Brighton councillor to appeal expulsion decision (From The Argus)

Im a gay man,but i think just because someone does not hav the same opinion should not mean they are expelled.IT USED TO BE KNOWN AS FREEDOM OF SPEACH.Everyone has a right to an opinion.

But Rob, she knew what the party line was on gay marriage, then stood for election, then voted against.
She has got herself into this.
Also she was quoted in the Argus as saying that she worked for god.
No, as a councillor she works for the electorate who voted for the Green Party policies not for her to change her mind.
It's no different from voting for a Labour candidate who then decides to start supporting Tory policies.......unles
s you are Lib Dem of course and that slide to being a Tory is quite natural.

The labour party also had a good go at curtailing freedom of speech now it looks like the greens are trying to do the same thing. Don't they realise they can bring in all sorts of laws and regulations to try to mould our thoughts but peoples hearts and minds are free and always will be.

So it wasn't that kitcat stayed on the panel long enough to ensure they were thinking on the "right" lines before resigning? Not very transparent is it? Very green & murky in fact.

It has been reported in the various comments forums that Councillor Kitcats wife, a strict Catholic, left the chamber before the vote and thus did not vote in favour - can anyone confirm this?

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
But Rob, she knew what the party line was on gay marriage, then stood for election, then voted against. She has got herself into this. Also she was quoted in the Argus as saying that she worked for god. No, as a councillor she works for the electorate who voted for the Green Party policies not for her to change her mind. It's no different from voting for a Labour candidate who then decides to start supporting Tory policies.......unles s you are Lib Dem of course and that slide to being a Tory is quite natural.

Spot on - she joined the Greens, stood for election on a Green ticket and then once elected, chose to speak against Green policies. Its nothing to do with 'freedom of speech' and everything to do with not standing by the chosen and democratically elected policies of the party and its supporters Any party would take the same action, regardless. Her actions only call into doubt her ability to stand for any elected post; for the record, I do not vote Green.

RickH wrote:

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
But Rob, she knew what the party line was on gay marriage, then stood for election, then voted against. She has got herself into this. Also she was quoted in the Argus as saying that she worked for god. No, as a councillor she works for the electorate who voted for the Green Party policies not for her to change her mind. It's no different from voting for a Labour candidate who then decides to start supporting Tory policies.......unles s you are Lib Dem of course and that slide to being a Tory is quite natural.

Spot on - she joined the Greens, stood for election on a Green ticket and then once elected, chose to speak against Green policies. Its nothing to do with 'freedom of speech' and everything to do with not standing by the chosen and democratically elected policies of the party and its supporters Any party would take the same action, regardless. Her actions only call into doubt her ability to stand for any elected post; for the record, I do not vote Green.

By that argument, anyone seeking political office with a party must toe the party line on everything, including issues of conscience. Any rebellion on any question would lead to expulsion. No discussions, no debate, just vote how you are told to vote. How very Chinese, or Russian before peristroika.

RickH wrote:

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
But Rob, she knew what the party line was on gay marriage, then stood for election, then voted against. She has got herself into this. Also she was quoted in the Argus as saying that she worked for god. No, as a councillor she works for the electorate who voted for the Green Party policies not for her to change her mind. It's no different from voting for a Labour candidate who then decides to start supporting Tory policies.......unles s you are Lib Dem of course and that slide to being a Tory is quite natural.

Spot on - she joined the Greens, stood for election on a Green ticket and then once elected, chose to speak against Green policies. Its nothing to do with 'freedom of speech' and everything to do with not standing by the chosen and democratically elected policies of the party and its supporters Any party would take the same action, regardless. Her actions only call into doubt her ability to stand for any elected post; for the record, I do not vote Green.

Quite right, both of you. And, you can bet, if she doesn't win her appeal, the other parties will be falling over themselves to get her 'inside the tent', just so they can stick it to the Greens and score political points. If she wants to work for God, she should form a new party.

JohnFallon, if you have been voted in by an electorate on a manifesto, you cannot then go against what you were elected for.
You have cheated your party and the electorate.
It does not matter if you are red, green or blue or what the issue is.
This lady should have stood as an independent and been honest that god would guide her decision making. If the electorate were happy with that and she was elected then so be it.
But she has gained a seat on a set of party promises then reneged on them. That has not stopped her freedom of speech, but it means she cannot represent a particular party.
She should be a Tory or an independent and stop squealing.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
JohnFallon, if you have been voted in by an electorate on a manifesto, you cannot then go against what you were elected for.
You have cheated your party and the electorate.
It does not matter if you are red, green or blue or what the issue is.
This lady should have stood as an independent and been honest that god would guide her decision making. If the electorate were happy with that and she was elected then so be it.
But she has gained a seat on a set of party promises then reneged on them. That has not stopped her freedom of speech, but it means she cannot represent a particular party.
She should be a Tory or an independent and stop squealing.

I understand what you're saying but many regard issues of this sort as issues of conscience that should not be subject to party whipping. Is there any topic on which you would allow people to vote with their conscience?

By the way, I've just downloaded the latest B&H Green manifesto. There isn't a single word in it about gay marriage.

mnairb wrote:
It has been reported in the various comments forums that Councillor Kitcats wife, a strict Catholic, left the chamber before the vote and thus did not vote in favour - can anyone confirm this?

Not sure what this says about Mrs Kitcat or her feminist ideals. Only you can judge
http://www.starnow.c
o.uk/aniakitcat

Clubrob you are being very kind in your words about freedom of speech but why do gay people have to be the last to be supported. if her words had been against black people or travellers everyone would have hung drawn and quartered her but because its against gays it suddenly becomes a freedom of speech matter.

What the Greens really want is for their leader Jason Kitcat to cast all Green votes as a block - its the only way to be sure eh?

Just need one councillor for each party casting votes in proportion to city wide support and job done.

Very USSR...

The people who instituted this disciplinary panel and voted for its recommendations are the ones who have brought the Green Party into disrepute.
It smacks of totalitarianism and ignores the facts - the Green manifesto did not mention gay marriage nor, given the existence of civil partnerships, is this a question of equality.
It's a fascist-style purge.
An anti-Christian entryist group within the Green Party is promoting the rights of one section of society over all others.
No matter how much I may disagree with Christina Summers, I disagree even more with curtailing her freedom to speak and vote according to her conscience.
It is also disappointing to see grammatical mistakes such as the one in the headline and opening paragraph of this story. Just as you appeal for help, rather than appeal help, so you appeal against a decision rather than appeal a decision. Perhaps the Argus might like to employ a competent editor.

It's right there is no mention of same-sex marriage in the B&H green party manifesto but there is this
“The Green Party aims to treat everyone equally and fairly. Our goal is to ensure respect for everyone whatever their ethnicity gender and gender identity, beliefs, sexual orientation, class, size, disability, or other status”
The greens are not ensuring respect for Cllr Summers beliefs.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
But Rob, she knew what the party line was on gay marriage, then stood for election, then voted against.
She has got herself into this.
Also she was quoted in the Argus as saying that she worked for god.
No, as a councillor she works for the electorate who voted for the Green Party policies not for her to change her mind.
It's no different from voting for a Labour candidate who then decides to start supporting Tory policies.......unles

s you are Lib Dem of course and that slide to being a Tory is quite natural.

If councillors and MPs just have to follow the agreed party line, there is no point in having them. A cardboard cut out would be enough

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
This lady is facing the same problem as Nick Clegg has been today about a different issue. The fact is you cannot stand for a party and use promises to get elected and then do the opposite to save your own ****.
Once you get elected, your **** isn't your own and if you don't like the idea of that get your **** out of politics.
Being a politician is no different from playing for a sports team or working for a company.
You support it and if you don't you leave.

Maxwell’s Ghost: On the basis of your logic, would you not then agree that all 5 of the Green planning officers who voted to allow a 1800 sq m destination concrete skate park to be built on The Level’s iconic open green (the ‘Greens’ grassroots heartland no less) should likewise be expelled? After all, if voting against the Green Party’s official ‘party line’ is just cause for expulsion, then here we have a clear cut case of, not just one councillor voting against the general party line, but 5 voting against a key, clearly stated manifesto pledge to protect our open public spaces! Seeing as this new skate park will benefit only a small minority of wheeled sports loving, (mainly) white males btw roughly 15 and 30 yrs, at the expense of just about everyone else in the community, I’d say there’s some fairly obvious ‘Equalities’ issues at stake here along with the environmental concerns. Therefore, Pete West, the Green Environment Cabinet Officer who gave the proposal the nod and his whole hearted endorsement in the first place, should be booted out - along with his ever grinning sidekick Ian Davey who voted in support too. Bill Randall, Lizzy Dean, Jason Kitkat... they’re all in on it as last year’s full council meeting in August proved when the entire party voted against a proposed review on moving the skate park to the open green. Therefore, all BHC Green councillors should be expelled IF we apply your logic...

ARealBessie I do think they should be expelled but as their party has not done this we will have to wait until the election for the electorate to expel them.
The party has made grave mistakes from day one of taking office and that has been a series of broken promises.
Not only that, the party got elected on an Eco manifesto by nice middle class people who like middle of the road safe politics, and what we got was a mush mash of right and left wing politics from councillors tweeting that a faith school was a cult, making rape jokes, EDO and squatter and traveller supporters to this latest issue. I cannot think of a community which has not been angered, let down or alienated. It's like the dying days of the Thatcher Government.
I didn't vote Green but have some nice middle class sweet friends who did who have since said they would never, ever have voted this way had they realised that actually they were a band of extremist with a different agenda.
Get the Level planning application into appeal and to the planning inspector long enough got the next election to happen and get it kicked out.
It's the same with the stupid plan to close two lanes on the Lewes Road. Unnecessary wasted money which will just push traffic over the top road and down through Elm Grove, Freshfield and Hanover as it does if the Lewes Road is ever congested.
Caroline Lucas needs to intervene and shake the party up because they have no chance of being re elected and her seat is also under threat.

I HOPE THIS COUNSELLOR SINGLE HANDEDLY WIPES OUT THE GREEN VOTE IN BRIGHTON FOR GOOD.
A Vote of conscience meaning expulsion are we back to communism and Facism??

Maxwell’s Ghost: I couldn’t agree with your sentiments more. Unfortunately, the only way to stop the new skate park being built on The Level is via a judicial review (and there are no rich folk falling over themselves’ to provide the cash to protect a public space used mainly by Brighton’s poor –so I guess that rules that option out!)
Turning The Level into a giant skate bowl for the benefit of ‘skate boarding aficionados’ is one Green disaster that has yet to happen, and COULD be prevented IF there was the political will to stop it, but there isn’t. Instead, the proposal has had general cross party support with Labour, and the Conservatives, smoothing the way for the Greens by providing next to no opposition at all. My guess is it more than suits Labour and the Conservatives to sacrifice The Level as it’ll give both parties a nice big visible concrete stick to beat the Greens with come the next elections (by which stage the damage will be done.) The only other conceivable way this plan would be stopped in its tracks is if there was a big enough public backlash against it. But again, it seems that one lone Green councillor going against the official party line generates a great deal more excitement than an entire batch of Green councillors doing the exact same thing. And, in the case of the latter, the party lines crossed are a great deal clearer cut than the former! As for Caroline Lucas, when it comes to the destruction of one of Brighton’s last open green urban spaces, she’ll do sweet FA as she fully backed her councillors over their support for this proposal as well! Personally, I too can’t wait to see the back of the Greens. Then again, the other two parties have proved almost as hypocritical on this issue, so it’s hard to welcome the idea of either party being back in the council driving seat!

ARealBessie wrote:
Maxwell’s Ghost: I couldn’t agree with your sentiments more. Unfortunately, the only way to stop the new skate park being built on The Level is via a judicial review (and there are no rich folk falling over themselves’ to provide the cash to protect a public space used mainly by Brighton’s poor –so I guess that rules that option out!) Turning The Level into a giant skate bowl for the benefit of ‘skate boarding aficionados’ is one Green disaster that has yet to happen, and COULD be prevented IF there was the political will to stop it, but there isn’t. Instead, the proposal has had general cross party support with Labour, and the Conservatives, smoothing the way for the Greens by providing next to no opposition at all. My guess is it more than suits Labour and the Conservatives to sacrifice The Level as it’ll give both parties a nice big visible concrete stick to beat the Greens with come the next elections (by which stage the damage will be done.) The only other conceivable way this plan would be stopped in its tracks is if there was a big enough public backlash against it. But again, it seems that one lone Green councillor going against the official party line generates a great deal more excitement than an entire batch of Green councillors doing the exact same thing. And, in the case of the latter, the party lines crossed are a great deal clearer cut than the former! As for Caroline Lucas, when it comes to the destruction of one of Brighton’s last open green urban spaces, she’ll do sweet FA as she fully backed her councillors over their support for this proposal as well! Personally, I too can’t wait to see the back of the Greens. Then again, the other two parties have proved almost as hypocritical on this issue, so it’s hard to welcome the idea of either party being back in the council driving seat!

They are probably firing up the chain saws to take down more trees in the Wild Park and fill it with sheep and fencing at great expense

John Fallon wrote:

RickH wrote:

Maxwell's Ghost wrote: But Rob, she knew what the party line was on gay marriage, then stood for election, then voted against. She has got herself into this. Also she was quoted in the Argus as saying that she worked for god. No, as a councillor she works for the electorate who voted for the Green Party policies not for her to change her mind. It's no different from voting for a Labour candidate who then decides to start supporting Tory policies.......unles s you are Lib Dem of course and that slide to being a Tory is quite natural.

Spot on - she joined the Greens, stood for election on a Green ticket and then once elected, chose to speak against Green policies. Its nothing to do with 'freedom of speech' and everything to do with not standing by the chosen and democratically elected policies of the party and its supporters Any party would take the same action, regardless. Her actions only call into doubt her ability to stand for any elected post; for the record, I do not vote Green.

By that argument, anyone seeking political office with a party must toe the party line on everything, including issues of conscience. Any rebellion on any question would lead to expulsion. No discussions, no debate, just vote how you are told to vote. How very Chinese, or Russian before peristroika.

And that's exactly why our Parliament has a post called a Whip. Are you seriously saying that our very own government acts in an authoratarian way. I suggest that your examples of China and Russian only underline your misunderstanding of how governments work.

John Fallon wrote:

Maxwell's Ghost wrote: JohnFallon, if you have been voted in by an electorate on a manifesto, you cannot then go against what you were elected for. You have cheated your party and the electorate. It does not matter if you are red, green or blue or what the issue is. This lady should have stood as an independent and been honest that god would guide her decision making. If the electorate were happy with that and she was elected then so be it. But she has gained a seat on a set of party promises then reneged on them. That has not stopped her freedom of speech, but it means she cannot represent a particular party. She should be a Tory or an independent and stop squealing.

I understand what you're saying but many regard issues of this sort as issues of conscience that should not be subject to party whipping. Is there any topic on which you would allow people to vote with their conscience? By the way, I've just downloaded the latest B&H Green manifesto. There isn't a single word in it about gay marriage.

Taken from the Green Party's policy website:

"RR506 The Green Party deplores the ban on same-sex civil marriage and is committed to repealing it. We support civil marriage equality and believe that a same sex couple should have exactly the same right to get married in a registry office as an opposite sex couple. As well as opening up civil marriage to LGBT couples, we also believe that heterosexual couples should be able to have a civil partnership, as an alternative to marriage. In other words, both civil marriage and civil partnerships should be open to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation and without discrimination."

Source: http://policy.greenp
arty.org.uk/rr

So its there in 'black and white" ie its a recognised, democratically elected policy of the Green Party. No wriggle room there methinks.