Councillor who quit the Tories joins UKIP (From Malvern Gazette)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting MG NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Councillor who quit the Tories joins UKIP
11:00am Saturday 9th February 2013 in News
A COUNCILLOR who walked out on the Tories in protest over the way key decisions were being handled has signed up with the UK Independence Party (UKIP).
Coun Mike Soley, who represents Malvern Link, becomes UKIP’s first ever representative on Malvern Hills District Council.
He quit the Conservative party after six-and-a-half years last month, attacking council leader David Hughes and his deputy Paul Swinburn over their handling of a key vote on mass housing proposals contained in the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP).
Councillors initially voted against the planning blueprint only to reverse their decision a month later, when a whip to support the proposals was imposed on Tory members.
Coun Soley said he had since held meetings with UKIP and decided that they shared the “same principles and objectives” and that joining the party gave him “the best opportunity to make a difference”.
“I stood for district councillor to represent the residents of both Malvern Link and the Malvern Hills area in general, not to be forced to vote along party lines on issues which I, and many others, know to be against the wishes of the majority of residents,” he said.
“I do not wish to burden everyone with the additional expense of a by-election, I do not intend to stand down at this time but will stand for UKIP in future elections.”
When Coun Soley left the Tories, Coun Swinburn told the Gazette that it had been “a group decision, not a leadership decision” to impose a whip on the SWDP vote.
UKIP’s first representation on the council is the latest in a string of political shifts at Malvern Hills over the last few months.
Long-serving Lib Dem councillor Clive Smith jumped ship to the Green Party in November. Then in January the Greens called time on their long-running pact with Lib Dem and independent councillors.
Coun Julian Roskams has just been named the new leader of the Green party.
Comments(22)
Karl Hunderson
says...
12:53pm Sun 10 Feb 13
So why join UKIP-BNP then? If you really meant what you said then you would remain independent. You remain a Tory at heart- untrustworthy.
Allan Whitehead
says...
1:17pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Karl Hunderson wrote:Karl Hunderson, You are correct in what you say. If he remained an independent, he only becomes an Independent who would possibly vote 9 times out of 10 with the Conservatives.
"I stood for district councillor to represent the residents of both Malvern Link and the Malvern Hills area in general, not to be forced to vote along party lines on issues which I, and many others, know to be against the wishes of the majority of residents,”
So why join UKIP-BNP then? If you really meant what you said then you would remain independent. You remain a Tory at heart- untrustworthy.
With the present rules, he could remain in office until his term is ended. However, swapping to another party leaves much to be desired. They spout about democracy yet when they are placed in a position to prove their actions; they all appear to want to hold on to their Council Allowances. Rather than allow those who originally elected a Conservative Councillor, are now having their votes used by a party member they did not elect.
coolnesscoolness
says...
1:25pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Sign this petition to restrict Bulgarian and Romanians from entering the UK:
http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/41492
Sign this petition to allow UKIP to take part in the 2015 TV election debates:
http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/43153
Allan Whitehead
says...
2:02pm Sun 10 Feb 13
You may have a point, however, in a democratic society we require any UKIP representative to have been elected by the Electorate. Furthermore, we should not allow any elected member to toss votes cast for a candidate (Conservative) in this case to throw all those votes received behind any other political party. They are now sitting in office under false colours.
It is like you ordering Fish and Chips and being served Egg and Chips, or a pizza you would send it back to the kitchen because you had not been served with what you wanted.
Karl Hunderson
says...
4:16pm Sun 10 Feb 13
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=0M4hExU-t
fg
sarah and her chickens
says...
9:27pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Allan Whitehead
says...
9:50pm Sun 10 Feb 13
If the Conservatives are anything like our present Coalitions under this David Cameron. We most likely would be far better off voting for your Chickens. At least we would know what they are Clucking About, which will make more sense than some of our politicians, local and National.
BadgerMash
says...
10:34am Mon 11 Feb 13
Allan Whitehead
says...
10:57am Mon 11 Feb 13
BadgerMash wrote:Dear Sir/Madam,
Councillor Soley's implication, reported above, is a very grave one. If he indeed felt that he would "be forced to vote along party lines" this implies the use of coercion or threats on an elected councillor by some person or persons. This would be a very serious criminal offence. So where is the investigation?
I appreciate your concern. However, when a candidate is selected by a political party, whether it be Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green, or UKIP. They will have been vetted and informed of the decision making process. It has been my experience, that when a candidate accepts nomination for offices at their local political party HQ. All conscious votes will have been discussed. Other than, a conscious the selected member agrees to vote on their parties democratically arrived at vote. This is normal practice. I only have known of one Council committee which is semi judicious, and that is the Councils Planning Committee. While I accept that even though planning is a semi judicious committee, its members should listen to the legal argument of the council for recommending a particular application for acceptance. If undue pressure has been placed on any member of any committee then the matter should be raised in front of the Councils Party leaders with the Chief executive present.
BadgerMash
says...
1:14pm Mon 11 Feb 13
Anyone threatening, blackmailing, or otherwise coercing an elected representative is committing a criminal offence. Any councillor (or MP) who has experienced this, from whatever source should come forward and name the guilty parties.
Allan Whitehead
says...
2:30pm Mon 11 Feb 13
BadgerMash wrote:Sir/Madam,
We elect Councillors (and MPs, for that matter) individually, on the basis of their character and the policies they, individually claim to support. Their membership of any group or clique is a secondary matter.
Anyone threatening, blackmailing, or otherwise coercing an elected representative is committing a criminal offence. Any councillor (or MP) who has experienced this, from whatever source should come forward and name the guilty parties.
What we elect is a party policy from a party manifesto if you are voting for any of the political Parties.
They all carry a 100% guarantee to support their individual party whip. I will grant you, that some members of the public may be very staunch supporters of the Conservative, Liberal, or Labour, but will vote for an individual in local elections rather than their individual candidate in several cases it will be known has tactical voting. Example, I am a labour supporter and at general elections I would vote labour. However, I reside in a very conservative stronghold, tactfully I would vote for the excellent ward Councillor who is a conservative; because I do not want, Liberal Democrats gain this seat. However, if a true Independent was standing and the swing was against the Conservatives nationally I would vote for the Labour Candidate in the hope that the independent candidate would split the Conservative, and Liberal_ Democrat vote in the hope Labour may gain the seat.
Sir/Madam,
If all councillors were, independent they would still have to arrive at a majority decision or the council would stagnate. In many cases, elected members are yes men to officers of the council, and occasionally you will get councillors who say hang on a minute we are the managers and you are the employee.
BadgerMash
says...
4:11pm Mon 11 Feb 13
From your tone, you obviously feel the same anxiety as many members of the three over-represented Westminster parties: your organisations have a decreasing number of members, very few people actively support a party and most feel entirely disenfranchised by the strangle hold these antiquated and visionless parties struggle to maintain on government, both local and national. A key part of this is the "whipping" system under discussion here - which is well-known to include elements of threat and coercion and, possibly even blackmail.
All councillors (and MPs), regarless of their membership of any organisation, are independent and entirely responsible for their actions, all votes in council or Parliament are free and anything - and anyone - standing in the way of that is a criminal.
Your last paragraph is the most troubling, arguing for a state of party dictatorhip and clearly indicating that you (and perhaps your party?) has a profound disbelief in the principle and practice of democracy.
You also appear to be defending the threatening or coercion of a councillor if they fail to follow the orders of a party oligarchy, whether it is based in Malvern or London.
Allan Whitehead
says...
5:38pm Mon 11 Feb 13
Sir/Madam,
I may feel some anxiety on occasions with some of the actions taken by my own political party, and will also admit that even the conservatives may have some fantastic policies, which I consider excellent for the UK as a whole. Yet while there may be room for other views from other groups, we must maintain our system of government. Each Member of Parliament must either stay in line with the party they represent, or become an independent. Currently we have three major political parties now. Eventually, we may become more democratic with more parties. However, we will never see the houses of parliament (There are currently 648 MPs) a complete full house of independent Members of Parliament. They are all individuals that will toe the party line
No matter who or which political regime has the over all control.
BadgerMash
says...
5:46pm Mon 11 Feb 13
sarah and her chickens
says...
7:29pm Mon 11 Feb 13
I have heard that a sheep with a blue rosette would be elected in some areas !! Frankly given some of our elected members the sheep would be a better bet .
Allan Whitehead
says...
9:57pm Mon 11 Feb 13
sarah and her chickens wrote:Well here is a person who really has hit the nail square on the head. I would love to seen District Councils and Metropolitan Councils function without Party Politic. Unfortunately Sarah, we can criticise our local Councils. Yet people who sit at home and do not vote are the ones that really are to blame. Some councillors, think they have a god given right to sit in Council and ignore what the electorate want. When a Councillor is elected they swear to represent all constituents of their ward, some do, other just look after their known supporters. Sarah I absolutely agree with you, unfortunately, I do not think it will ever happen.
Malvern is the second smallest district Council.Party politics , I feel, should play no part in our local decisions.The use of the whip is childish and in Malvern pointless anyway as no one pays any attention.The councillors fall into three categories,those that are asleep,those that do as they are told by the officers and those few that are actually trying to do the best for Malvern.
I have heard that a sheep with a blue rosette would be elected in some areas !! Frankly given some of our elected members the sheep would be a better bet .
Allan Whitehead
says...
10:02pm Mon 11 Feb 13
BadgerMash wrote:Sir/Madam, Yes
So do you defend the current practice of the "Whipping" system under which elected representatives, such as councillors or MPs may be threatened, bribed or even blackmailed by "whips" working for those dominating a party?
Provided that the particular group have discussed the issue and reached a democratic majority decision.
Otherwise, we would have anarchy
BadgerMash
says...
11:09pm Mon 11 Feb 13
However, since you seem to want to be remarkably honest and open about this issue, as a devoted party supporter, do you have any personal, verifiable knowledge of the threats, bribes and suchlike which you have said you are in favour of being used by "whips" against councillors or even MPs?
If your answer is "Yes", the Malvern Gazette is probably in for the scoop of its lifetime.
Allan Whitehead
says...
9:14am Tue 12 Feb 13
Sir/Madam, I do not intend to have my previous remarks removed. Yes, I support the whip both, at Local level and within our system of parliamentary government. If you are unable to understand our form of democracy then I will attempt to explain it, as I understand it.
I am selecting a hypothetical A & B scenario. If we have, three people who are discussing a particular subject. Let us say whether they think Valentine’s Day is a good commercial money-spinner for “Cards, Chocolates, Flowers, and the catering industries. After they have discussed the issue, it is but to the vote with two members of the group voting yes and one voting no. Under our democratic rule, the member who voted “NO” is duty bound to support the other two, unless due to some conscience issue that has been brought up within the initial discussion, then this person is allowed to speak against and vote against the item under discussion. One particular issue were member regularly use the conscience vote is the subject of abortion being discussed.
Although I am a particular party supporter, I accept the present system of first past the post; however, my personal belief is that the truest form of democracy would be proportional representation. However, until I can convince the majority of my colleagues that my idea of complete democracy is Proportional Representation, rather than first past the post. I will honour the view of the majority
BadgerMash
says...
1:59pm Tue 12 Feb 13
Allan Whitehead
says...
4:01pm Tue 12 Feb 13
BadgerMash wrote:Sir/Madam,
Incredible that someone who appears to have inteligent and subtle views about democracy, can actively defend, and even recommend the use of threats, bribery and blackmail within our system of government. If only the leadership of parties involved in local and national government were so refreshingly honest about their attitude to this.
I do not consider myself to be defending bribery, threats or even blackmail all those mentioned above have no place in my type of democracy. However, one item reported by the Guardian during the Election for the Mayor of London, which I must confess to agreeing with is and I quote “A study into the state of democracy in Britain over the last decade warns it is in "long-term terminal decline" as the power of corporations keeps growing, politicians become less representative of their constituencies and disillusioned citizens stop voting or even discussing current affairs.
The report by Democratic Audit shared exclusively with the Guardian notes there have been many positive advances over the last 10 years: stronger select committees of MPs holding ministers and civil servants to account; devolution of power to Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and publication of much more information about politicians' expenses and party donors. But it found evidence of many other areas where Britain appeared to have moved further away from its two benchmarks of representative democracy: control over political decision-making, and how fairly the system reflects the population it represents – a principle most powerfully embedded in the concept of one person, one vote.” Quote ends.
Now here we have no doubt, what you have been referring too. This is why I say Members of Parliament should only have one job, that of being MP. Moreover, should not be allowed to sit on any directors boards whilst holding office as a Member of Parliament. In addition, Members of Council should only be allowed claim loss of earning along with any expenses incurred while acting as a councillor. I have watched the pride of being a Councillor and doing it for loss of earning plus expenses develop into what can only be described as a full time paid job. Were the money is more important that the people who they represent. I am of the opinion that we should go back to someone wanting to be a councillor for the benefit of the electorate, and not because of the financial benefits that now prevail.
BadgerMash, while I have enjoyed our exchanges of points of view in the public area, however, should you wish to share any more of your comments with me please contact me on LostLakeReturn@hotma
il.co.uk
Allan Whitehead says...
1:46pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Freedom of choice is what we all have. Here we have a Councillor who appears to have found cause to resign from the Conservatives. It seems this Councillor first became an independent, now he is signed up with United Kingdom Independent Party. Rules allow any Councillor to cross the floor to another party that is already elected to the Council, or become an Independent.
I feel that Mike Soley should have been more democratic he was elected by Conservative voters, and then became an Independent, which in my reasoning means no allegiances to any party. However, he has taken the oath of UKIP. He should have resigned from the Council, took his objections out onto the streets, and stood for re-election as a UKIP candidate. That would have been true democracy.