhill said:

That sounds a bit like a Get out of Gaol Free card.

In what sense? My party has a few minor policies I disagree with but which I consider insignificant in the grand scheme of things. On occasion there have been internal debates which my "side" has lost, and I have chosen to accept party democracy and stay rather than leave (both of which are entirely principled and justifiable positions). They have never advocated a policy which appalled me so much I felt forced to resign my membership.

At the end of the day, no party, politician or even other voter is going to agree with 100% of what I want. I can either have somewhere between 70-90% of it, or none of it

And my dad would 100% have agreed with your position, he stayed a member of Labour from aged 18 until he passed, despite the overall vageries of policy between 1946 and 2012.

For me, if I'm being really honest, constraint of party is a big problem for me because there is no party I agree with over half the policies of, due to the lack of true political options for UK voters. 

[maxque]

Mar 5, 2023 12:31:07 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Interesting to note that of the 19 local authorities that have changed to a directly-elected Mayoralty, six have already, or soon will be, abolishing it.

And Labour is blocking that from happening in Leicester, because Peter Soulsby craves the power it gives too much.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Mar 5, 2023 16:45:15 GMT maxque said:

Mar 5, 2023 12:31:07 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Interesting to note that of the 19 local authorities that have changed to a directly-elected Mayoralty, six have already, or soon will be, abolishing it.

And Labour is blocking that from happening in Leicester, because Peter Soulsby craves the power it gives too much.

He was elected, and the Labour group is entitled to take a view on it. If you don't like it then get a petition for a referendum; you can't really complain that political opponents have different opinions.