Brian Dixon on why he resigned the Labour whip

Copeland council takes a severe kicking - which, to be honest, is richly deserved - on the letters and news pages of this week's Whitehaven News in respect of the way the "Choosing to Change" programme has been handled.

The decision to take part in the programme was necessary and the right thing to do - there have been just too many indications that the council is in some ways one of the worst in the country and the people of Copeland deserve better than that. Unfortunately both the way the decision was taken and the way the report from the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee into that decision were handled demonstrate how much the council needs to improve, to become more open and more transparent.

Brian Dixon has an article in the paper edition of tomorrow's Whitehaven News on why he resigned the Labour whip. It makes some very powerful points about what is wrong with Copeland's politics.

When Brian was appointed to chair the council's Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee he said at the following council meeting, "I will hold this executive to account." By all accounts he made no secret of this intention when Copeland Council's the Labour group held an election for their nomination for the post. But it is because he tried to keep that promise that he has ended up outside the Labour group.

Some of the key points in his letter:

"I resigned from the Labour group because, as you may have read in the Whitehaven News last week, I was not prepared to allow the integrity of my committee to be compromised by party politics. Bearing in mind the committee's agreed independent nature and the fact that the recommendation was supported by all its' members, both Labour and Tory, it should have been accepted by the full council at its' meeting last week.

"I firmly believe that if Copeland Council wishes to change then it must move towards a decision-making process more openly involving all 51 members, whatever their political persuasion. This, in effect, is cross-party working. It appears from the sorry events of the last two weeks that the Labour group has not real desire for change. Failure to recognise the independence of an important committee and thereby refusing the power to question tells its' own story, a shabby chapter in Copeland's recent history.

"Scrutiny can review any issue that affects local people and can call Executive members, council officers and representatives from other agencies to attend meetings and provide information. Scrutiny can come to life when an executive member is questioned about a planned decision. Local councillors are constantly being asked to decide between equally legitimate points of view; holding the balance between different opinions and trying to act in the wider interests of the whole borough. The scrutiny process helps to find that balance by giving councillors the framework for asking the difficult questions.

"And wouldn't it be great if the questions came not from members of the committee but from a room full of members of the public from across the Borough?

"All I want to do, as the Labour government wants to do, is have a proper Overview and Scrutiny process at the council. Why doesn't the Labour group want this?

"Everyone in Copeland should be allowed the opportunity to make the council better - because at the moment it needs all the help it can get."



Both his comments and the front page story in the paper about a complaint which has been made about the behaviour of a senior councillor towards an officer at last week's meeting illustrate that Copeland has a culture of bullying.

I am not going to write any more about that complaint at this time, because I do not want to prejudice the inquiry which Copeland Council is holding into it. The incident which gave rise to the complaint took place within a few feet of the seats reserved for members of the council's shadow executive.

If Copeland council is to deliver the better services which local residents need and deserve one of the things which we need is more respect for others and for opposing views.

Comments

Chris Whiteside said…
In line with the comments policy of this blog I have removed a number of obscene, offensive, or irrelevant posts.
Jane said…
I heard a reference to an officer being in some way professionally embarrassed, but could not follow the discourse because it referred to something in the wings. I believed at the time there was an attempt from the Shadow Executive to protect the un-named officer because essentially he was doing his job.

Can you enlighten me on this?

I also found Tim Knowles (whom I had thought one of the better Labour councillors) behaviour rather bizarre during that meeting. He seemed to be side tracking by discussing what (item 7) really meant. He made the point that Cumbria County Council had cross party working because there was no overall majority, but this was not applicable to Copeland. However in my opinion the fact remains that Overview and Scrutiny is independent, works cross party and the integrity of documents agreed should not be tampered with irrespective. Full council is entitled to see the agreed papers.

I am still minded to agree with Cllr Dixon that there is a culture of bullying.
Chris Whiteside said…
I don't want to make a public comment about the complaint which has been made because there is an ongoing investigation.

Tim Knowles was the only member of the Labour establishment to offer an actual argument for their refusal to accept the "cross party working" recommendation, which was because it was vague in terms of what it actually meant. If that was really a problem it would have been far wiser to move an amendment to make the meaning clearer.

However, I think the most sensible course of action would have been to pass a deliberately non-specific motion supporting the general principle of cross party working (e.g. a motion like the one which came from the committee) and letting the detailed work of "Choosing to Change" establish how that principle should be implemented in practice.

I do think there is a culture of bullying within Copeland.
Thomas said…
Chris - that's a pretty outrageous statement to throw around. Are you honestly saying that people like Elaine Woodburn, Tim Knowles or Cath Giel would bully other councillors?

Put up or shut up.
Jane said…
Dear Thomas,

There is a culture of bullying. I have observed this as a member of the public on more than one occasion. No one is laying the blame at any individual’s door. Hence the term a culture of bullying. There is a general ambience in Copeland that makes this acceptable.

Firstly, I have felt for a long time that Council decisions are taken behind closed doors at Labour political party meetings and not in the open at Council meetings. It has been very damaging to our democracy, as it is very difficult to feel that one's vote has any validity when a number of councillors keep voting for decisions, which are actively against the community's best interest, because they are being whipped.

Secondly law protects Overview and Scrutiny, the documents agreed by the ‘Choosing to Change’ Committee should have been presented to Full Council with their original content. It is also acknowleged that the personnel on the Committees is cross party and non-party political in their decision making. Cllr. Dixon in good faith chaired that OSC with the intention of facing up to where Copeland was going wrong, with regard to service delivery. I am sorry to say that the Labour Group on Copeland is in a state of denial. Hence the attack on what is set out in law to be a check on the executive’s tendency to tyranny.

It is not a case of my enemy’s enemy is my friend, but a matter of principle. Good political conduct has veered off the track. Cllr. Dixon was bullied for standing up for what he believed in. As a democrat I stand by him, not as a Tory.
Jane said…
A ‘Critical Friend’ is Brian Dixon’s apt description of the Overview and Scrutiny at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee on 28th September. It was comforting to know that Cllr. Dixon and the members of the OSC are undeterred in their commitment to improving services and the greater participation of the public in democratic processes.

Despite political differences members recognise that Scrutiny is a vital part of the functioning of local government. It ensures transparency and progressively assists the work of the Council. In confronting weaknesses it allows for redress and remedy. The integrity of the ‘critical friend’ enables Councillors and Officers to work for the good of the authority and ultimately the people, from whom the Council derives authority.

I was saddened to note that Mr Neil White the committee’s officer has decided to leave the authority. I also sensed the members shared this view. The response that followed from individual Councillors was deeper than the expected polite formalities. Clearly he was wished every success in his future career and sadness was expressed at the loss of an able and enthusiastic young officer. Most notably is that Councillors collectively acknowledged Mr White’s dedication, long hours of work, integrity and dignity expressed in fulfilling this role. Mr White’s reasons for leaving were not discussed, but one member did say that Mr White had been poorly treated, which I assume related to the abysmal display from certain members of the Labour Group at the last Full Council.

Good officers are worth their weight in gold. It is essential that the authority recruits and retains capable officers with high integrity. These are an essential part of the democratic process, offering expertise to members and functioning within the system of checks and balances. A quote from ‘Proverbs’ was appropriately applied: “Values are never treasured until they have gone”. Now the authority will have to sustain a gap and possibly an interim appointment, plus the time a new recruit will need to work his/her way into the role and pick up the threads. This must be a blow.

There is no foreseeable reason why a good officer cannot be recruited and developed, but again the Council must improve its performance and show greater respect for officers if it really wants to improve and change. This committee recognises the need to change Copeland’s culture. Lets hope the Labour Executive now has the courage to face facts and be brutally honest with itself by accepting critical friendship.

‘Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.’ Mahatma Gandhi.

As I was not permitted to speak I would like to wish Mr White all the best for the future.

Popular posts from this blog

Nick Herbert on his visit to flood hit areas of Cumbria

Quotes of the day 19th August 2020

Quote of the day 24th July 2020