Tuesday, 21 May 2013
Monday, 15 April 2013
Here We Go Again!
At its most recent meeting the managing Committee of the Independent Community Group (ICG) expressed its great concern that the Group of 15 residents' associations, of which the ICG is a member, would appear to be being given the run-around by the Labour administration at the London Borough of Hounslow in connection with its contribution to the forthcoming and long-awaited Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).
A number of amendments submitted by residents to the original draft SCI were formally adopted by the Planning Committee under the chair of Councillor Theo Dennison back in December 2012. At the time we were advised that the proposed amendments, now with the Planning Committee's official endorsement, would be taken to Cabinet and thereafter to Borough Council in January. January became March and now, as we approach the latter half of April 2013, residents have been advised in a one-liner from Lead Member Ruth Cadbury that the proposed report has been pulled from agenda of the April Cabinet meeting too (with characteristic chutzpah Councillor Cadbury tried to sell this as some kind of good news story for the community on the grounds that "we have more time"!).
Attempts to seek clarification of the position from Councillor Cadbury have, at the time of writing, proved unsuccessful.
The ICG has never been convinced that the Cabinet would be happy to accept the community's lead on this process and it is our view that the process is being dragged out with a view to losing it in the confusion that invariably accompanies the approach of the local elections. Whether this exercise in obfuscation is being led by officers or by the political management of the present administration is really of little import. Both parties have an interest in fending off the residents.
As an activist residents' movement the ICG is committed to the process of empowering our community and we intend to increase the pressure on this administration to adopt an SCI in which G15's expressed concerns retain pride of place. Whether we do this as an active participant in next year's local elections or as a pressure group taking advantage of that event remains to be decided, but either way the present administration needs to understand that this is an issue that is not just going to conveniently disappear from the local agenda.
A number of amendments submitted by residents to the original draft SCI were formally adopted by the Planning Committee under the chair of Councillor Theo Dennison back in December 2012. At the time we were advised that the proposed amendments, now with the Planning Committee's official endorsement, would be taken to Cabinet and thereafter to Borough Council in January. January became March and now, as we approach the latter half of April 2013, residents have been advised in a one-liner from Lead Member Ruth Cadbury that the proposed report has been pulled from agenda of the April Cabinet meeting too (with characteristic chutzpah Councillor Cadbury tried to sell this as some kind of good news story for the community on the grounds that "we have more time"!).
Attempts to seek clarification of the position from Councillor Cadbury have, at the time of writing, proved unsuccessful.
The ICG has never been convinced that the Cabinet would be happy to accept the community's lead on this process and it is our view that the process is being dragged out with a view to losing it in the confusion that invariably accompanies the approach of the local elections. Whether this exercise in obfuscation is being led by officers or by the political management of the present administration is really of little import. Both parties have an interest in fending off the residents.
As an activist residents' movement the ICG is committed to the process of empowering our community and we intend to increase the pressure on this administration to adopt an SCI in which G15's expressed concerns retain pride of place. Whether we do this as an active participant in next year's local elections or as a pressure group taking advantage of that event remains to be decided, but either way the present administration needs to understand that this is an issue that is not just going to conveniently disappear from the local agenda.
Friday, 12 April 2013
John Murphy
A one-time Labour Party member, John was elected to the London Borough of Hounslow at the local elections of 1998 as the sole Liberal Democrat member for Feltham South. He and his fellow Lib Dems refused to join in with the shrill cackle of indignation which followed my election as a community councillor the same year and we became friends, often enjoying a beer at a local venue in the company of his wife Pat and, sometimes, my own wife Caroline. From very early on it was clear that he was uncomfortable as a party politician and we often discussed the logistics of him becoming an independent without me really believing that he would ever actually go for it.
And then, one day, he did just that. Elected members arriving at a Borough Council meeting one evening were each greeted by a printed statement from John and myself announcing the formation of a new independent political group - the first in the history of the borough. Truth be told it created a slightly uneasy atmosphere for a while between myself and the Lib Dems, with whom I had got on well, but it was John's decision alone and of course I was pleased to have him as a comrade.
In 2002 John, Pat and another candidate contested the local elections on behalf of their newly-created West Hanworth Independent Group (the WHIGs) but were unsuccessful. But they continued to support us in the ICG in our work and were almost ever-presents at our regular pre-election Friday night drinks in Isleworth, Brentford and Hounslow. Even after illness had compelled John to renounce the demon liquor he, along with Pat, would still make the journey over and take part in the deep converations that abounded in every corner, satisfied (apparently) by his J2O.
John's specialist subject was undoubtedly health, and he could talk interestingly for hours about the pros and cons of our local health provision. He was also involved in some interesting issues around his parish, which made for more than a few amusing conversations.
John was an eccentric in the best tradition - persistent when he had a point to make, always humorous, deeply dedicated, sometimes awkward. He was one of those characters who loom large in their surrounds and who change the dynamic of any meeting they attend just by being present. Already his commitment, character and campaigning skills have been acknowledged by former councillors from across the spectrum. He would have been pleased by that.
My condolences go out to Pat and to all his family, friends and loved ones.
Wednesday, 27 March 2013
What Could "Left Unity" Mean for the Community Movement?
It is by no means the first time such an idea has been mooted, of course. The recent history of our national politics has been littered with left groups which have half-heartedly gone it alone, with varying degrees of unsuccess. The problem has always been the same – the separation from Labour has been from the head but never from the heart, and as such any manifestations of independent activity have invariably been a cry for help rather than a serious and sustained effort to create a lasting left alternative both to the unashamed reaction of the Conservatives and to the capitalist establishment’s safety valve that is the Labour Party.
Left Unity has, from first impressions at least, the outward appearance of being something different. Mobilised around an appeal by television and film director Ken Loach for a new party of the left, it would appear already to have gained some considerable momentum, with a network of local and regional groups to which new names seem to be being added by the day. By any measure, and certainly by any comparison with earlier attempts to achieve the same end, this is pretty big stuff.
Personally I find myself wishing the new initiative every success, but from a safe distance. Although I reject the logic of capitalism and stand four-square with the forces of labour (small “l”) in its various battles I do not consider myself as being especially of the “left”. It’s not that I dislike what it stands for, I just seem instinctively to dislike the people it attracts.
In large part this could be a simple consequence of the treatment that I have personally received at the hands of much of it. A former extreme rightist who rejected unequivocally all things racist and fascist some two decades ago, I still have doors slammed in my face by local so-called “lefties” who seem to share an almost pathological dedication to the cause of keeping alive my 1980s incarnation as an NF rabble-rouser, for reasons which only a qualified shrink would venture to probe. Whilst this causes me no loss of sleep whatsoever it does make for an interesting psychological and sociological study of the mentality of those concerned.
There have, of course, been others formerly of the extreme right who have seen the light and whose bona fides have been accepted by the generally left-dominated anti-fascist movement. So why am I regarded differently?
The only possible, logical answer is that despite my unqualified rejection of racism and fascism I remained a fierce critic of the political establishment, and of Labour in particular (for the simple reason that Labour was the party in power in my own neighbourhood, to which I effectively retreated). There is absolutely nothing else that differentiates me from other former fascists who have gone on to be actively involved in the anti-fascist movement.
So in other words the “anti-establishment” left rejected me because I rejected the establishment! C’est la vie.
This enforced separation between myself and the local representatives of this peculiar tendency in British politics led me to the view, which I have held for so many years, that the “left” in this country is utterly incapable of disengaging itself in its own mindset from the Labour Party – a party which for the most part accepts the Tory austerity agenda, enthusiastically supports capitalist wars, competes with the parties of the right in a perpetual willy-waving contest over who can strike the most macho postures on immigration, and voted down proposals to diminish the power of the House of Lords.
But there is another reason why I do not feel I belong to the “left” and that is its obsession with economic issues seemingly to the exclusion of all else. Yes we should resist attacks on benefits, low wages, diminution of employment rights, privatisation, the dismantling by stealth of the NHS and all the rest of it, but the empowerment of people travels hand-in-hand with the disempowerment of capitalism and that is something that the “left” just never seems to show an interest in. Taking power out of the hands of the bosses and placing it into the hands of bureaucrats and political apparatchiks does not a revolution make.
Yet on the other hand there is something irresistible about the rapid progress of the Left Unity initiative. In this mass communications age it is just about possible to create a really viable alternative without having access to millions of pounds and the Murdochs. What is really needed to make it happen is a vacuum, and the vacuum that exists on the left of British politics with the betrayal by Labour is immense.
What we could feasibly see within the space of a few years is a complete readjustment of the political dynamic, with the right broadly aligned to UKIP and the left organised around something like Left Unity. Whilst I have no brief for UKIP I admit nevertheless to some excitement about the prospect of the old establishment losing its grip in such a way.
Sunday, 17 March 2013
The Grove Park CPZ Debate - the Anguish of a Disenfranchised Community
It seems our Isleworth ward councillor Ed Mayne continues to be the cause of much angst over in Chiswick, London W4.
Proposals to introduce a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in two streets close to the grounds of Chiswick House are being resisted by a clear majority of residents living in the Grove Park area. Although the Zone is to be limited in its scope those living in surrounding streets fear, with good reason, that the parking thereby displaced into their own neighbourhood will lead in the course of time to calls for it to be extended. This is, after all, what almost invariably happens with Controlled Parking Zones, and it is how schemes which may be cost-neutral to begin with morph into substantial money-spinners for the local authority.
Economically and politically, Chiswick is the ideal milch cow for the London Borough of Hounslow. As well as generally being the borough's most affluent area, it dutifully returns Conservative councillors at every local election, an outcome routinely expected by the Tories and accepted by Labour. For the powers that be there is no point in trying to alter the electoral status quo, and Labour tends to work around Chiswick rather than spending any time trying to make serious inroads into its politics.
On the issue of the CPZ, as one would expect the Tories would appear to be moderately supportive of the larger number whilst remaining mindful that many of those residents of the two streets who are in favour of the proposals are Conservative voters too. Any suggestion that the protest should be escalated has been met with nervous disinterest. Where they have been relatively vocal is in criticising the undemocratic and authoritarian methods by which the Labour Council would seem to be steamrollering the proposals through.
This whole continuing episode is probably the best example we have seen so far of how the disasterous electoral strategy pursued by the Tories at the local elections of 2010, which led to Labour regaining control of the borough, has impacted upon their own constituents. The people of Chiswick are now completely powerless and their councillors can only squeal impotently from the sidelines as the Labour machine tramples all over them and laughs in its wake.
Of course the Tories remain in denial about the role they played in bringing about this sorry state of affairs. Sometimes they even have the nerve to offer tactical advice, delivered one presumes with a straight face, to the campaigning residents. They are helped, one must record, by a profoundly unrevolutionary spirit which self-evidently prevails amongst the citizenry of Chiswick, which is a real shame as potentially they are in many respects better organised and better equipped for really effective community action than residents anywhere else in the borough, with a hugely vibrant local internet community and many active residents' groups.
It remains to be seen whether Chiswick residents will develop their own innovative strategies for resisting the relentless encroachments of the local authority or whether they will continue to place their faith in the self-neutered politicians whose vociferous fence-sitting can surely not remain unchallenged and unquestioned indefinitely by this vigilant but sometimes irritatingly genteel community?
More on this anon.
Proposals to introduce a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in two streets close to the grounds of Chiswick House are being resisted by a clear majority of residents living in the Grove Park area. Although the Zone is to be limited in its scope those living in surrounding streets fear, with good reason, that the parking thereby displaced into their own neighbourhood will lead in the course of time to calls for it to be extended. This is, after all, what almost invariably happens with Controlled Parking Zones, and it is how schemes which may be cost-neutral to begin with morph into substantial money-spinners for the local authority.
Economically and politically, Chiswick is the ideal milch cow for the London Borough of Hounslow. As well as generally being the borough's most affluent area, it dutifully returns Conservative councillors at every local election, an outcome routinely expected by the Tories and accepted by Labour. For the powers that be there is no point in trying to alter the electoral status quo, and Labour tends to work around Chiswick rather than spending any time trying to make serious inroads into its politics.
On the issue of the CPZ, as one would expect the Tories would appear to be moderately supportive of the larger number whilst remaining mindful that many of those residents of the two streets who are in favour of the proposals are Conservative voters too. Any suggestion that the protest should be escalated has been met with nervous disinterest. Where they have been relatively vocal is in criticising the undemocratic and authoritarian methods by which the Labour Council would seem to be steamrollering the proposals through.
This whole continuing episode is probably the best example we have seen so far of how the disasterous electoral strategy pursued by the Tories at the local elections of 2010, which led to Labour regaining control of the borough, has impacted upon their own constituents. The people of Chiswick are now completely powerless and their councillors can only squeal impotently from the sidelines as the Labour machine tramples all over them and laughs in its wake.
Of course the Tories remain in denial about the role they played in bringing about this sorry state of affairs. Sometimes they even have the nerve to offer tactical advice, delivered one presumes with a straight face, to the campaigning residents. They are helped, one must record, by a profoundly unrevolutionary spirit which self-evidently prevails amongst the citizenry of Chiswick, which is a real shame as potentially they are in many respects better organised and better equipped for really effective community action than residents anywhere else in the borough, with a hugely vibrant local internet community and many active residents' groups.
It remains to be seen whether Chiswick residents will develop their own innovative strategies for resisting the relentless encroachments of the local authority or whether they will continue to place their faith in the self-neutered politicians whose vociferous fence-sitting can surely not remain unchallenged and unquestioned indefinitely by this vigilant but sometimes irritatingly genteel community?
Tuesday, 12 March 2013
Chiswick Woman (86) Gets Court Summons for £80 Council Tax
A Chiswick resident who tried to pay an outstanding £80 on his 86-year old mother’s Council tax to cancel a threatened court summons has spoken of his frustration with council bureaucracy.
Andy Pease fell foul of data protection rules when Hounslow Council staff refused to give details as he was not the holder of the account, despite the fact that his mother could not answer for herself. She is blind, and suffers from dementia and arthritis.
The Council has said unless they have permission for others to act on their behalf, legally they can only deal with the account holder. They were willing to discuss the situation with Mr. Pease if he got back in contact, they said and were awaiting further information on the case.
Andy Pease said his mother lives alone in a bungalow provided by Hounslow Council, and he pays all her bills by direct debit from his own account, including her rent.
Last week she received a letter from Hounslow Council informing her Hounslow had applied to Feltham magistrates court for a summons for non payment of council tax.
"This is the first I knew of any outstanding council tax, as far as I was aware Hounslow took any money owing out of my bank account," said Mr. Pease, who then phoned the Council.
"The woman that answered the phone refused to give me any details as I was not the account holder, even though the money came out of my bank account. She insisted on speaking to my mother, who because of her dementia could not answer the security question.
"I explained the situation again and was finally told that my mother’s benefits cover almost all of her council tax apart from £80 per year which my mother should pay. She could not tell me why they had not taken the money out of my account along with the rent. She informed me that the outstanding council tax was £80, but because they had now taken out a summons, the cost would be £283.
"I was told that if I paid the outstanding amount, the summons would be cancelled. I said that I would pay this amount over the phone by credit card. I was then told the lady I was speaking to could not take payment so she said she would put me through to the cashiers, which she did.
"The number she put me through to was an automated line which would not let me proceed until I entered the account number which we did not have.
"I could not go back so I had to hang up. As I had spent 40 minutes on the phone already, I did not have time to call back again.
"I called Hounslow again this morning, and had to go through the whole story all over again. Again I was told I could not pay, because of data protection I asked to speak to a manager. This of course was not possible, but I was told a manager would call me back (they didn't ) so I am now waiting for the court date to be sent."
He said he felt he had "bent over backwards" to pay the money and was prepared to turn up in court and tell his story to highlight the behaviour of the Council.
Hounslow Council have issued the following statement on the matter; “It can be difficult for families trying to help their loved ones in these matters, as legally we are only allowed to deal with the account holder unless, we receive certain information permitting others to act on their behalf. This is an understandable measure to make sure vulnerable residents aren’t open to abuse.
"If Mr Pease provides this information, we would be able to discuss the account with him, as we already do in many other similar cases. We are still awaiting the details we need, but we will contact Mr Pease as soon as possible to arrange for them to be provided.
"In this particular case, no direct debit has ever been set up for the council tax bill, so we had no choice but to deal with the situation as we would with any unpaid bill, including a reminder letter being sent warning that a summons may be issued."
Reproduced with acknowledgements to ChiswickW4.com.
Andy Pease fell foul of data protection rules when Hounslow Council staff refused to give details as he was not the holder of the account, despite the fact that his mother could not answer for herself. She is blind, and suffers from dementia and arthritis.
The Council has said unless they have permission for others to act on their behalf, legally they can only deal with the account holder. They were willing to discuss the situation with Mr. Pease if he got back in contact, they said and were awaiting further information on the case.
Andy Pease said his mother lives alone in a bungalow provided by Hounslow Council, and he pays all her bills by direct debit from his own account, including her rent.
Last week she received a letter from Hounslow Council informing her Hounslow had applied to Feltham magistrates court for a summons for non payment of council tax.
"This is the first I knew of any outstanding council tax, as far as I was aware Hounslow took any money owing out of my bank account," said Mr. Pease, who then phoned the Council.
"The woman that answered the phone refused to give me any details as I was not the account holder, even though the money came out of my bank account. She insisted on speaking to my mother, who because of her dementia could not answer the security question.
"I explained the situation again and was finally told that my mother’s benefits cover almost all of her council tax apart from £80 per year which my mother should pay. She could not tell me why they had not taken the money out of my account along with the rent. She informed me that the outstanding council tax was £80, but because they had now taken out a summons, the cost would be £283.
"I was told that if I paid the outstanding amount, the summons would be cancelled. I said that I would pay this amount over the phone by credit card. I was then told the lady I was speaking to could not take payment so she said she would put me through to the cashiers, which she did.
"The number she put me through to was an automated line which would not let me proceed until I entered the account number which we did not have.
"I could not go back so I had to hang up. As I had spent 40 minutes on the phone already, I did not have time to call back again.
"I called Hounslow again this morning, and had to go through the whole story all over again. Again I was told I could not pay, because of data protection I asked to speak to a manager. This of course was not possible, but I was told a manager would call me back (they didn't ) so I am now waiting for the court date to be sent."
He said he felt he had "bent over backwards" to pay the money and was prepared to turn up in court and tell his story to highlight the behaviour of the Council.
Hounslow Council have issued the following statement on the matter; “It can be difficult for families trying to help their loved ones in these matters, as legally we are only allowed to deal with the account holder unless, we receive certain information permitting others to act on their behalf. This is an understandable measure to make sure vulnerable residents aren’t open to abuse.
"If Mr Pease provides this information, we would be able to discuss the account with him, as we already do in many other similar cases. We are still awaiting the details we need, but we will contact Mr Pease as soon as possible to arrange for them to be provided.
"In this particular case, no direct debit has ever been set up for the council tax bill, so we had no choice but to deal with the situation as we would with any unpaid bill, including a reminder letter being sent warning that a summons may be issued."
Reproduced with acknowledgements to ChiswickW4.com.
Monday, 18 February 2013
Brentford Town Centre - Calling for a Human Scale and Beautiful Regeneration
Petition Background (Preamble):
Five years ago the Brentford community came together with our award-winning vision for the future of our town centre. In 2010 Brentford High Street Steering Group co-commissioned with Ballymore developers a study by The Prince’s Foundation, to ensure a design brief of which future generations would be proud.
The town centre planning application submitted by Ballymore Properties in September 2012 does not deliver the world-class scheme Brentford’s historic town centre should be. Ballymore has submitted a plan for eighteen 6-11 storey high blocks with 929 flats on the south side of Brentford High Street.
Local residents have described the plan as: “aggressive, overbearing and underwhelming.” The high rise, bland buildings are totally inappropriate in Brentford – a town centre with Roman, Saxon and medieval archaeology and once home to Pocahontas.
In 2000 English Heritage recommended the site should be designated a Conservation Area.
As home today to respected innovative global companies GlaxoSmithKline and Brompton bicycles, employing hundreds of local people, Brentford High Street deserves an outstanding regeneration scheme.
THE PETITION:
We, the undersigned, call on Ballymore to work further with the local community to:
1) Reduce the massing (929 flats) and height (up to 11 storeys) of the development; and
2) Develop the architectural aesthetic to include traditional styles, as well as the restoration of old buildings and modernism currently included in the development.
The scheme must be in line with the Brentford Area Action Plan (local planning policy) agreed in 2009.
Please click here to sign the petition.
Reproduced with acknowledgements to the Brentford High Street Steering Group.
Five years ago the Brentford community came together with our award-winning vision for the future of our town centre. In 2010 Brentford High Street Steering Group co-commissioned with Ballymore developers a study by The Prince’s Foundation, to ensure a design brief of which future generations would be proud.
The town centre planning application submitted by Ballymore Properties in September 2012 does not deliver the world-class scheme Brentford’s historic town centre should be. Ballymore has submitted a plan for eighteen 6-11 storey high blocks with 929 flats on the south side of Brentford High Street.
Local residents have described the plan as: “aggressive, overbearing and underwhelming.” The high rise, bland buildings are totally inappropriate in Brentford – a town centre with Roman, Saxon and medieval archaeology and once home to Pocahontas.
In 2000 English Heritage recommended the site should be designated a Conservation Area.
As home today to respected innovative global companies GlaxoSmithKline and Brompton bicycles, employing hundreds of local people, Brentford High Street deserves an outstanding regeneration scheme.
THE PETITION:
We, the undersigned, call on Ballymore to work further with the local community to:
1) Reduce the massing (929 flats) and height (up to 11 storeys) of the development; and
2) Develop the architectural aesthetic to include traditional styles, as well as the restoration of old buildings and modernism currently included in the development.
The scheme must be in line with the Brentford Area Action Plan (local planning policy) agreed in 2009.
Please click here to sign the petition.
Reproduced with acknowledgements to the Brentford High Street Steering Group.
Tuesday, 12 February 2013
You're Never Too Old to Embrace labour (that’s "labour", not "Labour"!)
Possibly one reason why I’ve never really connected with industrial politics, nor looked at the world primarily from a labour versus capital perspective, is that I had never, prior to a year or so ago, been a "worker" in the classic sense of the word.
That is not the same thing as saying that I haven’t worked. Those who know me well enough to be familiar with my work rate and are honest would giggle at the frequent invocations that I receive from my politico critics to "get a job" (it is a perhaps worth reflecting upon the ease with which politicians who profess to speak for the disadvantaged seem in reality to regard unemployment as a question of personal choice, but I digress).
What I mean, rather, is that I had never previously worked in a unionised, shop floor environment. The airfreight export industry in which I began my working life is, or at least certainly was, a union-free zone. As an airport porter, and later as a manager at the same company, hire 'em and fire 'em was very much the name of the game, although that changed dramatically once myself and my late friend, comrade and colleague Lance Newbigging had finished with them (see Goodwill, Bad Faith and the Politics of Scapegoating for the full story). For many years in later life I devoted myself full-time to my duties as a councillor.
At the Royal Mail most employees, including myself, are members of the union, and there are naturally ongoing concerns about reorganisation, competition, working conditions, the trend toward part-time and fixed-term labour, and the looming spectre of privatisation. I’ll not go on to discuss how these topics play out at my own place of work as there will understandably be confidentiality issues and I don’t wish to blot my copybook, but that the matters referred to are areas of concern is pretty much public knowledge and obvious besides.
The value of having a strong trade union to speak for the worker at the pointed end cannot be overstated. Sometimes unions get a bad press, and possibly at times during the 1970s this was not without justification, but having worked with and without the benefit of a union I know which situation I would prefer to be in.
I see little connection these days between being a good trade unionist and offering political support to the Labour Party, and this seems to be a view shared by many and probably most of my colleagues on the shop floor. In this respect I would suggest that the union’s leaders lag considerably behind their own membership. Where the Royal Mail is concerned, of course, it was Labour’s Lord Mandelson who first mooted privatisation.
Although as a relatively new employee on a fixed-term contract it would be neither proper not advisable for me to want to play any more than a passive, supportive role within the union, I value my membership and pay my dues (sans political levy) with a happy heart.
That is not the same thing as saying that I haven’t worked. Those who know me well enough to be familiar with my work rate and are honest would giggle at the frequent invocations that I receive from my politico critics to "get a job" (it is a perhaps worth reflecting upon the ease with which politicians who profess to speak for the disadvantaged seem in reality to regard unemployment as a question of personal choice, but I digress).
What I mean, rather, is that I had never previously worked in a unionised, shop floor environment. The airfreight export industry in which I began my working life is, or at least certainly was, a union-free zone. As an airport porter, and later as a manager at the same company, hire 'em and fire 'em was very much the name of the game, although that changed dramatically once myself and my late friend, comrade and colleague Lance Newbigging had finished with them (see Goodwill, Bad Faith and the Politics of Scapegoating for the full story). For many years in later life I devoted myself full-time to my duties as a councillor.
At the Royal Mail most employees, including myself, are members of the union, and there are naturally ongoing concerns about reorganisation, competition, working conditions, the trend toward part-time and fixed-term labour, and the looming spectre of privatisation. I’ll not go on to discuss how these topics play out at my own place of work as there will understandably be confidentiality issues and I don’t wish to blot my copybook, but that the matters referred to are areas of concern is pretty much public knowledge and obvious besides.
The value of having a strong trade union to speak for the worker at the pointed end cannot be overstated. Sometimes unions get a bad press, and possibly at times during the 1970s this was not without justification, but having worked with and without the benefit of a union I know which situation I would prefer to be in.
I see little connection these days between being a good trade unionist and offering political support to the Labour Party, and this seems to be a view shared by many and probably most of my colleagues on the shop floor. In this respect I would suggest that the union’s leaders lag considerably behind their own membership. Where the Royal Mail is concerned, of course, it was Labour’s Lord Mandelson who first mooted privatisation.
Although as a relatively new employee on a fixed-term contract it would be neither proper not advisable for me to want to play any more than a passive, supportive role within the union, I value my membership and pay my dues (sans political levy) with a happy heart.
Ahmadiyya Muslim Association – a Force for Good in our Community
Last week Caroline and I had the pleasure of attending a Peace Symposium hosted by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association at their prestigious Hanworth Park location.
In what felt like a throwback to our days as councillors we were honoured guests, attending alongside sundry elected members, the Leader of the Council, the Mayor and the borough’s two Members of Parliament, Seema Malhotra and Mary MacLeod.
The building is aesthetically substantial. Some would argue it is out of place in the residential, largely non-Muslim and almost exclusively non-Ahmadiyya Muslim community in which it is set. Planning permission was initially declined but was granted subsequently on appeal.
I can understand residents who instinctively react against the appearance of such an imposing entity in their midst. We humans take comfort from familiarity and often find ourselves feeling spooked by change, especially when it is sudden or on such a significant scale. People who resist such change are not all “racists” (although a proportion of them usually are) and it is unhelpful to dismiss them as such.
Nevertheless, the arrival of a devout community such as the Ahmadiyya seldom presents the difficulties that are anticipated. They are a moderate, peace-loving people whose desire is to be good neighbours and to enhance the spirit and ambience of the community in which they have settled, and certainly not to threaten it. They are, very much, a force for good.
I am reminded of a true story from some years back of a Hindu trust that was established on the very borders on a predominantly white neighbourhood which, rightly or wrongly, had a bit of a reputation for being – shall we say – a little unwelcoming of other cultures. There were objections, some of them quite strident, and when it was erected the Hindu users would have been forgiven for exercising some caution when attending their business at the building.
Then, one Sunday morning, something quite amazing happened. Young Hindu activists went out into the neighbourhood armed. Armed, that is, with litter pickers, bin sacks, brushes and anti-graffiti paint. The neighbourhood had been neglected by the council, and litter and debris was liberally strewn throughout the streets and green areas. Bemused white residents watched, bleary-eyed, from their bedroom windows as the young Hindus blitzed the place. By the time they had left it was spotless.
In one fell swoop a whole community’s fear and prejudice had been brushed aside, and the Hindus thereafter lived together in harmony with their initially reluctant neighbours.
I’m not suggested, before anybody accuses me of such, that if minority communities wish to gain the acceptance of others they need to clean their streets. My essential point is that prejudice and suspicion can sometimes be better overcome by demonstration rather than by condemnation.
In what felt like a throwback to our days as councillors we were honoured guests, attending alongside sundry elected members, the Leader of the Council, the Mayor and the borough’s two Members of Parliament, Seema Malhotra and Mary MacLeod.
The building is aesthetically substantial. Some would argue it is out of place in the residential, largely non-Muslim and almost exclusively non-Ahmadiyya Muslim community in which it is set. Planning permission was initially declined but was granted subsequently on appeal.
I can understand residents who instinctively react against the appearance of such an imposing entity in their midst. We humans take comfort from familiarity and often find ourselves feeling spooked by change, especially when it is sudden or on such a significant scale. People who resist such change are not all “racists” (although a proportion of them usually are) and it is unhelpful to dismiss them as such.
Nevertheless, the arrival of a devout community such as the Ahmadiyya seldom presents the difficulties that are anticipated. They are a moderate, peace-loving people whose desire is to be good neighbours and to enhance the spirit and ambience of the community in which they have settled, and certainly not to threaten it. They are, very much, a force for good.
I am reminded of a true story from some years back of a Hindu trust that was established on the very borders on a predominantly white neighbourhood which, rightly or wrongly, had a bit of a reputation for being – shall we say – a little unwelcoming of other cultures. There were objections, some of them quite strident, and when it was erected the Hindu users would have been forgiven for exercising some caution when attending their business at the building.
Then, one Sunday morning, something quite amazing happened. Young Hindu activists went out into the neighbourhood armed. Armed, that is, with litter pickers, bin sacks, brushes and anti-graffiti paint. The neighbourhood had been neglected by the council, and litter and debris was liberally strewn throughout the streets and green areas. Bemused white residents watched, bleary-eyed, from their bedroom windows as the young Hindus blitzed the place. By the time they had left it was spotless.
In one fell swoop a whole community’s fear and prejudice had been brushed aside, and the Hindus thereafter lived together in harmony with their initially reluctant neighbours.
I’m not suggested, before anybody accuses me of such, that if minority communities wish to gain the acceptance of others they need to clean their streets. My essential point is that prejudice and suspicion can sometimes be better overcome by demonstration rather than by condemnation.
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
LBH Twits Move to Silence their own Councillor
The London Borough of Hounslow has sent another shot across the bows of its outspoken Chair of Planning and community-friendly Syon councillor Theo Dennison by announcing a ban on members tweeting from Council meetings.
Councillor Dennison had recently introduced the simple but innovative concept of tweeting live from meetings of Borough Council to keep his readers and followers informed of what was going on, but it would appear this is too much to bear for the party he represents.
Meanwhile the Hounslow Conservatives have opened a Twitter account of their own at @LBHConservative to "hear from residents any ideas and/or suggestions they have for questions and motions".
Councillor Dennison is at @syonward.
Councillor Dennison had recently introduced the simple but innovative concept of tweeting live from meetings of Borough Council to keep his readers and followers informed of what was going on, but it would appear this is too much to bear for the party he represents.
Meanwhile the Hounslow Conservatives have opened a Twitter account of their own at @LBHConservative to "hear from residents any ideas and/or suggestions they have for questions and motions".
Councillor Dennison is at @syonward.
Tuesday, 5 February 2013
Savings Without Cuts? Labour Keeps its Promise on Council Tax
Reducing the Council Tax in the London Borough of Hounslow was one of the five pledges the Labour Party made in its successful local election campaign in 2010.
After the way in which voters were conned by the "trick" pledge to introduce "100 new uniformed officers" onto the streets in "this area" (undefined) to cut crime, we could be forgiven for thinking a similar sleight of hand would be forthcoming in respect of the Council Tax pledge.
But, fair play to them, the Labour administration in Hounslow announced last week that it would be reducing the charge to residents by 0.5% - not a fortune, but it trumps the previous achievements of both their own party and of the Conservative/ICG coalition administration.
All the same one has to be careful about taking at face value the claim that this achievement will have been made without any cuts to frontline services. There is no rigid dictionary definition of a "frontline service", and it remains to be seen which service(s) not considered to be frontline will face the chop to accommodate this small saving to residents.
When the ICG was in office some of us were forever nervous about announcing Council Tax cuts or freezes before the books had been opened and the maths done. We were rightly fearful that once a commitment had been made to a figure it would be necessary for the sake of saving face to hit that target come what may. This, we believed, was putting the card before the horse.
But we supported the first three Conservative zero percent budgets of the 2006-2010 administration, some of us voting against the fourth only because our partners had somehow forgotten to consult us about its contents prior to it being brought to Borough Council. There were cuts, inevitably, but ones that were less severe in fact than many that had been imposed by Labour during its own prior term of office.
Not a lot of people know this, as Michael Caine might have said, but at one stage during the 2006-2010 administration there was a proposal by one prominent Conservative councillor to go for a reduction. After some discussion the ICG, and some Conservatives, rejected it. Interesting times.
It is good, of course, that people in the borough will henceforth be paying less Council Tax, but something will have to give as it invariably does. The administration claims it will not be libraires. Other community resources, worryingly, have not so far received a mention.
The ICG is determined that the infrastructure of our long-suffering communities will not be the sacrifice for a fiver-a-year, Tory-style gesture by the Labour regime at Lampton Road.
After the way in which voters were conned by the "trick" pledge to introduce "100 new uniformed officers" onto the streets in "this area" (undefined) to cut crime, we could be forgiven for thinking a similar sleight of hand would be forthcoming in respect of the Council Tax pledge.
But, fair play to them, the Labour administration in Hounslow announced last week that it would be reducing the charge to residents by 0.5% - not a fortune, but it trumps the previous achievements of both their own party and of the Conservative/ICG coalition administration.
All the same one has to be careful about taking at face value the claim that this achievement will have been made without any cuts to frontline services. There is no rigid dictionary definition of a "frontline service", and it remains to be seen which service(s) not considered to be frontline will face the chop to accommodate this small saving to residents.
When the ICG was in office some of us were forever nervous about announcing Council Tax cuts or freezes before the books had been opened and the maths done. We were rightly fearful that once a commitment had been made to a figure it would be necessary for the sake of saving face to hit that target come what may. This, we believed, was putting the card before the horse.
But we supported the first three Conservative zero percent budgets of the 2006-2010 administration, some of us voting against the fourth only because our partners had somehow forgotten to consult us about its contents prior to it being brought to Borough Council. There were cuts, inevitably, but ones that were less severe in fact than many that had been imposed by Labour during its own prior term of office.
Not a lot of people know this, as Michael Caine might have said, but at one stage during the 2006-2010 administration there was a proposal by one prominent Conservative councillor to go for a reduction. After some discussion the ICG, and some Conservatives, rejected it. Interesting times.
It is good, of course, that people in the borough will henceforth be paying less Council Tax, but something will have to give as it invariably does. The administration claims it will not be libraires. Other community resources, worryingly, have not so far received a mention.
The ICG is determined that the infrastructure of our long-suffering communities will not be the sacrifice for a fiver-a-year, Tory-style gesture by the Labour regime at Lampton Road.
Tuesday, 22 January 2013
Statement of Community Involvement Delayed - is this Good News or Bad?
In my last update on the subject of the London Borough of Hounslow's Statement of Community Involvement I pointed out that the Cabinet, and thereafter Borough Council, was set to debate and hopefully adopt its own Statement (SCI) imminently.
I further pointed out that the powerful Group of 15 residents' alliance - in which the ICG plays a significant role - had drawn up a set of robust amendments which have all been endorsed in their entirety by the Planning Committee, and that these proposed amendments would be presented to the two meetings on that basis.
It would appear now that the Statement's appearance will be less imminent after all than first we had hoped. It would seem we are now looking at it being presented to Cabinet on March 12th.
Ordinarily it would have been our assumption, based on past experience, that the ruling administration simply didn't wish to discuss the Statement and its guiding principles and was stalling for time as a means of avoiding getting the amendements onto the statute book and rolled out into the public domain. However word has it (although admittedly from an eternal optimist) that the delay has been caused by the need to extensively revise the draft in the light of the community's concerns.
We have been around long enough, of course, not to accept such a plea at face value. Politicians generally speaking do not like community involvement unless it can be marshalled and corralled by themselves, whilst in this instance the initiative has clearly been taken by the community. But can they ignore such an irresistable and well-organised force as the Group of 15 in what is now only a little more than a year before next year's local elections?
Has the Lead Member delayed publication from a position of respect for the residents and their concerns? Or is the hold-up indicative of a leadership that is still wondering what the hell it is going to do to get itself out of this one?
We will know the answer to that question in March.
I further pointed out that the powerful Group of 15 residents' alliance - in which the ICG plays a significant role - had drawn up a set of robust amendments which have all been endorsed in their entirety by the Planning Committee, and that these proposed amendments would be presented to the two meetings on that basis.
It would appear now that the Statement's appearance will be less imminent after all than first we had hoped. It would seem we are now looking at it being presented to Cabinet on March 12th.
Ordinarily it would have been our assumption, based on past experience, that the ruling administration simply didn't wish to discuss the Statement and its guiding principles and was stalling for time as a means of avoiding getting the amendements onto the statute book and rolled out into the public domain. However word has it (although admittedly from an eternal optimist) that the delay has been caused by the need to extensively revise the draft in the light of the community's concerns.
We have been around long enough, of course, not to accept such a plea at face value. Politicians generally speaking do not like community involvement unless it can be marshalled and corralled by themselves, whilst in this instance the initiative has clearly been taken by the community. But can they ignore such an irresistable and well-organised force as the Group of 15 in what is now only a little more than a year before next year's local elections?
Has the Lead Member delayed publication from a position of respect for the residents and their concerns? Or is the hold-up indicative of a leadership that is still wondering what the hell it is going to do to get itself out of this one?
We will know the answer to that question in March.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)