More on Gavin Webb
From what I’ve managed to gather he’s been suspended, pending review, because he disagrees with some party policy, which apparently falls under bringing the party into disrepute.
I do have a couple of questions - if party policy is not to be disagreed with then how can we be a democratic party? Party policy is changed through debate which necessitates people disagreeing, or are you only allowed to disagree in ways sanctioned by the ‘Compliance Unit’? In which case, what are these sacrosanct policies which must not be contradicted? I need to know so I can avoid holding my own views on them.
Personally I think that those who initiated this action are bringing the party into disrepute. Gavin Webb obviously believes in the fundamental principles of the party, he just disagrees with the current direction of some party policy. Surely that is to be welcomed if we are a democratic party committed to free speech and debate, he should be allowed to make his case, as others are allowed to oppose him in debate.
He hasn’t campaigned against the party, he hasn’t launched personal attacks on others or engaged in corrupt practices. His crime appears to be having gained attention for his views, which are consistent with liberalism (although not the only views possible on the subjects within the broader liberal thought) but are not held by those who hold the power to suspend his membership.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I believe he is also to have a hearing on not agreeing with the parties aims and values. If that finds against him on the basis of his current statements, then that would be difficult. While I don’t agree with all of them, I agree with enough (and that none should have people kicked out) that I would have to consider my membership. I have no intention of spending many hours helping campaign if I am to be excluded from the policy process.
I have heard the compliance unit believes you must agree with about 60% of the parties policies. Its just a nonsense. Requiring anything more than agreement with aims and values just empowers the central leadership to kick out anybody they would rather not have.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
“he hasn’t launched personal attacks on others”
You might want to add “other members of the Liberal Democrats”. Of course he called some BNPer a fascist, which could be considered a personal attack, even though I think he is right.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
The only policies Gavin Webb is interested in are his own.He caused the party nothing but trouble when he sat as a councillor on Newcastle-under-Lyme BC,and he does the same on Stoke-on-Trent CC.He doesnt actually sit in the Lib Dem group,he sits on his own as a Lib Dem Libertarian. If he actually did want the party to do well,particularly in the Labour stronghold of Stoke where our small party struggles,surely a week before elctions is not the best time for him to make statements like these? Believe me,I know this man,and our party will be far better of when we rid ourselves of him,let him cause trouble for others,after all,the Libertarian party actually does exist! I might even pay his subsciption myself.
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Hello Andrew. It’s good to hear from you again. You claim I have caused problems for both Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent City Lib Dems. I should bloody well hope I did. The fact is this, when on Newcastle Borough Council I opposed the introduction of an alcohol restriction zone for a local nature reserve called Bateswood. You know it don’t you Andrew? This piece of land was in my ward and covered 50 hectares. There had been some incidences of fires around park benches and yes litter, but the ARZ - not only was it not really enforceable (can you imagine a copper or two walking around 50 hectares to catch the ne’er-do-wells drinking alcohol) but it risked criminalising reasonable people who were having a drink in the wonderful green spot.
As for Stoke, well, what can I say really. They have no principles, and in fact some members don’t like gays (that should affect you Andrew) and others aren’t too keen on other races. They are a ragbag of disaffected Labourites, Tories and Socialists. They are mates who aren’t interested in the Party but helping their mates. That, together with the fact that the local council group has no backbone meant I withdrew from the Group, even if it was for the sake of my own health.
PS. Until today, I was giving money to Stoke Local Party. That’s how little interest I have in the Lib Dems.
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Sitting as a councillor outside the local party group and giving donations to another party are probably grounds for drumming you out that are less worrying for my future in the party.
I don’t see how the Stoke Local Party will advance you ideological goals.
I remain concerned at the ease with which the party will accept defectors, and the free reign given to council groups to act without any democratic accountability. However, since you don’t seem to care about changing the party or its future I guess I will stop caring about your loss.
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
You misunderstand me. I have been giving money to Stoke ‘Lib Dem’ Local Party which surely indicates that even though I am not actively involved in Stoke Lib Dem activity, including on the Group, I have been making a financial contribution to their efforts. I have not given up on the Party just yet. I make no financial contributions to any other Party. Fact.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Oh, I quite misunderstood. Although if I so disliked my local party that I would not sit with its local group I would donate to the federal party.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Tristan, could you remove some lines from Gavin’s post before they appear on opposition leaflets…
April 24th, 2008 at 4:55 am
anon. Though I perfectly understand your concerns about some of my comments about Stoke and Newcastle-under-Lyme parties appearing in opposition leaflets, let’s get one thing very clear - there are people within my own Party locally and nationally who have no time for me because I’m not afraid to speak my mind which may unfortunately cause waves in their comfortable little worlds. The problem with their worlds is this - they suck. Our individual rights, responbilities and freedoms are being eroded because there are too many people in the UK sitting back and letting it happen. They may grumble and may go on a march proclaiming that the government not send troops to Iraq in ‘our name’, but fail or refuse to recognise that government is the root cause of these problems. Make government smaller (a party policy and principle I believe?) and stop sticking our (as in the UK’s) noses into other countries’ affairs and we’ll reduce the likelihood of fearing WMDs and terrorists and the like.
There are some in the Party who’ve thrown dirt at me and what you’re suggesting is that I sit back and take accusations of troublemaking! Well, that’s not going to happen. I have and continue to stand for the principles in which I believe and refuse to get sucked into to the mediocrity of officialdom and government bureaucracy, for they blackened your heart and suck out your soul. Just an aside, funny isn’t it how Gwyneth Dunwoody (and though I didn’t necessarily agree with everything she said, I did respect her) was regarded a troublemaker by some in her party but because she had numbers on her side when it came to a vote on her Chairmanship, she was clearly a good troublemaker.
I don’t mind constructive criticism but personal attacks, particularly from former and current colleagues, that risks tarnishing my reputation (I do a good job of that myself with my views thanks - I don’t need anyone else’s help) then of course I will fight back.
So what do you suggest I do anon? Should I quit, leave the Party. Or should I stand and fight, not just for myself, but also on behalf of others in the Party of likemind to me? Perhaps it is easier to flee now and save myself more aggro (all for wanting to debate stuff eh?) but I know if I did this I’d be letting liberty-lovers down. If however liberty-lovers in the Party want me to shut up, then I’d welcome their comments.
All the best to you anon.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Gavin, not a member of Lib Dems (or any other party) myself, I have understood that the local branches of the Lib Dems vary also ideologically. Maybe a solution in your case, if you want to stay with the Lib Dems, would be to find a more likeminded branch and move, if that is possible considering your work and family?
April 24th, 2008 at 7:38 am
I already have done and found a nice little Lib Dem home in East Staffs. Some East Staffs members don’t agree with everything I say but they are liberals (and I would say some are borderline libertarian) and are open to other ideas. Most importantly, they don’t ostracize or demean you for coming up with ideas no matter how loony they may feel they are. In short, there is an appreciation for debate. The same can’t be said about Stoke or NUL I’m afraid, which is a shame given the amount of potential there.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Listen. Do not have an opinion while you listen because frankly, your opinion doesn?t hold much water outside of Your Universe. Just listen. Listen until their brain has been twisted like a dripping towel and what they have to say is all over the floor.