Fareham councillor’s party switch sparks bitter row with resignation calls and claims of bullying

Liberal Democrat councillors argued the move of Cllr Lisa Whittle, who was elected as a Lib Dem before joining the ruling Conservative party, constituted a “fundamental change in contract” with voters.

Opening the debate, Cllr David Hamilton said the issue was about consistency.

“If we made a call for Suella to resign, we have to call it for Lisa.

“Same principle, same situation. This is not personal,” he said, referencing previous calls for Suella Braverman to step down. “It’s our view.”

The motion acknowledged it had no power to force a resignation but called on Cllr Whittle to seek a renewed mandate from residents.

Responding, Cllr Whittle delivered a detailed and emotional statement, saying she had initially chosen not to “air our dirty laundry in public” after leaving the Liberal Democrat group.

“When I left the opposition group I made a decision not to air our dirty laundry in public. When I was asked why I left, I simply said I did not feel I could work effectively in that group any longer.”

She said she now felt compelled to explain why she resigned.

“On November 20, 2024, a group meeting was held which quickly became extremely toxic. Cllr Hamilton became angry and verbally aggressive, name calling and swearing. The meeting lasted 90 minutes and was hugely distressing. When I got home I was incredibly upset.”

Cllr Whittle said she tried to remain in the group but felt the situation became untenable.

“I did not cross the floor because I woke up one day and decided I preferred the colour blue,” she said. “I was pushed by a man who intimidated and undermined me at every opportunity — a man who made me feel physically sick with anxiety when I had to attend a meeting.”

She also questioned why the motion was brought just 74 days before an election.

“If he cared about democracy, he would have brought this motion 427 days ago when I resigned from the group. This is not a motion about democracy; it’s a smear campaign to try and discredit my good name and win a few cheap votes.”

Cllr Paul Whittle backed her, describing the motion as “simply a blatant attempt to smear the names of councillors as elections approach.”

He alleged Cllr Whittle had been “treated appallingly with intimidation, harassment, ultimatums and unkindness — I could go on — and the same to me, including shouting, swearing and name-calling.”

“If the proposer and seconder had any decency they will rise now and immediately withdraw this motion,” he said.

Several councillors expressed concern about the tone of the debate.

Cllr Gemma Furnivall said she was “genuinely shocked” but insisted the wording of the motion itself was not personal.

“There is nothing personal written in that motion whatsoever,” she said, while criticising comments made in the chamber that accused individuals of misconduct.

Cllr Michael Ford said he was “saddened and disappointed”.

“Over the years a number of councillors have switched between parties… This motion will be lost, as it should. It is shabby and unwanted in this chamber. This is a sad and disappointing day and brings discredit to the Lib Dem group.”

Cllr Joanne Burton described the proposal as “a political punch”.

“We are talking about a person, and that person has feelings,” she said. “To try to embarrass, intimidate and discredit her good name — that in my mind is nothing more than bullying.”

Cllr Burgess added: “Residents trusted her. Her integrity, her work ethic, her commitment — none of that has changed. When residents contact their councillor, it is not a political party that responds, it is the individual.”

Cllr Hamilton rejected allegations about his conduct and maintained the motion was rooted in principle.

“The argument for the Conservatives is that this is a personal attack. My argument is it is not,” he said.

“There were difficulties in the group… There is more to the story than has been presented tonight. I don’t accept the characterisation of myself and the group that has been made.”

He said the position mirrored arguments made at national level.

“We made an argument about principle and we felt this was the same situation with the MP.”

After debate, the motion was defeated.