Councillor Ben Cox, a Labour Councillor representing Uckfield New Town ward saw fit to post a video on social media, which, in my view demands a robust response. The video (which you can see below) is self-explanatory and deals with a motion proposed by Green Party Councillor Rachel Millward and debated during the full council meeting on Wednesday July 16th 2025. A link to the debate can be found by clicking here.
Ben Cox’s video can be seen below:
As a member who contributed to the debate and tabled an amendment to the motion, I have written to Councillor Cox in an open letter that I am publishing here:
Dear Councillor Cox,
I write in response to your recent public comments following the vote on the “rights of rivers” motion at Full Council. Your remarks were not only inaccurate but also laced with insinuation, personal attack, and political opportunism. They fall well below the standards expected of elected members and, in my view warrant correction.
Your suggestion that abstention in this context amounted to a “dereliction of duty” is a gross misrepresentation of both council convention and political reality. Abstention is a legitimate, deliberative act, a means by which councillors can register principled objections to the form, legality, or implications of a motion without opposing its sentiment outright. In this instance, many of us had genuine concerns that the “rights of rivers” motion, while ostensibly well-intentioned, was legally incoherent and appeared designed to secure ideological validation rather than practical benefit.
Your remarks appeared directed at Councillor French, your fellow New Town councillor, who exercised her right to abstain (as did I). Though you stopped short of naming her, the target was obvious. That choice, to cloak criticism in ambiguity, is as spineless as it is telling. Councillor French has been a consistent, thoughtful contributor to this Council, and I will not allow her integrity to be impugned by lazy and performative commentary. If you believe she has failed in her duties, say so directly and be prepared to justify it. I will meet you on that field in her defence as would many of my colleagues.
You, by contrast, have yet to complete essential statutory training on planning and licensing, despite serving as Vice Chair of the Licensing Committee and representing a ward with significant casework in both domains. This failure renders you unable to participate in vital decisions and directly impairs your capacity to serve your constituents. Furthermore, your own attendance record is amongst the poorest in the council. Public records confirm this. Before accusing others of neglecting their responsibilities, you might first meet your own.
The Wealden Partners group, of which I am a member, includes a mix of Conservatives and Independents. It is not a party and does not operate any form of whipping. On this motion alone, members voted across the spectrum, with some in favour, some against, and others abstaining. This renders your claim of bloc voting absurd. Contrast this with the Alliance group, including its Labour members, who voted in rigid unison. If there is evidence of a whip being applied, it lies there. Your attempt to project groupthink onto others while ignoring it in your own ranks is intellectually dishonest.
More striking still was the Alliance’s near-total silence during the debate on amendments. Neither you nor many of your colleagues offered serious engagement with the substance of the proposed changes. These amendments were carefully drafted to improve legal clarity and reinforce democratic norms. The second amendment, which I personally authored, was designed to ensure that Council policy is not distorted by activist capture. That is, by councillors (including Councillor Millward, the proposer of the motion) with direct affiliations to campaigning groups using the Council to reinforce ideological political objectives under the false guise of governance. It is basic conflict of interest mitigation. That amendment was ruled out on procedural grounds, but its intent was sound and its relevance pressing.
Your contribution to this debate, like much of your rhetoric, was lightweight and defensive. It read more as an appeal to social media applause than a serious intervention. Your prior complaints about being “targeted” online ring hollow when you yourself indulge in veiled or direct public attacks on colleagues (as you have done with me recently in the past). This double standard weakens the credibility of your position and exposes an obvious and troubling inconsistency in your approach to discourse.
The tone and direction of the Alliance continue to raise serious questions. A pattern has emerged in which grandstanding and gesture politics are prioritised over lawful, constructive governance. Motions are brought forward with dubious legal grounding, framed to generate press coverage and moral self-congratulation. The “rights of rivers” motion is emblematic of this, a flawed proposal more concerned with performance than with outcomes. Those of us who challenged it, refined it, or abstained on principle did so to uphold standards, not to undermine them.
The public expects a Council focused on effective, accountable decision-making. Your attempt to cast those who act conscientiously as obstructive or negligent is beneath you. You owe it to your office and to your colleagues to do better.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Wilson
Leave a Comment