Only the electorate or the courts should be able to sack councillors, anything else is just a bullies charter

The Committee on Standards in Public Life has bunged out a sore losers report into "Local Government Ethical Standards" in which it tries to rebuild the old Standards Board model for enforcing such standards:

Council standards boards should have the power to ban councillors for up to six months without allowances, the Committee on Standards in Public Life has recommended.

The report blathers on about bullying and harassment while at no point recognising the essential flaw in the old standards regime - it was used, again and again, as a means to bully councillors and as a political tool. My experience of this system showed that these boards are essentially kangaroo courts - in my case, while I blithely assumed I'd be dealing with the investigating officer, the Standards Board shipped up, at the cost of thousands in public money, a barrister to cross examine me. I was found guilty of having shouted at a fellow councillor but the board decided it wasn't bad enough to sack me. The whole process was a complete waste of time and money but really suited my political opponents (and not just the ones in the Labour Party).

Let's be clear. If a councillor has broken the law then the matter should be reported to the police who will investigate and, if there's a case, ask the CPS to consider prosecution. Serious stuff like taking backhanders for planning deals or smashing another councillor round the cakehole are covered well by law and don't require a standards committee. Non-criminal infractions - saying something stupid,  alleged bullying and harassment all fall into this category - are better dealt with through the political parties since they have far more sanctions. Bear in mind that, as a Conservative Group Leader, I could suspend the Party whip from any member and I could ask the wider Party to take further action should it be merited.

The idea that there should be a sanctions system built into local government standards processes undermines the relationship of the councillor with his or her electorate - these are the people we serve and, ultimately, the people who decide whether or not we get to stay as a councillor. Moreover the sanctions system deals with vague ideas of ethics drawn from a code of conduct that lacks detail, definition or specifics. It is a bullies charter.

I appreciate that the Committee on Standards in Public Life, as a bureaucratic entity, seeks to sustain and extend its role but its proposals return us to the days when councillors and campaigners used reporting people to the Standards Board as a political tactic. This acts to stifle debate, steers councillors away from commenting on sensitive or contentious issues, and reinforces the view that our role as elected representatives holds no privilege, we are no different from paid officials or appointed board members.

If you want a better proposal, just scrap council standards committees altogether. We're not snowflakes, we can cope.

....

The nice, pleasant, decent left is valorising violence with its silence and excuses

I know it's not all of you but "The Left" as it likes to call itself really does have something of a problem with being extremely unpleasant. And this problem is getting worse not better.

It may not be the biggest of big deals but this rather illustrates the problem:

"The government has blocked a giant statue of Margaret Thatcher in Parliament Square over fears it will be vandalised..."

 So it's just a statue of Britain's first woman prime minister - something definitely worth marking in Parliament Square (where, in case you haven't noticed, there aren't many statues of women). But because of that unpleasant faction on "The Left" it isn't going to happen.

The bigger problem with all this is that so many of those nice, pleasant, decent folk who hold left-wing opinions are prepared to make excuses for the sort of people who indulge in this sort of vandalism and worse. You only need to read the story of the attack on Sarah Wollaston's office, listen to Sheryll Murray describing the appalling vandalism and personal attacks in her election campaign, or to run down the Tweets of the Liberal Democrat campaigner in Manchester targeted at four in the morning for the heinous crime of putting up some posters.

Yet every time the response is to swat it away - "every party has these people" - to draw a false parallel between policy disagreements and vandalism or personal attacks ("look at these political campaign posters I don't like") or whataboutery - "here's something nasty that a Tory said fifteen years ago, what about that then". When the extreme left target a Liverpool MP for the terrible crime of being critical of Jeremy Corbyn, targeting that includes appalling anti-semitism and misogyny, those nice, pleasant, decent folk with left-wing views do nothing and say nothing. Every time.

It's true that every party has its share of unpleasant folk but it's also true that only "The Left" valorises vandalism, personal insults, threatening behaviour, intimidation and bullying as campaign methods. And because those nice, pleasant, decent folk with left-wing views don't deal with it - even having the almighty gall to talk about some sort of "kinder" politics - this sort of campaigning continues.

I've said for a long while that our political culture celebrates the bully - you only need watch "The Thick of It" to appreciate this - but we now are in the position where a faction on "The Left" has lifted this unpleasantness and transferred it to the political campaign itself. In forty years as an active political campaigner, I've never known a time when so much unpleasant, personal and downright nasty campaigning has been directed at the good people who hold different political opinions from "The Left".

I know you consider yourself different. You're not part of that left, oh no. But so long as you tolerate, excuse, deflect or explain away violent campaigning, you are little different from the left wing men who are doing the vandalising, performing the intimidation and ganging up on those most exposed and especially women and ethnic minorities.

....

Politics is run by bullies.

Politics is managed by bullies...everywhere. It is its biggest problem. It isn't solved by hanging one man out to dry. Here's John McTernan - pundit and former Labour spinner - celebrating violent bullying as a management tactic:

"A Cabinet minister who served in both the Blair and Brown governments retells his first encounter with Labour whips. Newly elected, he was walking through the corridors of the House when he was accosted by one. He was pushed against the wall, his testicles grabbed and twisted sharply – and painfully. “Son, you’ve done nothing to annoy me. Yet. Just think what I’ll do if you cross me.” That is how you manage backbenchers."

This is why that poor kid was bullied and why the bullying was covered up. Because it's normal, everyday practice in politics. If cabinet ministers, senior spin doctors and the like make light of bullying as a tactic of course folk lower down will emulate them.

The entire culture of our politics - just look at Malcolm Tucker from The Thick of It - is centred on ad hominem, on using the personal to control the political. Having spent best part of my working life in this environment, I utterly hate it and the detestable, shallow people who rise to positions of power and influence through being bullies, through trampling over the bodies of their colleagues and opponents.

This is the culture that gave us a Standards Board used by bullies to control what others said, the culture that resulted in Prime Ministers so mistrustful of colleagues as to be almost paralysed in their actions, a culture where the most minor of mistakes is used to crush the enemy (remembering that for the bully the enemy is anyone between them and power).

So dance on the political grave of Grant Shapps, call him a 'thug' or whatever (despite there being precious little to support such contention). I don't know the man, have never met him - I just know his resignation doesn't solve the problem. That he's just a scapegoat just as Damian McBride was a scapegoat, just as were any number of folk we don't know who were shoved aside by the bullies clambering to the top of the political pile.

....

Apparently the Syria vote was lost because Cameron isn't a violent bully

****

I think John McTernan was some sort of spin doctor for Tony Blair. And, in an article he has written, he reminds me how much Blair and Brown destroyed honesty and decency in politics. This isn't a comment about ideology or policy but one about behavior and attitude. Put simply McTernan champions the bully:

A Cabinet minister who served in both the Blair and Brown governments retells his first encounter with Labour whips. Newly elected, he was walking through the corridors of the House when he was accosted by one. He was pushed against the wall, his testicles grabbed and twisted sharply – and painfully. “Son, you’ve done nothing to annoy me. Yet. Just think what I’ll do if you cross me.” That is how you manage backbenchers. 

This isn't politics it is physical assault. Yet McTernan seems to think it admirable and he repeats his joy in violence:

“Hear that noise John? It’s limbs being broken.” That was the job, and it was done.

This is a truly unpleasant world, the sort of nasty, violent, principle-free world captured so terrifyingly (and sadly too gleefully) by 'The Thick of It'. And it makes me sick. If violence, bullying and unpleasant vulgarity is how John McTernan thinks politics should be conducted, he shouldn't be let anywhere near it. At best McTernan is an apologist for nasty bullies, at worst he is one himself.

...

Bullies...

****

Little bits of me crumbled reading this from Cranmer. These people are everywhere - certainly everywhere in politics:

Bullies manipulate, humiliate, denigrate, undermine, distort, fabricate, lie convincingly and then lie again to cover their lies. And then they project all of their inadequacies, shortcomings and inappropriate behaviours onto their innocent victims with ferocious psychological violence, just to avoid facing up to their own inadequacies and doing something about them.

Bullies are arrogant, audacious, and exert a superior sense of entitlement. They are practised in the art of deception, deflection and obfuscation: if ever they are called to account, they will flit from subject to subject without ever answering the question, and spontaneously fabricate further as the moment requires, knowing full well that further investigation of their additional lies is not likely. And so they continue their vile and vindictive campaign when any official internal process has been summarily dismissed. And they even lie on oath, perfectly convinced of the infallibility of their words and the untouchability of their person. They are impregnable, unaccountable and immovable; perfectly charming in public and before any inquisitor or judge but thoroughly evil in private.

They tend to be superficial and awkward in conversation, though possessed of exceptional verbal dexterity. Their laugh is forced, hollow and insincere. In any discussion in which they sense danger of exposure, a voice may be raised slightly to warn off, speaking may become ‘firmer’, or the conversation will be abruptly terminated. They will alienate the strong employees, often by overlooking them for promotion or recognition, and they will ‘look after’ the fawning and obsequious.

They tend to be emotionally retarded with a pathological inability to empathise; they may storm out of rooms or rant when they don’t get their way. They are prone to mimic, repeat and plagiarise in order to maintain their façade of working excellence and semblance of normality. They cannot be trusted with personal information or confidences, and are likely to use any employee’s weakness (like bereavement or illness) as a means of undermining and destabilising.

I could list a name or two from my experience that precisely fit this description. But I won't - life's too short.

....

The NHS as bully boy...

****

Not that it's a huge deal but the NHS has no power or authority to suppress truth - doesn't stop it trying:

Dan first worked for Forest in 2007. A few years ago, via a third party, he also did some work for an NHS Primary Care Trust. Proud of the work he had done for Forest and the NHS he added both bodies to the client list on his website.

Imagine his surprise when, a few weeks ago, he received a request – prompted by the work he had done on the Hands Off Our Packs campaign – to remove the reference to the NHS from his site. "Working for the NHS and then being funded, albeit indirectly, by the tobacco industry" represented a "conflict of interest", he was informed.

So this business is told that it can't have any NHS business - or even tell the truth that it did some business with the NHS! Seems wrong to me.

....

It's not Unity if you achieve it through bullying....

Raise your banners high
Strength to strength and line by line
Unity must never die
Raise your banners high

Firstly – before I dive into the politics – a plug – folk legend Martin Carthy will be launching Bradford’s celebration of (mostly leftie) political song at the Topic Folk Club on Thursday. Sadly, I won’t be there as I’m already double-booked that evening. All the details of Raise Your Banners can be found here.

Next I shall speak of scabs, blacklegs and the evils of the political bully.

Regardless of the emotion, the history and the passion – the things that are celebrated in these songs. Despite the cry for unity and the desperation of the cause....

...you have a right to withdraw your labour, to strike. It is a right hard won by men and women in times past. It is a right cherished by everyone – a notion of liberty, if only group liberty.

But you have no right to bully, assault, ostracise, condemn or otherwise mistreat another person because they choose not to go on strike. 

That is their choice – their right - and if you use violence to prevent that choice, to remove that right, you are no better than those you condemn for removing or reducing workers’ rights.  You are no better that the fascist thugs you condemn.

There are no scabs, no blacklegs – just men or women who made a different choice from you. Men or women exercising their rights in a free land.

....

What's the point of lying Ed?

I am 100% sure that, had I been an MP in 2003, I would have voted in favour of British military action in Iraq – mostly because the Prime Minister lied through his teeth to persuade people like me of the case for war.

Now as it happened the new leader of the Labour Party was safely ensconced over at Harvard during this great debate. As far as we know, he made no public statement regarding the decision to invade Iraq. I am 100% certain that, had Ed Miliband been an MP back in 2003, he would have supported the line from Blair and Brown. His period in America seems to me as somewhat akin to an extended visit to the dentist!

Now, I’m prepared to say that I was wrong back in 2003 and now take the view that the invasion of Iraq was wrong (not illegal but definitely of no strategic significance to my country). What I find odd is that Ed Miliband – covered by the tiniest or tiny fig leaves – can’t say the same. Especially as he appears able to do so on the banks, the deficit, ID cards, incarceration without trial and public spending cuts.

But then Ed Miliband lives in a world where the truth is a man in rags staring in at the opulence of bullies and liars.

...

Why do politicans feel it necessary to be bullies?

***

Today’s frothy media story (at least for the anoraks inside the Westminster bubble) is the arrest of Steve Hilton, the Conservative Party’s Director of Strategy. Now leaving aside that this took place in 2008 and resulted in an £80 fine, it seems to me that this is an example of how truly unpleasant politics and politicians can get.

This bloke is a backroom boy – albeit an important one – and someone has seen fit to save up little stories about him so as to do him down. That person – whoever he or she is – is a bully. Let me repeat that – politicians who use ancient history respun to do down another person are bullies. And the hacks who feed on these people’s stories are no better.

Sadly too many other politicians, pundits, bloggers and feeders from the Westminster gutter seem to think that politics should be conducted on the basis of smear, innuendo, sly accusation, misrepresentation of past events and, on occasion, straightforward ranty bullying.

Our political culture now celebrates bullying as an admirable quality in politicians rather than seeing it as a disqualifying character flaw. And those same unpleasant backstabbing bullies are often the first to sign up to cod campaigns against the same bullying they indulge in every day. It makes me sick.

...

Pushing water uphill - why we lose good Councillors

Ran into Phil Thornton, ex-Labour Councillor for Shipley East. After the normal greetings the conversation went something like this:

"Do you miss it?"

"Was gutted for a few days after I lost but no - discovered there's a real world out there...pointless being a Councillor"

"Pushing water uphill?"

"Yes, waste of time."

Now I don't know about others but I find it sad that someone with Phil's talent sees no point in trying to come back as a councillor. That what we do is a waste of time. But I do understand why he feels that way about it. And our Parties have it in them to make the changes that will keep folk like Phil - and doubtless many others - involved and active.

1. Stop rewarding bullies - sorry "strong, assertive, forceful leaders"

2. Put an end to obsessive whipping on local councils - these aren't matters of principle

3. Say thank you to people who serve the Party well for a long time

4. Promote independence of thought not slavish adherence to the Leader's line

...and after all this, agree that we elect people to make decisions not to perform some fictitious "community leadership" function.