'We're allowing the standard of debate to fall', says Wolverhampton councillor after 'bunny rabbit' jibe

Political debate in Wolverhampton is being demeaned by personal insults and online abuse, a councillor told a meeting - minutes after another councillor likened a colleague to

Councillor Sohail Khan, deputy leader of the city’s Conservative group, made the comments during a debate on member’s conduct at last night’s meeting of the council.

Councillor Khan said there was no place for personal attacks, either inside the chamber or on social media, during a debate on a motion by Conservative group leader Councillor Simon Bennett, which called for councillors to focus on serving the city rather than resorting to personal abuse.

Councillor Khan said he had been concerned for some time about a fall in the quality of debate, and said personal attacks damaged the standing of every member of the council.

Earlier in the meeting, Reform UK’s Councillor Corey Kendrick - who wore a Free Speech Union T-shirt during the meeting - caused a furore by asking whether ‘describing a politician as looking like a bunny rabbit represented a hate crime’.

Councillor Celia Hibbert, leader of the opposition Reform group, asked why Councillor Bennett was allowed to present his motion when Councillor Kendrick’s question had been ruled out of order, and suggested it was a case of ‘double standards’. Monitoring officer David Pattison said Councillor Kendrick’s question related to an ongoing legal case, which would put the council at risk of litigation.

Councillor Bennett’s motion, which was passed without opposition, called on the council to ‘reaffirm its commitment to promoting a healthy democratic culture that encourages robust debate whilst rejecting intimidation, abuse and personal attacks’.

It also encouraged ‘all elected members to focus political discussions on policy, performance and solutions to the issues affecting Wolverhampton residents’ rather than political point-scoring.

Councillor Khan said: “I’m increasingly concerned we are allowing the standard of political debate to fall, while some appear to mistake that decline for political success.

“We see personal attacks presented as strength, provocation as courage, and cheap political points presented as achievement.

“What exactly have we won when we leave this chamber, what have we achieved, when we replace political debate with personal hostility, and was message does that send to residents who look to us for leadership?

“We may convince ourselves that we have scored a victory, but in reality we are all losers if public confidence in our democracy is weakened.”

Councillor Jeszemma Howl, of the ruling Labour group, said robust debate on ideas was to be welcomed, but personal abuse was a sign of weakness.

“Nobody should face intimidation, threats or abuse for serving their community,” she said.

“Councillors are not abstract figures, they are ordinary people with families jobs and friends outside of this chamber who have chosen to serve our city.

“We did not step into these roles to have our safety threatened. The moment debate becomes focused on individuals rather than ideas, we risk losing sight on the very purpose of public service.

“We should confidently make our own political points, but when views veer into personal attacks and insults, all points have been lost. It looks unpleasant, unprofessional and undemocratic. Residents didn’t elect us to trade insults or settle personal scores.”

Councillor Barbara McGarrity, chairman of the governance and ethics committee, spoke of her sadness that Councillor Bennett’s motion was necessary, and said councillors should ‘cease this unwarranted behaviour’.