Reader article: The Strange Case of Councillor Wallace

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste) from our supporters. Please send your articles to us at lancaster.uaf@zen.co.uk

There are many reasons why BNP councillors cease to be BNP councillors. Some resign, some are disqualified, many - and this is the happiest of all circumstances - are roundly rejected by their electorate. Cllr Geoffrey Wallace of Calderdale Council is a rather different case - he has had the BNP whip removed. He has been "sacked", to use the technical term employed on the BNP website.

Actually, "sack" is the wrong word - but when did respect for the English language ever bother the far right - as he remains a councillor, exercising the powers of office and drawing whatever allowances that role offers. He may now be sitting as an independent group of one - but that's one member larger than the remaining BNP group! For Cllr Wallace was the BNP's only remaining member on Calderdale.

Now, I have no interest in defending Cllr Wallace. I don't know the man, but as an ex-Conservative who defected to the BNP, I doubt he's the sort of fellow I'd get along with very well (to put it mildly). But there are features of his "sacking" which raise interesting questions about the BNP's competence and its understanding of local government procedures and ethics.

Firstly, to say that "he has had the whip removed" is a grotesque nonsense. Since he was the sum total of the BNP group on his council there was scarcely a whip to be applied in the first place! In reality he has had his party membership revoked by the national leadership, but perhaps that doesn't sound as impressive.

Secondly, the public reason given for this action was that he (Wallace) had contravened party policy by supporting "two planning applications" (my emphasis) within the green belt.

Now, there's an important distinction to be made here between two elements which make up a local authority's planning responsibilities:

1. Planning policy - the general framework for development in an area, largely shaped by national laws and policies.
2. Development control - the determination of individual planning applications, within the framework of national and local policies.

If you are still with me, the crucial point is that political parties are allowed to exercise party control over the former, but not the latter. A party can say "we are for - or against - a particular planning policy"; what they cannot say to their councillors is that "you must - or must not - support a specific planning application". Nor are they (the parties) permitted, in any way, to seek to influence their councillors' voting behaviour on individual applications.

There is case law on this in the form of Ombudsman rulings.

Thirdly, the BNP is fond of portraying councillors from other parties as "yes men", in thrall to their whips and party bosses. What greater example could you find of that than a party leader disciplining a single councillor over two local planning applications?

Fourthly, the BNP leadership argues that Cllr Wallace's position flew in the face of the views of his party and "the local community". Now, I have always found it very difficult to find an evidential basis for claims of "the local community's view". In any event, if Cllr Wallace has so badly misjudged his electors' views they will surely highlight that misjudgement by evicting him from office at the next election? And since Cllr Wallace can until then continue in office in any case, in what way does the BNP's action help the residents of Calderdale?

Finally, does all this typical BNP bluster hide something else? Certainly there are odd hints on Stormfront suggesting friction between Wallace who had, after all, won twice as a BNP candidate and previously as a Conservative, and Griffin, who has won...er...well actually, has never won an election!