Leader: Healthy public debate is crucial for Hackney democracy
Something is stirring in the ranks of the Hackney Labour group.
First came the news that six Labour councillors had signed a strongly-worded letter calling on the Town Hall to lead the charge against government-enforced cuts.
The signatories demanded the council refuse to set a cuts budget and instead set a ‘needs budget’ to show what should be funded.
“The bankers’ greed caused the crisis,” they argued. “They and their rich friends should pay for it through targeted taxes and a crackdown on the tax loopholes…”
One of the signatories was Leabridge councillor Linda Kelly, who soon after defected to the Conservatives and was pictured alongside Eric Pickles, the Communities and Local Government Secretary.
Cue triumphalism from the Tories, but it is easy to spot the contradictions in Cllr Kelly’s logic that the best place from which to represent the desires of her constituents is from the blue benches. Given the miniscule Tory vote in Leabridge, no true democrat could argue against Labour’s call for Cllr Kelly to now resign her seat and fight a by-election.
Surely it would have been more ideologically consistent of her to switch to the Greens or go it alone as an independent.
But despite such contradictions, her defection raises serious questions for the Labour group, which – Cllr Kelly convincingly argues – has been zealous in stifling opposition.
Councillors are meant to represent their constituents, yet those in the Labour group are apparently being forced to go begging to their chief whip if their residents wish to bring a deputation to the council.
Why must all letters Labour backbenchers write to the local press be signed off – and no doubt rendered anodyne – by their superiors? What happens if the interests of residents in one Labour-controlled ward run counter to the will of the Labour group as a whole? What happens when difficult questions must be asked?
Healthy debate is key to democracy. Backbenchers should not be prevented from speaking their minds, and both the anti-cuts letter and Cllr Kelly’s defection indicate a growing disdain for the submissive consensus which for so long has characterised the Hackney Labour group.
Desire for unity seems an odd preoccupation given the unassailable majority the party enjoys in the borough.
Luckily for Labour, it is easy to pick holes in Cllr Kelly’s ideological narrative. The next show of disloyalty may prove harder to mock.
Related: Hackney councillor Linda Kelly: ‘Why I left Labour for the Tories’
Unfortunately, the desire for unity provides for repressive and oppressive atmosphere that prevails among the members of the Labour party – the ugly side of Labour.
The desire for unity in the Labour Group has a lot to do with a reaction to the disunity and bitter infighting in the 1990s that led to 17 Hackney Labour councillors leaving the party and the council going hung – the hung council then proved so chaotic that there were very damaging cuts and failed privatisations of key services.
With 50 Labour councillors there are obviously occassionally differences of opinion on some policies and these are expressed freely and robustly inside the group and party and settled democratically by votes at group meetings.
On the broad policy direction and strategy of the Council I am happy to report that the unity presented in public accurately reflects the unity that exists in private – if you are Labour there’s not a lot not to like about the way the council is going.
The rules you cite and clearing press activity and activity at full council with the whips are standard national rules that all Labour Groups follow.
The fact of the anti-cuts letter shows that voices that dissent from the majority position, even on the biggest strategic decisions like budget-making, are not stifled – no action at all was taken against the councillors concerned.
Come election time, Labour party leaflets often use the bogeyman of ‘hung council chaos’ to scare people off voting for other parties. I have always found this tactic particularly disingenuous, given that the ‘hung council chaos’ was caused largely by internal feuding within Labour. Very glad to see they have finally come clean and admitted this.
Luke, your comment “The fact of the anti-cuts letter shows that voices that dissent from the majority position, even on the biggest strategic decisions like budget-making, are not stifled – no action at all was taken against the councillors concerned”
I are really surprised by it, I have a letter which says a file had been opened against me, because of the letter, it would follow me around. I have emails from 3 Labour councillors, stating ” I went against the collective of the group” You know it was never really about the Speakership, I raised my head above the line, needed to be put down, punished, made an example of so I would not do it again, more so others would not do this.
If the group really did not want to stifle debate, why did the Councillors on the GC of the Labour Party not fight harder to pass the motion for the “free vote” with regards to the Budget – it was lost by 2 votes. This would have allowed everyone to vote according to their heart without the sanction of having the Whip removed? Did you vote for or against? was it a secret vote? or did you leave when the vote was taken?
Luke, I was with you for 9 years, may not have joined the group in the usual watering holes, but I know how this all works. With regards to Jed’s last comments, I do not have to clear anything with Chief Whip, I have freedom of speech and expression.
So I am now with the Tory group, I am going to use my position to work for Leabridge and Hackney, to the best of my abiliity.
With 50 seats on the council, you can have Labour in charge, Labour in opposition, Labour everywhere.
Labour in opposition means posturing and talking to keep us entertained but no further. They all did vote for Mayor Pipe’s cuts, didn’t they? You really didn’t think they’d take any chance and risk their jobs, did you? Labour rules. We just… pay.
I would like to remind Leabridge resident that so many Labour councillors were elected because thats who people voted for. Its called democracy. If you feel you can do better stand for election.
Linda, I was not at the GC where a vote was taken on “allowing a free vote”. If I had have been I would have voted against this as I believe if you are elected on a party ticket you should take collective decisions democratically rather than vote as individuals i.e. as independents. People voted for you because you were the Labour candidate so you should vote for the Labour Group’s policies. Such a vote by the GC would not have had any effect if it had been passed – the standing orders of council Labour Groups can’t be over-ridden by local parties,
I was as confused by your alliance with the Hard Left LRC on the cuts as with your totally contradictory new place in the Tories as you had always previously appeared to be from the Blairite wing of the Party.
You seem to have wanted to have your cake and eaten it – to have publicly criticised the policy position of the majority of the Group – which many of us saw as moral grandstanding given the difficult budget decisions we faced – then to be upset when the people you criticised didn’t want to vote for you in an internal group election.
The rules and collective discipline you are now attacking were ones you were happy to accept for 9 years, Before three separate elections you like all Labour candidates signed statements accepting the Group standing orders and assured interview panels you understood and would abide by the Group whip, No one made you run three times as a Labour candidate knowing these conditions were part of the deal of getting Labour votes and Labour’s campaign to get you elected.
I think the Chief Whip and your colleagues were remarkably tolerant of your behaviour. You’ve repaid them and Labour voters in your ward with a betrayal which is very personally disappointing to those of us who considered you a comrade.
I am intrigued by your reference to the “usual watering holes”. As a parent of a young child I have to go home immediately after group and council meetings so have no idea whether there are any “usual watering holes”.