A Brighton councillor has resigned to take up a new job in a move that will trigger a by-election – the sixth since the local elections in May 2023.
Labour councillor Tristram Burden said that his new job as a local authority inspector for the Care Quality Commission (CQC) would create a conflict of interest with his voluntary role as a councillor and has resigned with immediate effect.
He stepped down from the council’s cabinet in February for personal reasons, losing the special responsibility allowance that goes with the post in the process.
Today (Tuesday 29 July) Mr Burden, 46, said: “With a heavy heart I sent in my resignation for the council seat of Queen’s Park ward, Brighton, today due to a conflict of interest with my new job.
“I’m so proud to have represented the people of Queen’s Park, to have served as lead member for adult services and in the cabinet.
“Working with elected members, such dedicated council staff, voluntary organisations and community champions to improve the ward and the city in such a variety of ways has been a huge honour and a privilege.
“I’m remaining a member of the Labour Party.
“I hope that some of the exemplary progressive local action we’ve spearheaded can be taken into regional and national contexts.
“We still have some distance to go to create the more compassionate, inclusive and equal nation that I got into politics to fight for.
“But for now, I’m drawing a close on this chapter of my life.
“Thank you for your support over the last couple of years.”
In his resignation letter, he wrote: “Being a councillor must be supplemented with a regular job or other income and until December of last year I had the good fortune of being able to balance both working life and public service.
“After a long search, I finally started a new job in late June and declared from the outset my position as an elected member of a local authority.
“But after lengthy deliberation internally and with third-party advice, my new employer has now concluded that continuing as an elected member is a conflict of interest with my new role.
“Personal circumstances and the spiralling cost of living mean I must stand down to ensure I can sustain a decent quality of life for me and my family.
“I’m so proud to have represented the people of Queen’s Park, to have served as lead member for adult services and in the cabinet.
“Working with elected members, such dedicated council staff, voluntary organisations and community champions to improve the ward and the city in such a variety of ways has been a huge honour and a privilege.”
When he stepped down from the cabinet in February, the Labour leader of the council Bella Sankey said: “Councillor Burden has been a valued member of our cabinet.
“I would like to thank him for his hard work in helping this council deliver on our priority of creating a better Brighton and Hove for all.
“From more supported accommodation for those with mental health needs to developing our new drug and alcohol strategy, Councillor Burden has worked hard to deliver more effective services to those most in need.”
Michael Collett, treasurer of the Albion Hill Community Association, said: “The first time I met Tristram was when he came to visit us to check out our community rooms as a venue for his open-door sessions.
“Not being a great fan of politicians, I asked him if he was a career politician or really wanting to work for the community – and he seemed most sincere when he said he thought he could do both.
“He’s worked very hard all around the Queen’s Park ward. Some of the photo opportunities have been ‘shameless’ but always favouring the causes he champions rather than himself.
“It’s such a shame he’s been forced to put his career above his councillor role but it’s a measure of his integrity and character that won’t compromise or attempt to deceive.”
Five Labour councillors have resigned since the elections in May 2023.
The party has held all but one of those seats in the subsequent by-elections, with the Greens recapturing Brunswick and Adelaide.
It is also the second by-election in Queen’s Park after the resignation of Chandni Mistry after claims that she lived in Leicester rather than locally.
When you sign up to be a councillor for 4 years you know what a conflict of interest is and accept that there may be certain roles you need to avoid in paid employment during that time. Sounds like he has lost faith in the Labour Party and is using the old ‘job’ excuse to try and avoid embarrassing his colleagues.
How many more will walk before the next election because they can’t stomach what Labour are doing locally and nationally. Gaza, benefits for disabled people, winter fuel allowance, closing schools, closing libraries, the list goes on…
Four years is a long time; a lot can change in an individual’s circumstances.
Do you really expect people to put their careers on hold for up to 4 years?
Being a councillor (including being a cabinet member or committee chair) isn’t a full time job (and nor should it be) and people need to think of their long term income and careers.
Sometimes opportunities arise that someone simply can’t refuse.
If people are standing in a council election to be a councillor for a 4 year term, then yes, I think they should give some thought to whether it’s feasible for them to commit to a 4 year term before they put their hat in the ring. By elections cost money to run which will come at public expense.
That’s not to say that I don’t understand life changes and so forth, people become unwell, or issues come up forcing them to stand down. But you have to admit that the timing of this councillor standing down, when Labour nationally and locally seem to have lost their morals and have basically turned into Tories, suggests there’s more to it. And if there is, and he’s actually sought alternative work because he can’t stomach being a Labour councillors anymore because of the harmful policies they are pushing through, good on this councillor jacking it in and having nothing more to do with it. If it’s not though, and he simply stood in May 2023 without giving much thought to what committing to a 4 year term as a councillor meant in reality, that’s pretty poor imo.
I think it’s more likely that working for the CQC is more financially viable for him than the allowance of a Ward Councillor, personally, Janey. Unfortunately, because this is a formal regulatory conflict, he can’t do both; most of our Councillors hold second jobs or have a second income because being a Ward Councillor is not enough to live off, especially in Brighton.
interesting analysis, but it is not clear that he cannot do both “jobs” … he can i think …he would just have to declare a conflict of interest and not vote and/or leave the room …
For most jobs, yes, he could declare and leave the room, very standard stuff, but for things like CQC it’s a formal regulatory conflict. You can’t both hold a councillor role that oversees or funds services and be paid by the body inspecting them, unfortunately.
“formal regulatory conflict” means what? Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI); Other Registerable Interests ORI); or Non-Registerable Interests (NRI)? whatever …. he could still function as a cllr on other matters such like picking up litter …
I’ve explained it in a few different ways to other people in the comments. Have a read.
Maybe Peter Kyle would like to back to his home town and stand for election !!! 😡
That’s nonsense, he’s got a new position that he could only have known about by applying telepathy. Frankly, it’s a click bait non-story.
Give your head a wobble.
Another. Yet, another resignation and by election under the so called leadership of B£ll@. This is getting ridiculous.
I’ve dealt with Tristam on several occasions; and he has always come across as someone who is genuinely passionate about healthcare, akin to my spirit on the topic, and I can see him fitting really well in the CQC. Personally, I wish him all the best with his next endeavour.
It costs £20,000 every time there is an unplanned Local Election. Thankyou – Labour that’s £100,000 wasted …. which could save the three libraries that you wish to close.
As you well know being a councillor isn’t a form of indented servitude for 4 years.
Peoples circumstances change and you seem not to want to accept that.
And no the cost of these by-elections not being held wouldn’t have changed the position re the libraries. Something else you know.
Things do change but Labour’s record of cllrs stepping down is atrocious over the years! It’s all a game to them, anyone remember the two cllrs from Leicester?
Yes I do but it happens to all parties. Just as councillors resign because of ill health or family circumstances causing them to move away or they get a new job.
A Reform councillor in Durham had to resign with days of the May election because he was ineligible for office.
I could find others too.
Two tories stood down in the 2019- 2023 council and Cllr Lyons seems to forget that.
The Leicester 2 saga though was a shambles – surely you must see that?? Where was the vetting before selection, the whole thing was shocking and never should have happened.
Ahead of their election I recall there was even a “Young Labour Campaign Day” which was advertised with the motley crew of Bella Sankey, Ivor Caplin, Steve Bassam and Lloyd Russell-Moyle being in attendance to try and encourage young party members to get out and support Chandni’s campaign (a candidate who Bella referred to as a “brilliant”).
I get you’re a Labour supporter Chris and you’re narked by comments from a Tory councillor, but ignoring valid concerns about the circumstances of some of the by elections that have taken place, which were preventable if better up front checks had taken place early on, really dilutes any point you’re trying to make.
Yes it was a shambles but let’s not think it only happens to Labour.
I’m not a Labour supporter.
As to being “narked” I expect better from a councillor to be honest who knows (or should know’ how council budgets work and any ‘savings’ from not having by-elections can’t be spent on other things.
Indented? So they start slightly to the right?
Once again, it’s disappointing to see Cllr Ivan imply that democratic elections are a ‘waste’ of money in his typical low-level fashion. By-elections happen when councillors step down, often for personal reasons, not because Labour plotted it – he knows this, he’s just being disingenuous. It’s weak and tired rhetoric, and as promised, I’m calling him out on it…again.
And let’s be honest: £100,000 wouldn’t reverse years of underfunding to libraries by the Tories, nor would it fix the root problem, the Conservative government’s dismantling of local budgets. And since you reminded us, Ivan, the Tories wasted £131,000,000,000 of taxpayer cash in five years. Thank you, Conservatives. That could have fully funded *every* library in the UK – thousands of times over.
BHC budget is for one councillor election per annum, however, the current administration are busting through the budget significantly.
This Benjamin character is clearly the Council attack poodle – he’s on here all the time with his hilarious omniscience and sanctimony.
Does he get paid to spout this garbage?
I’ve asked him to be transparent about his association with his beloved political party but he refuses. Opacity is his preferred approach.
Ivan, you’ve again avoided addressing the substance. Councillors resigning for health, employment, or personal reasons is not unique to this administration, and by-elections are a normal part of local democracy. If you’re genuinely concerned about cost, lobby for better councillor support and retention, not cheap point-scoring. You’re a councillor, not a dog with a whistle.
Vespasian, attacking the person rather than the point, is always a tell. If you disagree, say why, but the fact that you’ve jumped straight to name-calling suggests you can’t. And no, I don’t get paid, I just prefer facts over posturing. Sorry if that’s inconvenient.
And Atticus, if by “opacity” you mean not putting party branding in every comment, that’s because I believe in engaging on the issues, not just shouting party lines. I’ve explained this to you multiple times before.
And Ivan, do we want to talk about the two by-elections caused by fraudsters who were then later seen celebrating and photographed at a Conservative event, taking a selfie with then-Minister Robert Jenrick at a Richmond Park Conservative meeting?
One might look at that so soon after a resignation as a conspiracy, as many of our commenters on here do so enjoy.
Perhaps you could make sure Deform and the Cons also know this. Per capita of people in these positions their levels of resignations, or indeed dismissals, is far higher!!
Another By-Election! Labour are an absolute joke
So how come they keep winning the by-elections despite being a joke?
They aren’t winning all the by-elections. The Brunswick & Adelaide seat went back to the Greens.
Okay, so they beat the Greens in 4 out of 5. People have long memories when it comes to the damage they did to the city.
Retaining a seat you won only recently is hardly a victory haha
Labour vote share has dropped massively in all the by-elections, with the way they are running things locally and nationally it won’t be long before they are wiped out!
By-elections almost always see a drop in vote share due to lower turnout and protest voting; it’s not unique to Labour, and it’s not a sign of collapse. What it does suggest is that public trust is still there, even if people are frustrated.
And let’s not forget: the only loss, Brunswick & Adelaide, went to the Greens by a narrow margin in one of their strongest areas. Hardly a landslide. And well played to them.
If your argument is that Labour is about to be “wiped out,” the actual results don’t support that. You’re basing predictions on vibes, not votes.
Perhaps you could explain why its ok for Deform and the Cons then. Per capita of people in these positions their levels of resignations, or indeed dismissals, is far higher!!
Who remembers Green cllr Barking Jamie Lloyd who insisted he didn’t have a conflict of interest being on the Transport committee whilst being employed by Sustrans
It’s a bit different, Jane. CQC is not just a potential conflict like Sustrans; it’s a formal regulatory conflict. You can’t both hold a councillor role that oversees or funds services and be paid by the body inspecting them. It’s why Tristram Burden rightly stepped down in this particular situation.
you still have not explained how the conflict prevents him from a local councillor = under the law, an employee can get a ‘reasonable’ amount of time off if they’re a local councillor and even the CQC are subject to that law, whatever the CQC itself may make internal rules about their jobs … complicated but not impossible. Tristram himself just said there was a conflict, not that he could not do both.
Remind me, what exactly is this special job?
Punter, the issue here isn’t about time off or juggling duties; it’s about a statutory conflict of interest between the functions of the two roles.
The CQC is the regulator of health and social care services in England. A local councillor, particularly one involved in scrutiny, budget decisions, or commissioning of those services, would have regulatory oversight and a vested public interest role. That creates a direct conflict under both local government codes of conduct and CQC internal governance standards, not just in practice but in principle.
It’s not about whether someone “can” technically do both jobs under employment law. It’s about the integrity of both roles. CQC staff must remain impartial and free from political influence, especially when inspecting council-commissioned care homes or services. Tristram Burden recognised this, sought advice, and stepped down, correctly, from his councillor role, not because it was “impossible,” but because it would undermine public confidence in both positions.
You are bandying words around unless you publish the statute or regulation that prevents a CQC officer from being a councillor.
It’s not been discovered by other people commenting here.
Obviously there are laws to prosecute any misfeasance in office or employment but is their any law that prevents a councillor from working for the CQC?
The point being made to which you reply thst there’s some sort of law (statutory) thzt made it illegal for TB to continue as a councillor
Bert, I never claimed there’s a statute that makes it illegal to be both a councillor and a CQC inspector. What I said is that it creates a statutory conflict of functions. This means the roles are fundamentally incompatible due to their respective responsibilities. Does that make more sense?
This isn’t about criminal law or a ban in legislation. It’s about regulatory governance and professional standards.
The CQC’s own Code of Conduct makes clear that staff must avoid political activity or affiliations that could compromise or create a perception of compromising their impartiality. Likewise, Ward Councillors are bound by codes of conduct that require them to avoid conflicts between their personal interests, such as employment, and their public duties.
When a CQC inspector is also a councillor, they are both scrutinising and being scrutinised. That’s a direct conflict of role, even if no specific law says “you cannot do both.” That’s how ethical governance works.
He didn’t cause a by-election, though. There has been only one by-election ever caused by a Green councillor, and that’s in the 14 years since 2011. To have six by-elections created by this one party in six years is appalling.
Was that the Green Councillor who was opposed to gay marriage?
No, it wasn’t
It is appalling & a complete waste of money by Labour. I note that the Labour PR machine in Benjamin is out of the traps quickly – but the facts are in the current term of office when the 54 councillors were elected in 2023 in Brighton & Hove …. Every election since has been because a Labour Councillor has resigned or had to resign.
Labour 5 resignations; Green, Conservative, Independents 0 resignations
I never left, Ivan—and unlike some, I keep my promises. Now, let’s get back to the facts, since your only move seems to be the same tired, vague insult. It’s giving me déjà vu. If you had anything of substance to say, you’d say it.
Let’s talk about by-elections. You’re right that Labour’s had a few. But here’s the truth: some of those were due to serious safeguarding concerns, others due to clear regulatory conflicts. You should want councillors to step down in those circumstances. That’s called accountability.
What you conveniently ignore is the mountain of cases where other parties refused to do the same:
– Dawn Barnett breached the councillor Code of Conduct more than once; never resigned.
– Anne Meadows switched parties without a by-election, betraying her entire mandate.
– Tony Janio walked out of your group mid-term and still clung on.
– Lee Wares did cause a by-election – but that doesn’t fit your script, does it?
So let’s be clear: resigning for the right reasons isn’t a failing. It’s what responsible leadership looks like. What’s shameful is pretending the Tories have a clean record when history says otherwise.
You clearly didn’t read my post.
Start printing your Labour leaflets (conveniently not mentioning the 5th Labour Councillor resigning since 2023 & all the other parties 0).
Ivan, if your only defence is “start printing leaflets,” you’ve already lost the argument – again. Clear deflection, no substance. And once again, you fall back on the same tired ad hominem tactics whenever you run out of material.
You brought up resignations to score points. I showed you why that’s a shallow line of attack. You ignored Dawn Barnett’s breaches. You ignored Anne Meadows switching sides mid-term without facing the voters. You ignored your own party’s chaos because it doesn’t suit your narrative.
And then you accuse me of not reading? Wordplay clearly isn’t your strength.
Yes, five Labour councillors have resigned since 2023 – and I’ll say it again: I’d rather have five who step down for the right reasons than one who clings on no matter the cost.
You wanted a headline. What you got, again, was a reality check.
But it was OK for Dan Yates to Chair the 2019 meeting with discussed the Gerry Doherty report about GMB disputes when he was a GMB member who also received election campaign expenses from them via Labour Party donations the same year?
Presumably it was also OK for Bella Sankey to say at a council meeting discussing the KC report about bullying at the depot that “I must be clear and for the record, the GMB has contributed nothing to the election of any of any of our Labour Group members” despite it then coming to light that she herself had used a room in the GMB’s Church Road office for a ‘phone banking’ session during her own election campaign, there had been a GMB donation to support leaflet printing for Labour’s 2023 local election campaign that went through Lloyd Russell-Moyle, and Labour had a campaign staff member based at the GMB’s Church Road office during their 2023 election campaign.
I guess at least Tristram recognises a conflict of interest, as for the others, I just find it all quite shocking and fail to understand why there’s been no investigation into this kind of stuff.
Cathy, the difference is simple: being affiliated with a union or using shared campaign resources isn’t a regulatory breach – it’s declared, transparent, and permitted under national rules.
Tristram’s case involved a formal regulatory conflict under CQC rules. You can’t be paid by a statutory regulator while also holding public office overseeing services they inspect. That’s not a grey area, it’s a clear breach, which is why he resigned.
That’s the difference: one is perception, the other is a matter of regulation.
I wish you would stop mansplaining when you simply haven’t understood the nub of a comment someone else has made. My comment wasn’t really about union membership.
In the examples I gave, Dan Yates did declare union membership at the 2019 meeting, but he DID NOT declare having received election campaign money from the GMB via the Labour Party at that same meeting, why not?
With Bella’s comment, there’s also uncertainty about whether she declared GMB room use and the freebies from them – her answers to date on it have been pretty vague. Of course there are rules, I don’t need that mansplained – as long as people follow them and declare things properly, great, there is no breach. But if people don’t declare things properly, forget to declare things at meetings, make incorrect statements about contributions and support they have received, or don’t stick to the rules, then breaches can and do happen.
It would be much simpler if people in public office would answer simple questions in the first place. But I think it’s naive to think that just because regulation and rules are there that people don’t break them and regulation is always enough to ensure concerns are properly investigated and looked at.
I mean…by getting it wrong, there’s evidence you might need it explained, just saying…
so, the CQC “rules” ban him from being a councillor? whatever…
Typical of the political class they will never admit to getting it wrong or making a mistake.
I asked for evidence got his opinion on repeat.
Obviously a tool of the party politics machinery.
He’ll have twin somewhere Benjamout
“Opinion on Repeat” = States which sources I’m referring to. Personal incredulity is a you problem, I’m afraid. You can take a camel to water, so they say…
Will there be a an election. Didn’t half of ours get cancelled in connection with the greater local government areas planning?
Yes they’ll be a by—election.
Elections were only cancelled for East and West Sussex county councils.
I live in the ward and didn’t know that he was contactable, he seems to have accomplished very little and his legacy will not warrant a bus named after him. Hope he does better in his new role. Holding my breath!
Does that not indicate you’re not that perceptive then, if basic contact information eluded you?
https://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/20180305_spa_declaration_of_interest.pdf
Well done Punter23
I hadn’t the fortitude to deal with that person’s assumptions.
Politicians present what’s expected or what’s necessary to perpetuate the pretext of acting in our interests. In fact the collective interests they serve are party political which is now truly populist political.
Great opportunity for those who regularly knock the council and councillors to put their money where their mouths are by standing.
Those that say they represent residents of Kemptown such as the so called Kemptown Residents Association or Robert Brown etc can put this to the test and see how popular they really are.
Are they brave enough or just not as popular as they preach they are. Let’s see.
I agree 100% with you!
Huge scads of people complain on here about the quality of councillors and how they take bad decisions yet won’t put themselves up for election as higher quality people capable of taking better decisions.
But it’s easier for them to carp from the sidelines isn’t it?
I completely agree with you. Really good opportunity for someone to step up. I don’t see anyone from the Kemptown “not a” Residents Association standing, although she was accused of bias last time, so she has her favourites.
Credit where it is due, Robert Brown does put himself forward for these, and I’ve seen him try to support people.
I did see Lev say something nice about the professionalism of the councillor’s departure. For a gentleman that loves a conspiracy, I thought that was quite reasonable.
“But after lengthy deliberation internally and with third-party advice, my new employer has now concluded that continuing as an elected member is a conflict of interest with my new role.”
Did the CQC tell him that he could not have any time off for his public duties?
sorry to labour the point (sic) but it is misleading to state that any employer can just threaten any employee with the sack just because there is a conflict of interest. That would defeat the very purpose of the law that protects the employee from day one of employment.
There’s different levels of conflict, I’ve explained it in an earlier comment above. And in this case, I assume he wasn’t employed at that point, and also he took independent advice on the matter.
Labour are a joke, 2 QP councillors have resigned in 2 years. Scandalous and unforgiveable, please vote for anyone but Liebour
“After a long search, I finally started a new job in late June and declared from the outset my position as an elected member of a local authority.” …. did he tell them before or indeed during the interview ? or after he got the job??
only Tristam can tell us … i might ask him …
and by the way it is not clear at all what on earth your bizzare “different levels of conflict” are: the sub-basement? the penthouse? the out-house?
My beef with you, “Benjamin”, is that you are misleading readers by mis-stating the law.
I’ve stated no law incorrectly. There are multiple forms of conflict of interest, some governed by statute (like disqualifying offices), others by professional codes, such as those used by CQC or outlined in local government standards. These aren’t “bizarre levels”; they’re standard in governance and public service.