Kids Not Suits.com

Corstorphine/Murrayfield byelection- Where the Party puts interests before Constituents

When you vote in a Council election, you’d think you’d be voting for someone who will represent your interests… yes? Well, you’d be wrong- because that person will side with their party once they’re in power. Because if it comes to the crunch- and they go against the line by supporting their locals at a key vote, they’ll be expelled from their party for “breaking the whip”. The SNP are particularly keen to expel those who don’t toe the line- just count the number of ex-SNP independents at the end of an Administration’s term. Some of these will stand again, but they never succeed, because their old Party gets the votes, putting in a replacement who will be more obedient. They’ll succeed in this because voters usually vote along Party lines.

But why, if it’s not in their interests? For a case in point, consider the fate of the two motions for CCWEL compensation to Roseburn traders.

The minutes of the full Council meeting of 15th December were published a few days ago, which tells us who voted for what. Read it on pages 63 to 69 here.

In spite of various Labour Councillors promising to support the shops, they did what they were told that day by their Party bosses and refused to vote for compensation. The Greens also opposed giving the shops a penny. There were two motions in favour of compensation; one from the Libdems/Tories and one from the SNP.

Anyone reading the minutes will see that the 19 SNP Councillors supported the move one minute, then sat on their hands the next, after their motion fell. They just couldn’t bring themselves to support the LibDem/Tory bid for the same thing. The reason can only be because they put Party before people.

Our venerable SNP Cllr Frank Ross, who’d submitted the SNP motion to support the traders, was whipped into line and prevented from voting with his heart, having to keep silent on a matter that seriously affected his ward and the people who had voted for him. Maybe he had calculated that even if he had voted with the LibDems, rather than abstaining, they would still have been two votes short for getting compensation agreed. He did the decent thing; when the traders were left with nothing, he resigned in disgust after the meeting.

The act of mass abstention was classic petty posturing party politics from the SNP group- which suggests they are losing touch with what really matters. Every single one was frightened to break the whip. But equally, one wonders why the LibDem/ Tory group didn’t speak to the SNP beforehand and agree a joint approach. What is going on in our Council chambers when politicians are unable to come together on matters of common interest?

We also have members of the ruling Labour group on the record before last May’s elections saying that they supported compensation for the Roseburn traders*.  People voted for at least one of them on the strength of that promise. But they reneged at the crucial hour.

What we saw in December from Labour, LibDems, Tories and SNP politicians- all of whom have influential councillors who indicated the traders should be helped- was a result where the traders got nothing because most of them (apart from the Greens) were whipped into voting along party lines.

We basically have a system where party is put before the interests of constituents.  Yet councillors stand for election on the basis that they will represent the interests of their constituent. This is not democracy.

The fact is, that local government is wholly unsuited to Party politics. Again and again we see politicians voting en bloc, for the sake of opposing one another, when they should be co-operating for what’s best for their constituents. We should have a Council where politicians are freed from doctrine- what happens at a local level ought to be based around like-minded souls coming together on matters of mutual concern.

At the moment, when officers want a particular decision to be made, they’ll work with the party leaders to pitch their plans in the group rooms in the week before the Council meeting. After discussion, the Councillors will be forced to agree a party line. So when deputations from the community arrive at the Chambers to put their case on the day, in 9 times out of 10 they’ll be wasting their breath, because a decision will have been taken by the whips even before the meeting has started.

We need more independent candidates. The citizens of Edinburgh should choose their local representatives not on the basis of who they will vote for at Westminster or Holyrood, because local issues seldom require a party dogma-driven solution. We citizens often vote along Party lines because we don’t have the time to study the track record of our independent candidates. But when we don’t, it’s our loss. To make matters worse, it’s customary for Parties to expel members who admit to not having voted for their party at an election, ostensibly to prevent tactical voting- but it also squeezes out any independent candidates.

I have decided to stand in the byelection on 9^th March as an independent candidate. It’s impossible to get the Council to agree to compensating the traders now, but I will be fighting to get the cyclists counted who actually use the new track- and to get pollution levels on the south side monitored. It’s all in my ‘manifesto’ flyer at www.kidsnotsuits.com

Pete Gregson

This article was republished on 8/2/23 at Corstorphine/Murrayfield by election – Pete Gregson Independent | The Edinburgh Reporter

The candidates were announced on 6^th Feb 2023 – Corstorphine/Murrayfield by-election candidates announced – The City of Edinburgh Council

• One of the traders has his home in Cllr Tim Pogson’s ward. When he asked Labour Cllr Pogson before the election on where he stood, this was his reply- that got the Cllr the vote he wanted [8 months later, the Cllr subsequently voted against compensation] : Email from Tim Pogson (Labour) 15^th April 2022

“Hi Julian, thank you very much for your email and letting me know about the difficulties you are having as a trader on the route of this cycle path. While this may end up being an excellent community resource when it is completed, I can appreciate the impact this is having on your trade and also the livelihoods of your staff as a result.

I have been in touch with my colleague, Richard Parker, who is the Labour candidate in this election for the seat of Corstorphine Murrayfield which covers the site of your business. He is obviously much closer to these issues and has had many conversations with affected traders. Richard is hopeful that there may still be the opportunity to compensate traders and started a petition to that effect – see here. I would certainly support Richard in the efforts he is making to get this issue reopened. If you haven’t done so already, you may wish to contact Richard to share your views with him directly.”

If you scroll 6 hrs and 18 minutes in, you can see the talk I gave on rescuing Municipal Socialism – Tenant Managed Housing Co-Operatives https://www.facebook.com/MFApeoplesparty/videos/534536042005340

The video with no sound in the middle of my presentation is called Home Sweet Home and the extract lasts 7 minutes- if you want to hear the sound that’s missing, scroll in 5 minutes to the actual film on You-tube here at

WHO ARE THE COUNCILLORS ON THIS COMMITTEE?

• Councillor Mandy Watt  (Convener)
• Councillor Graeme Bruce
• Councillor Phil Doggart
• Councillor Joan Griffiths
• Councillor Euan Hyslop
• Councillor Lesley Macinnes
• Councillor Alys Mumford
• Councillor Vicky Nicolson
• Councillor Neil Ross
• Councillor Alex Staniforth
• Councillor Lewis Younie

This link will tell you more about them: https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/mgCommitteeMailingList.aspx?ID=140

HOW TO LOBBY THEM

If you live in the wards of one of these 11 Councillors, you have hit the jackpot. Even if you do not- to find out who your local Councillors are, go to  WriteToThem – Email your Councillor, MP, MSP, MS, MLA or London Assembly Member for free

Enter your postcode- and the website will tell you who your political representatives are.

They are duty-bound to listen to you.

Write to all of them using the tool supplied. If you have one of the Finance Committee  members as your Councillor you can go even further and request a surgery appointment with them- of just turn up at one of their surgeries. The more they know of your case, the greater the chance they will present your view at their Group meetings (all Parties have one, at least once a week).

BEST OF LUCK

 Conservatives and Palestine

In November, one Conservative Councillor wrote in response to an appeal to support twinning Edinburgh with Gaza City that “While I appreciate the humanitarian nature of the suggestion, in my opinion allowing our city to be linked at a civic level with Gaza would equate to a tacit endorsement of a terrorist regime which actively subjugates and exploits its own people. I would therefore actively oppose any proposal of this nature.” By taking this stance, he is refusing to acknowledge the suffering his Party has created and is supporting an isolationist policy that drives some extremists to violence.

[We asked Norman Finkelstein how we might respond to such criticisms and he gave us an excellent 4-minute reply “Why Twinning with Gaza has Nothing to do with Hamas”. See it at https://youtu.be/UmeraZ3SGh0 We’ve expanded upon it below.]

In 2010, the then UK Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron said “We should be saying to the Israelis that the blockade actually strengthens Hamas’s grip on the economy and on Gaza, and it’s in their own interests to lift it and allow these vital supplies to get through.”  William Hague, current Foreign Secretary, said in a prepared speech to the House of Commons that the blockade of Gaza was “unacceptable and unsustainable”, and that it was “the view of the British government, including the previous government, that restrictions on Gaza should be lifted – a view confirmed in United Nations security council resolution 1860 which called for sustained delivery of humanitarian aid and which called on states to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation”, and that “current Israeli restrictions are counterproductive for Israel’s long term security”.

The blockade has also been condemned by former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and other human rights organizations. The isolation and collective punishment of the Palestinians drives them into the arms of extremists because it is clear that peaceful protest achieves nothing. Given the severity of the humanitarian crisis, Israel’s duties to “protected persons” as an occupier of the Gaza Strip under Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention require that it allows the passage of all aid, foodstuffs, and water. The blockade on Gaza has violated this provision of the law of occupation.

To reiterate: Israel instituted the blockade against the Gaza Strip not in response to a violent attack, but rather in response to Hamas’s ascension to exclusive authority in the Gaza Strip, and earlier in response to the Hamas victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections. Israel, in short, engaged in an act of war against an occupied people, and has thereby violated international human rights law.

The petition is to twin with Gaza Municipality, who deliver services to the Gazan people, irrespective of which political party is in power. Conservative Councillors who oppose supporting relief to Gaza are out of step with Conservative Government policy.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the guardian of international humanitarian law, the law applicable in situations of armed conflict, termed Israel’s blockade of Gaza “collective punishment” in violation of international humanitarian law.  70% of the population of Gaza are refugees from Israel’s illegal ethnic cleansing operations from 1947 onwards.

They elected Hamas because it campaigned for their right to return, as the UN called for in resolution 194. They cannot be collectively punished for so doing. In 2010 the ICRC also called the blockade a violation of the Geneva Conventions and called for its lifting. Israel’s blockade also violates international law under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention whereby: “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism . . . against protected persons and their property are prohibited.” This article prohibits the use of collective punishment of protected persons, the breach of which constitutes war crimes. “Protected persons” are civilian individuals who find themselves, in case of an armed conflict or occupation, in the hands of a power of which they are not nationals. In this case, “protected persons” are the people of Gaza.

It was Balfour, a Conservative politician from the Lothians, whose 1917 ‘Balfour Declaration’ partitioned Palestine to provide ousted the Palestinian people to provide a “national home for the Jewish people”.  Importantly, the Declaration also stipulated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

However, the rights of the Palestinians have been prejudiced. The land left to them has been systematically “settled” by the Israelis, with now only the West Bank and the Gaza Strip left to them, with these areas termed “occupied Palestinian Territory” by the UN, the EU and the International Court of Justice. At the same time, the ordinary people of Gaza have been bombed, with numerous attacks on Gaza since 2000, the latest being a week ago when, along with 26 others, a family of eight were killed in their home, leaving just a baby alive.

The Conservatives, and all other political parties, must accept responsibility for the ongoing suffering and death of civilians in Gaza. The Israeli occupation and the blockade on Gaza are illegal.   Edinburgh can lead the way in promoting the enforcement of UN resolutions and international law. The twinning of Edinburgh with Gaza can be a tiny step towards repaying the debt we owe the Palestinian people, while it will also show our respect for justice and the law.

This from Redress Information & Analysis of 31st July 2019

Veteran justice campaigner Pete Gregson fears being expelled from the UK’s Labour Party for opposing Zionist racism

Editor’s introduction

Britain’s Labour Party may just expel yet another member for voicing opposition to Zionist racism and Israeli apartheid.

Pete Gregson, chair of LAZIR – Labour Against Zionist Islamophobic Racism – and veteran campaigner for justice for the Palestinian people, has been given the red card by the party’s Disputes Team, which is riddled with Zionist racists – members of the so-called “Jewish Labour Movement”, a pro-Israeli apartheid body embedded within the Labour Party.

Below is his response to the Disputes Team which he has also sent to the Labour Leader’s Office, all 39 members of the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) and its Complaints Team. His final submission to the Disputes Team is in the embedded document at the end of this page.

Text of Pete Gregson’s submission to the Labour Party Disputes Team

He has, since 1^st October, been subject to an Investigation by the Labour Disputes Team on grounds of anti-Semitism. He responded to the first tranche of 19 questions which he believed were fair- he was given two weeks to respond and he did so [see them at http://www.kidsnotsuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Allegations_and_defence-Pete_Gregson_Case_number_CN-0857_v2.pdf ]. However on the 24th July he received 50 more questions, demanding a response within 7 days. This time the questions were vicious, slanted and accusatory. His answers will be put before Labour’s NEC. He responded within the 7 days but he has complained about the Disputes Team’s attitude. His complaint is as follows:

“I write to complain about the 50 questions that were put to me a week ago by the Disputes Team, demanding an answer within 7 days. They seek confidentiality, but the Legal and Governance Unit, of which they form part, breaches confidentiality whenever it suits. My suspension from the Party was broadcast to the Jewish News a week before I knew of it.

There are big problems with the Disputes Team;  the Panorama programme that slated Labour about bogus anti-Semitism did not reveal the most important problem – that we are still riddled with fifth-columnists at HQ.

These people, clearly from the JLM, do not favour a Labour Government under Corbyn and are doing their best to expel leftie Labour activists like me. They support apartheid in Israel; they have not a care about how much their questioning reflects a bias; not once do they acknowledge Israel’s racist nature. By siding with that racist colony so enthusiastically, they betray the most appalling Islamophobia.

They cannot comprehend how much they undermine Labour’s commitment to social justice. They undermine our ability to combat racism. They are utterly in breach of the rulebook. In short, one wonders not only why they are in Labour but why they have been recruited into this most sensitive area of Labour investigations, that of anti-Semitism, when they exhibit such flagrant support for the Zionist creed.

I disagree with Corbyn’s statement that the Labour Party must be a home for Zionists. In the same breath, almost, he says we must support the Palestinians also. Yet Zionists are relentlessly expansionist for yet more land from Arabs in the middle east, in addition to what they have already stolen from Palestine. They will never accommodate the Arabs and give them equality, for by definition their state must be Jewish. That means, to them, that Jews always must rule and all other ethnoreligious groups must lose out. Corbyn’s position is therefore contradictory. He cannot support Zionists in Labour, for that means supporting racism and the ubiquitous Islamophobia they peddle.

I hope the complaints team will investigate how many of the Disputes Team are in the JLM and reflect upon the pro-Zionist nature of that body. I hope they see we must replace these racists with non-racists for without such a rational action we shall face many more attacks from within. Our Labour Party can no longer tolerate this bogus anti-Semitism, for it risks promoting real antagonism against Jews.

For every time one challenges a Zionist, they retort that they are a Jew. But that is an insult to proper Jews. As Rabbi Cohen says in my attached statement to the Disputes Team “Judaism is an ancient, ethical, moral, compassionate and religious way of life. Going back, as stated earlier, thousands of years. Whereas Zionism (the movement and concept that begat the State of Israel) is a nationalistic, harsh, inconsiderate, secular and racist way of life, barely 120 years old, a totally new concept. It is totally incompatible with and diametrically unacceptable to Judaism on grounds of religious belief and religious humanitarian grounds.”

So there you have it. These Zionists are incompatible with Judaism. Let’s see the back of them.”

 Gregson’s response (which runs to 65 pages), and which was drafted with some help from LAZIR members, can be downloaded at www.tinyurl.com/disputeresponse