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.
