A Community In Action

Can the Old System Survive Social Media and the Age of Mass Communication?

2012-01-29T22:01:00.001Z

This evening a new poster at the Brentford TW8 community forum expressed the desire that more independents should be elected to Parliament but regretted that, in his view, this will never happen.

I responded to the contrary but feel others may wish to contribute to the debate, which they can do either at the forum or through the Comments section below.

My post on the forum is reproduced verbatim:

"The party system has changed surprisingly little over hundreds of years. The Tories have become the Conservatives, the Whigs have become the Liberals, the latter (largely) merged with the SDP to form the Liberal Democrats and about a century or so ago the Labour Party joined the private members' club and, after a short time as the third party, replaced the Liberals as one of the two major forces in parliamentary politics.

"But in terms of form and substance, it has been the same old same old for centuries.

"However one should never underestimate the power of the Internet. The 'net is probably the most significant invention in the history of man since the wheel. It completely transforms our ability to receive information, and in some cases at least it gives us a chance to better understand that information which we receive.

"The UK and western news media still pumps propaganda quite relentlessly at us, but if we want another perspective Russia Today and al-Jazeera (just to give an example) are just a click away. "Little" people like you and I, with just a modicum of Internet savvy, can spread our own news and views virally through the use of social media, blogs and forums.

"What has this got to do with anything? Well it means both news and opinion will become increasingly more difficult for the political establishment to channel in the direction in which it wishes it to go. Okay, our governments are still conducting wars under false pretences and are by and large getting away with it but a significant - and more importantly, growing - minority are beginning to ask questions.

"Far fewer people blindly follow the official line of their favoured party than was once the case (although as you can see from this forum there are still those who do).

"What has this all got to do with anything? Well it is my view that the political system as it is currently configured cannot survive a cultural sea change as radical as the one we are currently undergoing. Either our "democracy" has to adapt and embrace more real and meaningful public input on a truly massive scale, or else it will reveal itself to the majority for what it has always truly been and die.

"Independents of one kind or another will dominate our politics within a generation. Most reasonable people would regard this as a positive development. Those who don't either have a selfish personal stake in sustaining the inequalities and injustices of the current system or else they are simply stupid.

"This forum is blessed with some fine examples of both."

The Big Society or No Such Thing as Society?

2011-12-20T19:51:00.000Z

I’m still trying to get my head around “The Big Society”, what the Prime Minister David Cameron describes as his “vision and passion”. I am particularly keen to understand how it is to be reconciled with the view that “there is no such thing as society”, articulated by Margaret Thatcher, now Baroness Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister back in the 1980s.

On the surface of it it would seem to be something of an oxymoron. If society doesn’t exist then it cannot be big. Or, conversely, if it is indeed big then the view that it does not exist has to be wrong.

So what exactly is society? What is this thing that is simultaneously big and yet not really there?

Society in its most basic form must be that state in which we live beyond our own selfish existence. It is that common experience that we share whenever we interact, be it socially, in the supermarket, at the bingo hall, down at the local pub, even indeed passing each other in the street and acknowledging the fact that the other person is there.

It may also be, if you prefer, the way in which we support each other by using the skills each of us possess to benefit others, whether we do so for a wage or out of purest altruism. It could be the shopkeeper taking our order, the postman bring our mail, the doctor making us better, the bus driver getting us to where we want to be. We cannot do all these things for ourselves, but by plying our particular trade in the service of others we all manage to muddle along somehow.

The voluntary aspect of being a society is altogether more special. After all it is something from which we derive no personal gain, and which we really don’t have to do. Running a scout group, giving advice, helping out at the local school, organising a residents’ or tenants’ association or an action group – all of these things serve to make life more enjoyable and the environment in which we live more pleasant.

So when Mrs. Thatcher told us there was no such thing as society was she denying that the altruism of what is admittedly an active minority actually existed, that there was behind all of it an ulterior, selfish motive? Or was it just an expression of wishful thinking?

To say there is no such thing as society suggests that people in general are concerned only with Number One, with the furtherance of their own careers and the unrelenting accumulation of personal wealth. It is a call to those who give of their free time to call it a day and to return home to the counting table. It envisions the whole of life as a metaphorical ladder upon which the objective is to climb whilst if necessary treading on the head of the person below.

If this is indeed what Mrs. Thatcher meant then why is it that a quarter of a century on another Conservative Prime Minister sees fit to champion what he calls The Big Society? He after all has never, as far as I am aware, denounced nor even distanced himself from the shocking opinions of his distant predecessor.

In the light of the commonality that exists between the Thatcherites of old and adherents of modern Conservatism it is reasonable to look upon Cameron’s Big Society with a certain degree of scepticism. What is it about the society that the Prime Minister envisages that would find favour amongst those who continue to venerate the undisputed champion of the culture of self?

The answer must logically be found in the fact that the voluntary sector offers something that professionals employed in the public sector per se cannot – work done for free. Why pay a librarian when a retired person looking to get out and meet people or a student in need of work experience and a reference can manage the local library on a day to day basis for nothing?

This cheapskate cynicism is rightly condemned by the Conservatives’ traditional opponents in the Labour Party. Sadly though the criticism focuses usually not upon the exploitative instincts that underpin the Tories’ new-found commitment to a society the very existence of which they were denying not so long ago, but upon the very rationale of volunteering and community self-help.

“Ordinary” people, we are told, are too busy scratching a living to be much bothered about putting anything into the community of which they are a part. All the average (acknowledgements Neil Peart) are concerned about is putting food on the table and clothes on their children’s backs.

Fortunately, so the argument continues, there exists an expert political class (them) whose calling is to manage all our society’s affairs for us. That political class comprises a social elite (whether by education or birthright is unclear) that is specially and uniquely trained to understand all our needs and to deliver them to us in the way that only it knows best.

Back in Portugal

2011-12-20T19:48:00.000Z

I’m back in Portugal, chuffed to be able to spend an extra week in the sun due to the fact that we didn’t use the timeshare one year back in the dim and distant past.

This time my daughter Rosie is with me. On Sunday she earned a lot of respect from balcony dwellers by jumping into the outdoor swimming pool. By comparison with England it is warm here (t-shirt and shorts), but it isn’t that warm!

I’m very embarrassed that I still can’t speak the language, other than to order a beer and say “Thank You”. I keep promising myself that I’ll take a crash course, but with three jobs and counting I never seem to find the time. It seems so disrespectful to travel to another land year after year and just to expect everybody to converse with me in my native tongue, even though everyone at the site is completely fluent.

Timeshares are for mugs, in this day and age non-owners can enjoy all the facilities we have for half the price. But I do recommend the Clube Praia da Oura to anybody looking to spend a week away from the rain and the cold.

Tomorrow we are off to Seville, partly so that Rosie can at least tell her posh friends that she has been to a new country. Hasta la vista (or is that Italian?).

VICTORY!

2011-12-08T17:39:00.012Z

Residents win epic court battle against Thames Water over Mogden

ICG leads protest against Mogden expansion in 2009

Thousands of residents are celebrating after the High Court today ruled in their favour at the culmination of their epic battle against the water giant and the odour nuisance that it has continued to inflict upon our community with the timid, indeed sometimes willing, acquiescence of the London Borough of Hounslow.

Mr Justice Ramsay upheld the claim by 1,350 litigants from Isleworth, Hounslow, Whitton, St. Margaret's and Twickenham that Thames Water was liable for breach of duty in relation to odour nuisance from its Isleworth-based Mogden plant.

The judge also found that Thames had breached claimants' human rights under the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 of the Convention which protects the enjoyment of home and family life.

Scandalously, legislation due to be introduced by the government will prevent communities from instigating actions such as this one in the future without accepting prohibitive financial risk.

Nevertheless right now is a time for rejoicing, and for expressing my sincere thanks to all those residents who have worked painstakingly through the Mogden Residents' Action Group over many years to bring this about, often in the face of infuriating obstruction, procrastination and betrayal from those upon whose support we should have been entitled to rely.

MRAG and the ICG will consider the full implications of the Council's handling of the Mogden issue and of its attitude towards campaigning residents during the coming weeks.

The full Press Statement released today by Steve Taylor of MRAG is as follows:

VICTORY FOR RESIDENTS AGAINST THAMES WATER
Residents successful in ‘David & Goliath’ battle

After a long and arduous fight, 1,350 residents living near Mogden Sewage Treatment Works in Isleworth, Middlesex have won their mammoth battle against Thames Water Utilities Limited in relation to odour nuisance. The residents live in an area which comprises Hounslow, Whitton, Twickenham and St Margarets as well as Isleworth.

At the High Court today (8 December), Judge Mr Justice Ramsay handed down the judgment which holds Thames Water liable for breach of duty in relation to nuisance caused by odour from the Mogden plant. In relation to allegations of negligence surrounding their management and operation at the Works, Mr Justice Ramsey significantly found that Thames Water had, since 1990, failed to have a long term odour management and investment strategy to deal with odour from the site.

Mr Steve Taylor, one of the lead claimants, says: “I hope this case shows that David can take on Goliath in our legal system and win. The case was never about money; it was about holding Thames Water to account for the problems that it has caused us over the last 10 years. The huge impact on ordinary people's lives and on the environment cannot be underestimated. I am extremely grateful to Neil Stockdale and the Environment team at Hugh James as well as our Counsel, Stephen Hockman QC and John Bates, for relentlessly pursuing this case on our behalf. I believe this case is the first of its kind in the UK and the judgment in our favour will have a major influence on the way the managers and owners of sewage treatment works in England and Wales run their businesses"

Although this is a significant victory for the residents, the stark warning is that happy endings like this one might not be possible in the future. The Government plans to change legislation, effectively ending the current ‘no win no fee’ system, exposing claimants to huge upfront financial risks rather than being allowed to recover fees at the end if successful. This will lead to claimants having to take responsibility for both their own expenses and the other side’s costs.

Mr Taylor continues: “I’m shocked and very disappointed about the Government’s plans to change this legislation. The stature and financial clout of Thames Water meant we were only able to take this case forward because of the current ‘no win no fee’ system. Changing this system will deter others in similar situations to ours from bringing cases against big companies and will be a real obstacle for ordinary people to access justice. I would ask the government to think very carefully about the effect that this might have on people’s lives.”

Neil Stockdale, the partner at Hugh James who led the team dealing with the case said, “This result is a vindication of the residents’ genuine desire to protect their environment from blight. Unfortunately however, cases like this will no longer be possible in the future if the Government’s proposed reforms to the funding of litigation are enacted next year.

“The Government is proposing that individuals take cases like this at their own risk; people just can’t afford to take such risks, particularly when they are up against the likes of Thames Water. If people don’t stand up now and oppose the Government's bill they will forever be powerless to take action to protect their legal rights in all sorts of cases. What the Government is suggesting is a real scandal and the biggest threat to access to justice we have ever witnessed in the UK.”

Damages were sought against Thames Water for nuisance caused by odour and mosquitoes but claimants also sought for an injunction to prevent continuing nuisance. Today, the Judge has accepted 18 of the 30 allegations of negligence that were made in addition to finding that Thames Water had breached the claimants’ rights under the Human Rights Act, specifically Article 8 of the convention which protects the enjoyment of home and family life.

The Judge said that the claimants had been caused to suffer significant inconvenience and annoyance from odour over and above that which was inevitable.

In relation to Human Rights, High Court Judge Mr Justice Ramsay says of his decision: "Because I have held that Thames Water failed to carry out the work and conduct the operation at Mogden Sewage Treatment Works with all reasonable regard and care for the interests of other persons, including the claimants, it follows in my view that Thames Water failed properly to respect the rights of claimants and did not do all they reasonably could to prevent odour from migrating from the Mogden Sewage Treatment Works. They did not do what they should have done as a public authority in relation to the rights of the claimants".

ENDS

Where Is Our Money?

2011-11-20T21:36:00.003Z

Residents demand answers after 250 march to save St. John's Community Centre

Any talk of "consultation" would seem superfluous now after a massive 250 local residents turned out to let councillors and the London Borough of Hounslow know that we want to keep our Community Centre open.

The march, organised by the Independent Community Group (ICG) and supported by the St. John's Residents' Association, The Isleworth Society (TIS) and 32 user groups based at the Centre, at one point filled Linkfield Road from the gates of St. John's Gardens almost as far back as Loring Road. Two local councillors - Theo Dennison (Syon, one of the Lead Members responsible for presenting the Report to Cabinet proposing closure) and Ed Mayne (Isleworth, Cabinet member) - attended the protest and took the time to hear residents' concerns.

Nobody can now be in any doubt at all as to the determination of local people to halt this latest assault by the Lampton Road bureaucracy upon Isleworth's ability to organise and to function as a community.

And now the attention has turned to the small matter of the £250,000 which was set aside at the 2010 Hounslow Council Budget Meeting specifically for the purpose of repairing the roof of the Centre.

When the Lead Member's Report, prepared by senior officers, was submitted to Cabinet on Tuesday, 8th November by Councillors Corinna Smart and Theo Dennison one of the reasons given for closure was the cost that would allegedly be incurred in bringing the property into full repair. Significantly, however, no mention was made of the quarter of a million pounds set aside for this very work by Borough Council in March 2010 at the insistence of the ICG.

Neither of these councillors were members of the local authority at the time of the 2010 Budget Meeting (although some of their Cabinet colleagues were). Did they know about this allocation of funding? And if not, does this mean that senior officers deliberately withheld this crucial information from them when preparing the Report in order to ensure that Cabinet took the "right" decision?

Indeed, is the money even still there? And, if not, where has it gone and under whose authority has it been spent elsewhere (we have been assured that no member decision has been taken at any time authorising any such transfer)?

The lack of co-operation by chief officers towards the Community Group at the latter end of the coalition administration of 2006-2010, at best tolerated and in all probability encouraged or possibly even instigated by our Conservative coalition partners, is a matter of demonstrable record. However if it transpires that chief officers have ignored the legally binding decision of a Budget Meeting then the line is crossed into completely new territory and such an act could not possibly be ignored nor swept under the carpet.

Residents supported by the ICG are using all means available to them to gain access to this vital information and this blog will be updated with any new developments.

Watch this space.

It's Not a Problem, the Answer is No!

2011-11-16T01:14:00.001Z

This was the response I gave when asked by the then Lead Member for Finance, Councillor Gerald McGregor, whether the Community Group councillors who at the time represented the wards of Syon and Isleworth would have a problem with him implementing an officer recommendation to "dispose of" (i.e. sell for development) the Community Centre on St. John's Road.

Councillor McGregor fully understood our position, and obligingly withdrew the proposal from his list of potential economies.

Our position was simple. We were councillors for Isleworth and for Syon. More than that, we were community councillors for Isleworth and for Syon. This building served over 30 user groups in our own back yard. If, holding the balance of power on the Council, we couldn't keep this building open then there was little point in us being there. A little while later we secured £250,000 from the 2010 council budget for some essential repairs to the roof of the building for good measure.

The senior officers bided their time. A change in administration and, they deduced, the election of councillors less committed to their individual wards and less inclined ideologically to support independent community groups meant they could once again offer up St. John's Community Centre as a sacrificial lamb, in preference to any of those internal departmental savings that senior officers so dislike.

Sadly, it appears they were right. A report to Cabinet (formerly known as the Executive) on November 8th agreed "in principle" to dispose of this popular and widely-used community resource, "subject to consultation".

The significance of this caveat is moot. On the surface it would appear to suggest that massive public opposition to the closure could have the effect of halting it. On the other hand, no provision has been made for returning the item to Cabinet following any such consultation, which would conversely suggest that the decision is considered to be final irrespective of the outcome of a consultation that is being undertaken purely as a statutory duty.

The Community Group has taken a more relaxed and engaging approach towards the current Labour administration than had been the case in the past. Individual councillors have seemed more accommodating, more prepared to reach out to us as a community and to embrace the unique localist spirit that remains in Isleworth in particular in spite of our election reverse.

But we would be failing in our duty to our local people were we to stand back and watch the desecration of our community's infrastructure. Whether such spiteful assaults on our civic life are member or officer driven, we must resist them and we will.

Back in February over 300 Isleworth residents braved appalling weather to march in support of our Library and Public Hall. We call upon them to turn out again to defend St. John's Community Centre. We were supported at that time by our Conservative MP Mary Macleod and by our three Isleworth Labour ward councillors. We hope we will be again.

Isleworth is a vibrant, thriving community. We will not be closed down, whether for budgetary savings or for political advantage. Please turn out on Saturday and support St. John's residents and user groups as they fight to keep a valuable community asset in the hands of the local people.

March to Save St. John's Community Centre

Saturday, 19th November 2011

Meet outside the Centre, 10.30 am

Deja Vu on the Streets of Libya - Spot the Difference

2011-10-14T16:49:00.000+01:00

Further to my article yesterday something I recently predicted would happen, has happened.

Pro-Gaddafi demonstrations, albeit at the moment rather small ones, are beginning to break out on the streets of Tripoli.

The response of the new Western-backed government? They have opened fire on them!

Can somebody please refresh my memory as to why NATO claimed to have become involved in this conflict in the first place?

Playing the New World Order's Tune

2011-10-13T08:13:00.007+01:00

The forces of the Libyan "revolution". Will you tell him or shall I?

____________________________________________________

There was a time, in a previous life, when I was happy to sing the praises of the almost-but-not-completely-deposed Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

It was a time, after all, when I dealt solely in absolutes and, having read the Green Book and marvelled at its convoluted strategy for total democracy, I would hear nothing that suggested revolutionary Libya was any less a paradise on Earth in practice than it was in theory. The Third Universal Theory, to lend it its correct title.

Of course in truth Gaddafi's Libya was anything but a paradise. Power games, between tribes as well as politicians and army generals, and some simple realities about human nature and the personal ambitions, and innate corruptability, of some ensured that not everybody stuck to the manual. Clearly it became a dictatorship with an idea, and one which wasn't too fussy about some of the friends it made around the world in its efforts to carve for itself an ideological niche that would challenge the twin evils of capitalism and communism for the hearts of minds of the people of the world.

But the diet of lies, so barely concealed as to be insulting to the intelligence, that has been fed to the British public in respect of the current NATO campaign has led me instinctively to sympathise with the pro-Gaddafi elements as they continue their desperate, impossible fight against hopeless odds in those few isolated Libyan cities that remain outside of "rebel" (i.e. NATO) control.

From the moment the United Nations gave them the green light for intervention the NATO bombing campaign has quite obviously had nothing whatsoever to do with "protecting civilians" and everything to do with regime change. The fact that there remain up to 10,000 civilians holed up in Sirte, and that NATO is bombing their city relentlessly whilst turning a blind eye to the completely indiscriminate rocket attacks being made upon them by the inexpert and untrained "rebels" provides us with indisputable evidence of this.

Yes Gaddafi was a dictator, a murderous one to boot, but considerably less so than many of the rulers in the region whom the West is actually arming as well as doing regular business with. The difference is of course that Gaddafi was a dictator with a political ideology that, in times of real economic strife such as those we would seem to be heading into, presented a real danger of being taken seriously. After all, who wants a Third World leader who, unlike us it would seem, was able to provide an efficient free healthcare service and universal access to education without increasingly prohibitive tuition fees?

How embarrassing was it for our political establishment to see Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and released on compassionate grounds two years ago due to his terminal cancer, still alive after all this time thanks to a drug that is freely available in Third World Libya but had been kept quiet about and withheld from British cancer sufferers because it is too expensive to issue?

Who wants a Third World dictator who, in his own small way, had begun to build his own political power base in Africa to rival those of the US superpower or the almost-super powers of Russia and China? Not much we can do about the global machinations of such giants on the world stage, after all. But Libya?

Most of all, who wants a Third World dictator who threatened to trade his people's own oil in "African dinars", based upon gold reserves, as opposed to US dollars?

Understand this and you will understand how a man who was a political pariah in the 1980s and 1990s became cuddly Uncle Muammar in 2003, and how his elite forces became worthy of SAS training little more than a year ago, only for his "dictatorness" to be suddenly rediscovered earlier this year.

We are told the ground forces that are currently struggling to overwhelm Sirte in spite of their massive numerical superiority and unanswered NATO air support are "revolutionaries". But revolutions come from the people, they are not imposed by foreign powers. What has happened in Libya has not been a revolution, but an invasion.

Even now, after having taken Tripoli, the "revolutionaries" have been entirely dependent upon NATO air power in order to take a small city from the scattered remnants of an already defeated army. These guys may believe they are fighting for freedom, and their grudges against the old regime may be well-founded and very real, but they will discover before very long that they have in fact been the foot soldiers of a far more subtle and sinister dictatorship than their eccentric ex-Brother Leader could ever have imposed upon them.

Hounslow Homes Annual General Meeting 2011 - Election Lost, Argument Won?

2011-10-08T01:40:00.001+01:00

Whilst I certainly don't pine for my old "job" these days, it was slightly surreal to find myself sitting in the Council Chamber at the Civic Centre in Lampton Road on Thursday evening.

The reason Caroline and I were so doing was that we had accepted an invitation, sent to us both in our capacity as former Board members, to attend the Annual General Meeting of Hounslow Homes.

The AGM itself is something of a formality. The local authority is the sole shareholder of Hounslow Homes and the various appointments, retirements and other items of business are approved (hopefully) by the Lead Member for Housing, currently Councillor Steve Curran, on its behalf. I know how it works because I did the job myself for three years between 2006 and 2009.

But it was good to spend a little time chatting with some old acquaintances - officers from Hounslow Homes and the Council, Board Members, and councillors from both the political parties that managed to retain representation on the London Borough of Hounslow amid the carnage that saw off all the independents and minor parties in May 2010.

Obviously there were differing opinions as to the success or otherwise of the current administration. Everybody agreed, not unreasonably, that it was a difficult time to be a councillor, with the swingeing cuts that all local authorities are being forced to make. In many respects I am glad not to have this responsibility.

There seemed to be a general assumption across the board, both from officers and politicians, that the ICG in general and I in particular would be seeking to restore the pre-2010 status quo when the next local elections come around in 2014, an assumption that certainly should not be made. Times change, things move on.

What pleased me most of all at the Meeting was hearing the Chief Executive of Hounslow Homes, Bernadette O'Shea, referring positively to the concept of localism during her short address to the meeting. Bernadette and other senior officers spoke favourably and often about localism and empowering tenants when I was Lead Member but the cynic might say, well, they would wouldn't they?

But they speak of it still, and that is hugely encouraging.

During my days as Lead Member some of my then coalition colleagues did not think particularly highly of Bernadette, but I always found her approachable, intelligent, innovative and - best of all - honest. Whom she may or may not vote for in the privacy of the polling booth was never of any interest to me.

When reflecting upon the mood of the AGM it crossed my mind that in some situations it was maybe possible to lose a vote yet still win the argument. Certainly the advantages of embracing the wider community seem now to be apparent to most of those involved with the local political scene.

If the ICG never involves itself again in electoral politics I am satisfied that we will still clearly have left a legacy to be proud of.

Only Two Cheers for Community Politics

2011-10-03T23:33:00.002+01:00

By David Boyle

I wasn’t there to hear the Birmingham conference back the community politics motion. I had meant to be but had to go back to London early.

It was one of those pieces of sacred Liberalism that you daren’t speak against, but I would have done. I’m not sorry it was passed but the party must also understand that there is another side to it.

Community politics may be a revolutionary doctrine, but BAD community politics – and we have practised some of that occasionally, let’s face it – damages the party and damages the political process.

I know I’m on sacred ground. Criticising community politics at a Liberal Democrat conference is like criticising the Pope in St Peter’s Square. But there are four very good reasons why we must go into this with our eyes open:

First, because we’ve long since abandoned real community politics in favour of its outward manifestation – a blizzard of leaflets with no obvious ideology. Which have been copied by every political opponent for a generation.

Sometimes there is no ideology beyond the demand to stuff paper. Sometimes even worse, there is a kind of off-putting and desperate campaigning on empty.

Second, because community politics has become muddled with New Labour’s rhetoric about ‘empowerment’.

Empowerment is a nonsense for Liberal Democrats. People already have the power. Even Tony Blair, even Ed Miliband, can’t distribute it. It isn’t theirs to give. The point is to encourage people to use their power, and to teach them how.

The third reason is that the intellectual underpinnings of community politics are now riddled with dry rot and need to be renewed. We know so much more now about what works than we did in 1970. We have concepts like social capital and co-production.

There are radical ideas out there about the power shifts in public services when users work alongside professionals. There are techniques about revitalising local economics. By comparison, community politics is almost as vague as the Big Society, which basically means: ‘wouldn’t it be nice if everyone had lunch together’.

The party could not even bring itself to write a radical new localism policy this year. We ran out of intellectual puff.

The fourth reason may be very naive. But it seems to me that community politics has became infected with the corrosive language of the political classes. Some of our leaflets – like our opponents’ leaflets – are so disconnected from real life, so unpleasant in their accusations as they drop through the letter box, that many people find them repulsive. That is hard but true.

So this is what I believe. When our tone of voice alienates people – not just from one political party but from them all – then we’re not practising community politics.

Unless community politics is capable of rescuing politics itself, unless it is generous enough to embrace everyone in the community, unless it is based firmly on an ideology which includes working in public services, and economic action too – unless it does all that, then it won’t revitalise our party and it won’t work.

There needs to be the same generosity of spirit that was there in the original community politics, so that the prime purpose is to spread power – no matter which political party benefits to start with.

Don’t forget that the political crisis isn’t just ours. The total membership of all political parties is less than the circulation of a small magazine in Smiths. So the new community politics has to be different. It has to be about training everyone in political, economic and social change, locally and face to face.

Did the motion say that? No it didn’t.

David Boyle is a member of the Federal Policy Committee, a fellow of the New Economics Foundation and his new book The Human Element is published next month. This article appeared in Liberal Democrat Voice.

Party Activists Should Escape the Herd

2011-10-03T00:00:00.005+01:00

By Will Self

Hee-haw! Massed infantry being ordered to storm impregnable defences, their successive waves scythed down by the inexorable enfilade of machine gun fire. This surely is what we associate with the phrase "lions led by donkeys".

And yet there is a still more pathetic phenomenon in the field of human endeavour, and that is donkeys being led by donkeys. It occurs in warfare certainly, and it also happens in that introversion of the aggressive impulse we call democratic politics.

In the past few years we here in Britain have almost taken a perverse pride in the self-immolation of our political class. Fiddling their expenses, kowtowing to media moguls, bowing down before psychopathic dictators, grovelling to security-averse bankers - is there, we wonder, any further baseness to which our erstwhile governors will not descend? And so we urge them on in their corrupt limbo-dance, while gaily chanting "how low can you go?"

Of course, as with any binary moral judgement, implicit in our condemnation of "them" is our exaltation of "us". We aren't like them - vain, duplicitous and meretricious. We are sanctified by the fact of our apathy alone. After all, if we do nothing we cannot reasonably be blamed for anything.

Nevertheless, we are blamed. Blamed for our very refusal to play a bigger role in the civic realm apart from once every lustrum or so milling around the polling booth with the rest of the extras. Commitment, responsibility, engagement - these are just some of the buzzwords that have resounded around the conference centres of provincial cities in the past fortnight. Doubtless when the Tories assemble in Manchester next week that much-vaunted Big Society will loom large.

Yet looking at the neatly-bridled donkeys on the platforms, and listening to them bray, it struck me that really it was too easy to lay all the blame for the straw-like insubstantiality of contemporary British politics at their stable door. For when the television cameras tracked sideways, revealed were all the other donkeys that helped haul them up there. Yes, I am referring to the membership.

If those of us who do not belong to any of the main political parties ever have cause to doubt ourselves, we need only take the most cursory of looks at these endlessly biddable Dobbins in order to confirm us in our righteousness.

Tell me is there anything more supine on this fair earth than a party conference audience rising to deliver a standing ovation? Carefully orchestrated by party stewards, these so-called activists display a mental passivity that makes the average X Factor audience look like the participants in one of Plato's symposia.

And can we think of any benighted populace, ground beneath the jackboot of state tyranny, who would so speedily and rhapsodically declare that this hackneyed phraseology represented the very flower of rhetoric? I think not. But lest we imagine that party members only succumb to a herd mentality when they're corralled together and issued with regulation coloured saddle cloths, it's worth examining the breed in isolation.

I have - gulp - friends who belong to political parties, and the other evening over dinner I asked one of them, who was preparing to go a-conferencing, why it was that he persisted with the whole futile go-round of the dressage arena. "Well," he told me. "You have to understand that unless you participate you can have no influence whatsoever, and therefore no opportunity to see your ideas and your principals become enacted in the form of government policy."

"But," I cavilled, "you can't tell me that you supported the invasion of X?" "No," he conceded, "I most certainly didn't." "Nor," I continued, "did you approve of the light-touch regulation of Y." That's true, he admitted, it made me profoundly uncomfortable.

"And what," I persisted, "about the Z partnerships that have ended up wasting such a prodigious amount of taxpayers' money, and which your own leadership now concede were ill-conceived? You didn't think they were an effective way of renewing old schools and hospitals, did you?" "Well," for a donkey he looked decidedly sheepish, "no, no I didn't think Z partnerships were going to do much good."

I could've gone on but I like to give a donkey sanctuary quite as much as the next man, so I contented myself by observing: "Which then, precisely, of your ideas and principles did the government formed by the party to which you lend your unswerving allegiance actually transform into effective legislation?"

However, while my friend's ears may have been long, this was something he wasn't able to hear. Instead of answering me he began to talk about consensus and unity and collective responsibility and how that as it was to the cabinet, so it was to the party as a whole.

How like a politician, I thought, as he evaded answering the question. And indeed, that surely is the problem with the main political parties' grassroots-eating membership, almost to a jack and a jenny they are made in the image of their donkey leaders.

This kind of politicking is something we have come to take for granted. Indeed, to be a "consummate politician" is in our lexicon synonymous with being blandly evasive.

We have come, sadly, to take it for granted that our political leaders and their followers will also spend a disproportionate amount of time butting and biting members of their own herd. The only point at which a halt is called to this internecine idiocy is when an election is called - and then a disproportionate amount of time gets spent butting and biting the other herds.

So it goes on, the adversarial character of our politics paradoxically inducing a deadening conformism. Indeed, it is the inverse correlation between the fissiparous character of the major parties and the winnowing away of their convictions that, over and above everything else, has characterised British politics during the past quarter-century.

The last time one of the "Big Three" split over a matter of principle rather than personality, the Social Democrats whirled away from Labour into inner space, only in seven short years to be snagged in by the dark-yellow star of the Liberals. Twenty-three years on, some of those SDP members will have had the joyous experience of rising to their hooves to applaud the actions of a government they have helped to put in power, a government with the policies of which they probably disagree point-for-point.

It is the same for Labour, it is the same for the Conservatives - both parties contain substantial minorities that, in as much as they have any passion left at all, passionately dissent from the centre ground their leaders are determined to hold - and if at all possible extend - at any cost.

Is it any wonder that such a charade is a massive turn-off to a public that see real issues, pressing concerns and genuine anxieties at every turn? The main parties continue to haemorrhage members, while those left behind are those who prefer to be clots.

In the immediate aftermath of the First World War and the Bolshevik revolution William Butler Yeats penned The Second Coming, a reactionary dithyramb the words of which still resonate almost a century later. Yet how strange it is that our own comparatively lacklustre era can also be evoked by the same ringing declamation: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity."

Evoked, that is, with this caveat - that the passionate intensity of the Millibands, the Cleggs, the Camerons and all those who frenziedly applaud them masks a vanishingly small amount of real conviction.

For Yeats what troubled his sight was that mythical and frightening creature the manticore - "a shape with a lion body and the head of a man" that came slouching "towards Bethlehem to be born". But what should trouble our sight are the more homely silhouettes of the donkeys being led by donkeys trotting back to their paddocks from Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester. Hee-haw.

Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News Magazine.

I Know It Sounds Absurd, Please Tell Me Who I Am

2011-10-02T01:30:00.001+01:00

I don't know whether it is just my age, creeping dementia or a profound insightfulness that has caused me to be uncertain about the domestic political situation, but for the first time in my life I really do feel unsure about where we are all going, locally and indeed nationally.

For many, many years right up until about a year or so before the local elections of 2010 it was all very clear. As a champion of my community's rights of association, as an advocate of civic power and of a real and meaningful participative democracy the enemy sported a rose and a red rosette. Whilst I had long been aware that the gang in the blue corner cared little about the things that most inspired me and espoused an "I'm All Right Jack" philosophy that was in many ways antithetical to the mutuality of the communitarian ideal that remains close to my heart, I had felt reassured by the impression received that, as long as it didn't cost any money, there was no real hostility from this particular source to the aspirations that I and those around me held dear.

Then came the vicious rearguard action by the senior management team at the London Borough of Hounslow, and the lack of support that I and my fellow community councillors received from our coalition partners when it did come, and suddenly we were on the back foot. The jury remains out as to whether the officers were following a political agenda laid down by our partners, or whether it was an officer initiative to which our partners willingly turned a blind eye, but in not very much time at all some real lessons were being learned that I for one had hitherto had no inclination we were in need of learning.

At the general election that was held on the same day as the locals I voted for the Liberal Democrat candidate Andrew Dakers. Really it was something of a no-brainer. I had met the Conservative candidate Mary Macleod, who was subsequently elected, on several occasions and had found her to be affable, friendly and charming. Presumably she still is. But she was in my view surgically attached to her party in a way that could not be said of Andrew and this, coupled with his excellent performance as a quality local councillor over a sustained period of four years and my own natural progressive instincts, made him the absolutely obvious choice.

Then came the ConDem coalition government. To begin with it struck me as a reasonably good idea. Whilst I am not much interested in national politics I took the view that the previous one had not had very much going for it and that the LibDems would at least be involved. Progressive politics without the control freakery.

It would also have been churlish of me not to have given the new government a chance before criticising. I had, after all, been part of a group on the council that had gone into coalition with the Conservatives for four years on a local level. Sometimes one has to just go for it.

Meanwhile in Isleworth the victorious but still wet-behind-the-ears Labour team embarked upon a thoroughly bizarre, though as it quite turned out short-lived, leafleting campaign, attacking their defeated ICG opponents hysterically as though another election was to be held the very next week.

I was told the leaflets were withdrawn from circulation before very many actually went out. It was a sensible move, the ICG had indicated that it would not be taking an automatically adversarial position to the new councillors and the leaflets frankly just gave off an impression of stark fear, not to mention bad sportsmanship, when what the new councillor team should really have been doing was getting down to business and carving a niche for themselves within their new constituency.

A year on the picture looks so very different, from where I am standing, on both fronts. The arrogance of the Conservatives in their attacks upon ordinary working people ("We're all this together") does not sit well with their kid glove handling of the banks, whose responsibility the current economic crisis is. The free market, "sink or swim" mantra does not seem to apply in this case. When the bankers are needing a bail-out we are all good socialists after all.

And today came the news that working people will once again have to be employed at the same place of work for two years, rather than one, before having the right to seek protection from unfair dismissal at a tribunal. This may not be the most widely publicised or controversial piece of legislation to emerge from this government, but it is as clear a statement of intent as any. Why else would such a piece of legislation be introduced other than to send the message to employers that their rights to exploit and abuse are going to be upheld with a vengeance by this government?

The Lib Dems, it seems to me, are between a rock and a hard place. Despised by their coalition partners, whose instinct I know from first-hand experience is to betray (because they think it is just "politics" to behave like this and will for some reason be forgotten very quickly), they will be undermined all the way by the pro-Conservative media as the ICG was by the chief officers at LBH. The stitch-up over AV was a portent, if ever there was one, of things to come.

I have to say that I would still vote for Andrew if the general election were to be re-run tomorrow. First and foremost it is important to have the best possible constituency MP.

But - and here's the crunch - were anyone to ask me which of three main parties I would consider myself a supporter of I would have to, in truth, align myself to the ranks of the "Don't Knows". Indeed that was the answer I gave YouGov, for the very first time, when I encountered the question in a survey a week or two ago.

I actually find that I quite like Ed Miliband, and it doesn't surprise me too much that a significant section of his own party doesn't. Little things, like admitting that his party could "learn from" the wider public and speaking up for communities, not as a perceived adjunct of the Labour Party but in their very own right, is not language that I would ordinarily associate with Labour and must have some of his own supporters quietly seething. But either he understands or at least his advisers do, and if the latter one must be confident they will explain it to him.

He doesn't act, as some others do, as though he and his close colleagues were the custodians of some revealed truth that the wider populace lack the sophistication and wit to grasp for themselves. He seems to acknowledge that there is a world outside of the Labour Party which he and his cohorts might actually benefit from tapping into, hence his rather intelligent efforts to create a kind of "halfway house" between support and party membership.

Locally, too, I am not discouraged. Library cutbacks presented in council propaganda magazines as good news stories and whispers of community halls being closed down on the quiet do leave a bad taste, but councillors do at least seem to be engaging insofar as the rigid party structures will allow. They are never going to wield an effective power of veto, as we community councillors did, but they are at least interacting with local people.

What I guess I'm saying then is that it has taken me two decades of mature, rational analysis, and sustained personal involvement, to reach the point where, for the first time in my adult life, I really don't have any long-term vision or idea of where it is all taking us. I'll continue to fight for libraries and community halls, you can be assured, but for the time being at least I feel I am very much a spectator of the political game.

A Walk Too Far (Or a Tale of a Middle-Aged Man's Arrogance)

2011-09-19T12:58:00.002+01:00

I have now more or less recovered from my second consecutive and final unsuccessful attempt to walk the Thames Path between Isleworth and Abingdon in Oxfordshire.

Some people may remember that I tried five years ago to walk the same route with only one stopover, only to have to throw in the towel after some 55 miles. On that occasion I was able to blame my preparation and my equipment, having in an extraordinary display of amateurism miscalculated the distance between here and Windsor by some ten miles. This time I once again omitted to take into account a massive detour that seems to have been incorporated into the route around the same area, but cannot blame this for my inability to complete the walk.

Instead it was simply a case of too much - having completed 75 miles over the first two days I set off on the third with the underside of both heels inflamed like balloons and resplendent in a worrying shade of yellow, without any prospect at all of covering the remaining 20 miles within the required 10 hours.

Having gone through the motions of limping the four miles between Streatley and Moulsford on the third day (in at least as many hours), and mindful of the fact that I had just a couple of weeks beforehand been diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes (which requires one to take extra care of one's feet), I decided to call it a day upon arrival at the Beetle and Wedge and to spend the next hour or so immersed in a pint of Heineken Export and a large plate of mixed nuts and olives.

So near yet so far, as they say.

But the three-day event was for me something of a surreal experience. Whilst I am unlikely to attempt it again, now that the pain has abated there are some pleasant memories, as well as some not so pleasant ones.

Amongst the latter was the unfamiliar experience of having been almost all in after just fourteen miles, at Walton Lock. I frequently walk for 10 to 12 miles as a recreational activity and certainly wasn't prepared for the experience of early blisters, near-torrential rain and pushing into close to gale-force winds. So early into the walk the experience had ceased to be pleasant and I was faced with the reality that this was going to be an arduous ordeal and not the stroll in the park that it had looked to be on the website.

Nonetheless I persisted, and at 20 miles I was between Shepperton and Staines and encountered not one but two people of my regular acquaintance. The first was a guy who drinks in a local club with which I am familiar, the second was my cousin who was visiting her mother (my aunt) at her home in Chertsey.

At Staines I met up with Caroline and Joe (Rosie had gone back to school the day previously) for a coffee at the Thames Lodge Hotel. The coffee was pricey but the service was wonderful and we were really made to feel welcome despite my disheveled appearance which did not best suit the surroundings.

Then I moved on, first to Runnymede, then to Datchet and later to Windsor, where all the detours are and which seems to carry on forever. Windsor may be a proud and historic place but it is truly the graveyard of this particular walk, the point at which one begins to wonder whether it ever ends. As if the horrendous detour through a cow field and then around the streets, always it would seem in driving rain, was not enough the river walk between it and Maidenhead comprises the longest six miles known to man.

Having completed a dubious 44 miles (dubious in the sense that it was almost certainly more), I stopped off at a bed and breakfast in Marlow where I was able to enjoy a bath once I had finally managed to climb into it, and then the next morning it was off again along the 31-mile route to Goring.

After a largely pleasant walk past some picturesque riverside dwellings and public houses it was a relief to arrive at the particularly splendid town of Henley, where the quite stunning scenery continues into Shiplake and Sonning. At one point upon reaching the latter I wanted to leave the path and enjoy a pint in an old pub that had been recommended to me, but it was 100 yards off the route and I just couldn't motivate myself to add the extra distance to my schedule, which must sound quite of weird when one considers the overall distance involved with the walk but be assured that at the time it made perfect sense.

Past the enormous presence that is Reading one passes through Pangbourne and Whitchurch before encountering the beautiful town of Goring, from where one walks across the bridge to Streatley where my second bed and breakfast awaited.

After settling in at the house I ventured, very slowly, across the road to The Swan at Streatley where, unbeknown to me, the comedian David Walliams had stopped off along the route of his heroic charity swim for Sport Relief. He had not managed to actually reach Streatley by water at that point as he had originally planned due to illness, but he had proceeded to the hotel by taxi before returning to Wallingford the next day to continue where he had left off. By the time I had reached the hotel and had settled down with a glorious pint of Addlestone's cider he was, presumably, tucked up in bed, but I enjoyed a wonderful evening at the venue enjoying a couple of pints with his film crew, as well as having the benefit of a long friendly chat with the hotel manager Karl Bentley and some of his delightfully sociable, helpful and efficient staff.

Although I didn't actually stay there overnight I cannot recommend this wonderful hotel enough as a place to relax and enjoy a drink and some food. During a telephone conversation with my parents I discovered that The Swan had previously been a restaurant owned by the late drag artist Danny La Rue, of whom my mother had been a fan, and that I had visited the restaurant in the company of my parents as a child. Small world.

The following (Thursday) morning, having enjoyed a hearty breakfast, I hobbled uneasily onto the street and back onto the Thames Path with the assistance of a walking stick that my landlady had kindly lent me, but it became immediately apparent to me that I would not reach the speed required to make Abingdon by nightfall and I had begun to have serious concerns about my health. Nonetheless the four miles that I did manage to complete were not uneventful.

First of all somewhere around Cholsey a crowd appeared from nowhere to run headlong down the towpath towards me. After a moment of two I caught sight of Mr Walliams, whom they were following, maintaining an impressive speed between two red and yellow canoes in spite of the problems he had encountered the previous day. He was being followed by his press team on a boat, and when one of them spotted me and shouted out asking me how the walk was going I was touched and felt more than slightly honoured.

Then into a big open field that seemed to stretch for miles a female walker caught up with me and asked me what I was doing. When I explained about the walk she handed me a ten pound note to put towards the cause.

A few yards and about half an hour later I was suddenly overcome by the need to sit down. I was by this point in really bad pain and it took me several attempts and some 40 minutes simply to get back onto my feet. During my time on terra firma the most extraordinary, not to mention slightly eerie thing happened. When I looked up what appeared to be a huge red kite was hovering overhead, moving closer and closer down towards me. Kites are carrion feeders, and it was clear the creature had become alert to my distress and was pondering the prospect of a rather hefty meal. At first I laughed, but as it became closer I felt it prudent to wave my walking stick to reassure the bird that I was still very much alive, whereupon it flew swiftly off. How creepy is that?

Although what I had decided was to be the finishing point was by this time in sight it still took me some 30-40 minutes to reach it, and that as they say was that. After the aforementioned pint and luxury snacks I took a taxi to Cholsey, and then a train to Richmond to finish the day off with around six pints of Abbot Ale at the Cricketers pub on the Green before being collected in the car by Caroline.

Was it worth it? Probably - I have hopefully raised enough money to buy a boat for the sports department at my son's school, St. James Independent School for Senior Boys. The school has been extremely kind to my son and to us his parents and I feel pleased and privileged to have been able to give something back.

Should anybody who hasn't done so already feel my efforts to be worthy of a donation, no matter how small, sponsors can be given at uk.virginmoneygiving.com/PhilipAndrews.

Will I try it again? I doubt it. There could be no excuses for failure this time beyond advancing years and I need to start taking my diabetes seriously. The doctor counselled lots of exercise but I'm not sure this was what he had in mind.

In closing I would like to say a big thank you to those who have sponsored me already, and also to those who encouraged me along the way by following my progress on Twitter and on Facebook.

Here are a few (sadly not very good quality) photos that I took along the way, there are more at the sponsor site above:

Three Months Go West

2011-08-15T21:57:00.000+01:00

Other than a post for the sake of a post towards the end of June it occurs to me that I've not updated this blog now for over three months.

One or two of those few who noticed have asked me why this is. The simple answer is that I have just been too busy - busy trying to earn a living, busy with the kids, busy being busy.

During this short period I have been away once again to my beloved Isle of Wight, staying at the Park Resorts site Thorness Bay with the family. It was the first time in a couple of years that we'd been based at Thorness Bay despite having visited the site once or twice since. More recent trips to the Island have involved stays at Landguard, Rookley Country Park and Gurnard Pines. Whilst I like all of these sites there was a certain "coming home" feeling about spending four nights at Thorness after such a long absence.

I have also undertaken to do a 95-mile sponsored walk between Isleworth and Abingdon along the Thames Path early next month to raise some funds for the sports department at Joe's school, St. James School for Senior Boys in Ashford. St. James has been really kind to Joe, and to us his parents, and I wanted to do something to repay that kindness. For more details of the proposed walk please see my new sponsor site at http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/PhilipAndrews.

If you would like to sponsor me by making a donation, no matter how small, so much the better and many thanks. Please just follow the instructions on the site.

Oh, and on Friday the doctor confirmed to me that I have Type 2 Diabetes. Whether it was knocking 80% of the alcohol on the head, losing nearly two and a half stone, improving my exercise routine or adopting a low-fat vegetarian diet that brought it on I guess I will never know.

On the community front things are relatively quiet. The ICG has circulated a newsletter throughout Syon and Isleworth wards to leave our calling card but the libraries are still open and residents continue to organise over issues of concern such as a proposal to open a Sainsbury's store in South Street, which would be devastating for many local businesses.

More on this, and other things, anon.

No Particular Reason For Posting But...

2011-06-30T23:21:00.000+01:00

...it occurred to me today that I have not made a new post on this blog for the whole of June, and June will be leaving us in about half an hour from now.

Pressures of work, I am afraid, but normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.

I am still around - some will be pleased to hear that, others less so.

Concert for the Japanese Earthquake Relief Fund

2011-05-10T00:49:00.000+01:00

On Wednesday 11th May at 7.30pm, the Sisters of Nazareth are hosting a concert for the Earthquake Relief fund in the chapel at their Hammersmith Convent, 169 Hammersmith Road, W6 8DB.

Works by Tomas Luis de Victoria and J.S Bach are being performed in the chapel by Cantores Missae and Yu Yasuraoka, violin. The chapel is a wonderful performance space, decorated by a follower of William Morris, very seldom accesible except for Sunday Mass.

Tickets are £25 at the door or call 07886 176227

Reproduced with acknowledgements to Councillor Paul Lynch at ChiswickW4.com.

Ich Bin Ein Schotte

2011-05-06T15:20:00.002+01:00

The late President John F. Kennedy once famously declared "Ich bin ein Berliner" as he addressed thousands of Germans by the Wall in West Berlin.

When he meant, of course, was that their struggle for freedom was his struggle too, that their aspirations were his aspirations. Is was an assertion of their common humanity and of the belief they shared in freedom and democracy.

Some of those in the crowd actually found his declaration slightly amusing. It was not that they didn't share his passion for freedom. More the fact that what he had actually said to the assembled throng, literally translated, had been "I am a jelly doughnut".

A "Berliner", you see, was and is actually a term given to a particular German pastry with a jelly filling. What he should have said, apparently, was "Ich bin Berliner", which is how a German-speaker who was actually from Berlin would have put it.

I hope that by proudly reminding the world of my distant Scottish ancestry, albeit only recently discovered, I have not inadvertently revealed myself to be some Caledonian delicacy. I mention it only because of the fierce sense of pride I have in the fact that, in contrast to the inane to-ing and fro-ing between equally discredited political options provided to the English people by the English establishment, the Scots would appear finally to have decided that enough is enough and have given the Scottish National Party (SNP) a clear overall majority in the Scottish Parliament and thereby a platform from which to launch a serious bid for Scottish independence.

Why should I, a resident of English Isleworth, be so enthusiastic about Scottish independence? I'm not, really, except for one thing. As with the AV debate (which it would appear has been lost, for the time being at least), an opportunity has been provided to wake people from their deep slumber, rooted in the belief that nothing will change because nothing can change and that, therefore, nothing should change. It is a deadly and debilitating mentality that allows the establishment to walk all over its subjects, and to lie to them and to deceive them with impunity without so much as a thank you for their tame and frankly embarrassing acquiescence.

The SNP now can, indeed will be expected to, press for the complete independence of Scotland from an English-dominated United Kingdom. English people have nothing to fear from this, and nothing to be defensive about. We should wish our Scottish cousins well, and help them to realise their aspirations in a spirit of goodwill and kind neighbourliness.

In the meantime, for the UK, nothing will quite be the same. Which is a good thing, because the "same" means the same lies, the same deceit, the same spin and the same coming together of squalid vested interests, even where those interests may on the surface of it appear to be antagonistic, just as we witnessed from the "No" campaign during the referendum.

So fundamentally corrupt and wicked is our present establishment that almost anything that shakes it up, knocks it down and generally gives it a good kicking has to be a good thing.

It had never occurred to me that English political life might have been done such a service by the Scottish National Party but politics can be a funny thing, and full of surprises.

Osama bin Laden is Dead

2011-05-02T15:05:00.005+01:00

Of that I am in little doubt.

Inevitably the killing of the al-Qaeda leader by US Navy Seals and his almost instantaneous burial at sea has given rise to speculation that he is not really dead, that the media announcement of his demise was in fact a hoax and that he is really still alive and living in the Afghan mountains.

Personally I do not buy this.

According to Muslim burial requirements bin Laden's body needed to be laid to rest as quickly as possible. To have failed to have done this would not just have shown disrespect to bin Laden's memory but, far more importantly, to the entire Islamic faith.

A burial at sea is only permitted either when death has taken place at sea or when there would have been a significant danger that if buried under land the body would be exhumed or stolen. In bin Laden's case the latter obviously applies.

To announce his death when he was still alive would be an unacceptably high-risk strategy for Western leaders. He would only need to reappear at some later stage and their credibility, and that upon which the whole foundation of the New World Order is built, would be forever in tatters.

If any conspiracy theory has to be considered the only one with any legs is that that has it that bin Laden was already dead. Keeping him "alive" for several years in order to justify an relentlessly aggressive foreign policy does make some sense. As does "killing" him at a time when a war crime, already shielded from the world's news media to some extent by the Royal Wedding, has been committed in Libya by forces of the NWO bent on regime change for political, economic and strategic reasons.

The removal of bin Laden would in such an event serve the twin purpose of deflecting media attention from the Tripoli incident and of enabling the West, as soon as is practical and decent, to begin to close the book on the war with al-Qaeda at a time when Western foreign policy has shifted to the point where our "leaders" are to all intents and purposes making common cause with them in their war against Libya.

On balance I still tend to the view that bin Laden was killed last night, as per the official story. But what a shame it is that our leaders are so deceitful and untrustworthy then whenever something of this import occurs those of us who actually take the time and trouble to think for ourselves instinctively look for the "real" story before accepting the official one?

Conservatives "Sacrificed Ministerial Office for the Sake of Coalition" Says Tory MP

2011-04-25T16:47:00.000+01:00

If there is one singular argument for a change in the voting system it is the arrogance of the politicians from the two major parties and the way in which they all seem to believe that the democratic process belongs exclusively to them.

Take this quote from Mark Pritchard MP, Secretary of the Conservative 1922 Committee:

"With each of them (Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne) presiding over major government departments they've never had it so good.

"Their personal and political sacrifices are infinitesimal compared to those made by hundreds of public sector workers losing their jobs each week and many of my Conservative colleagues who gave up ministerial office for the sake of the coalition".

Excuse me? Precisely which of Mr. Pritchard's Conservative colleagues "gave up ministerial office" to enter into coalition with the Liberal Democrats?

I was rather under the impression that we had a Labour government prior to the general election of 2010, and that the coalition was a necessary outcome of no party having achieved an overall majority at that contest.

This confused belief on the part of a Conservative politician that his party entered into coalition as some kind of favour rather than due to it not having won enough seats in its own right is not entirely unfamiliar to me. The same sense of shock and indignation was evident on the part of some Conservative councillors during the 2006-2010 administration at the London Borough of Hounslow who genuinely couldn't understand why the ICG had been "given" two seats on the Executive.

Reading the local community forums and witnessing the most virulent mouthpieces for the two major parties, usually engaged in exchanging equally useless soundbites and slogans idiot-style, making common cause against a democratisation of "their" political system is a joy to behold.

I could not have made a better case for a "Yes" vote on May 5th.

Blogger Bloggers Beware - Avoiding Random Deletion

2011-04-22T03:53:00.003+01:00

I've just received a call from a friend who, like me, uses the Blogger application to share his thoughts and to keep in contact with the world around him.

At least he did use the Blogger application. Because a few days back, without any warning whatsoever, his blog was deleted by Google, whose product Blogger is, on the grounds that it was allegedly a "spam blog". Despite his appeal for a review (which Blogger claims is conducted by human beings but quite obviously isn't), his content remains deleted and he has been told by a sneering customer "services" oik he will not be getting it back.

I had visited the blog many times before it was removed and can confirm that it was quite manifestly not a spam blog, no more so than this one. Google's robots, it would appear, identify blogs as "spam" quite arbitrarily, and the appeal process as far as as I can tell does not actually exist.

I like the feel of Blogger, its user-friendliness and its extensive range of applications that are easy to follow by a technological zombie like myself. I could probably transfer my work to a Wordpress site, but all the effort that I have put in to publicising this particular website address and building page rank will then have been in vain. For the time being at least I feel that sticking with Blogger is marginally the better of two problematic options.

But this new enthusiasm that Blogger seems to have developed for randomly decimating its own customer base does worry me somewhat. With well over 300 posts on this blog and counting the thought that it could just be switched off for no good reason alarms me.

So for the benefit of other Blogger users, I would like to offer two pieces of advice which they should heed urgently:

1. Always back up your blog. Go to Settings, click Export and save your blog to an .xml file on your hard drive. That way, if your blog is deleted you will have a copy of your material that you can either import to another Blogger blog or transfer to a Wordpress application.

2. Do not use Google AdSense. Including AdSense in your site would seem to trigger the interest of the Google robots and, frankly, for the absolute pittance that you will earn by incorporating AdSense into your blog it really isn't worth the risk.

Follow these two pieces of advice and there really isn't any reason to have any sleepless nights over this.

And enjoy your blogging!

Sleazeballs of the World Unite

2011-04-20T13:28:00.000+01:00

As I previously stated on this blog I haven't thus far allowed myself to get carried away in the debate over Alternative Voting. I cast a "Yes" vote by post and have made a couple of comments in support, but until this morning it was not something that had taken centre stage in my list of priorities.

This morning a document arrived through my letter box that changed that all.

The "No" campaign has brought together the Conservatives and the larger part of the Labour Party who, despite the differences that may appear to exist between them on the surface, have managed to gel seamlessly into a united front for the preservation of their own cosy little carve-up in which the input of the general public into the political process is retained at the scantest level possible whilst still being able to maintain the charade that we live in a democracy.

The no-expense-spared glossy issued by the "No" campaign contrasts markedly with the modest, two-colour A4 sheet issued by the "Yes" group. But the real contrast lies in the depths to which the "No" campaign has been prepared to plunge in order to con the public into voting for the maintenance of their privileged, lazy lifestyles. Thus the contempt that the establishment parties have for the wit and intelligence of the voters upon whose continued support they ostensibly depend in opened up for all to see.

Typically the hook upon which the "No" campaign hangs is money. Not only are establishment politicians themselves obsessed by money, but they assume the general public is also. Pursuing the lie that AV will cost the county £250m to implement, they point out that this amount could provide 2503 doctors, 6297 teachers, 8107 nurses, 35885 hip replacements or 69832 school places.

Putting to one side for the time being the fact that these are annual costs whereas the £250m that is alleged to be the cost of converting to AV - even if it were true, which it isn't - would be a one-off cost, what do really think the chances are that this government will take on all these doctors, nurses or teachers with the money it "saves" from a "No" vote?

Much more likely it will end up in the pockets of the bankers or the non-dom, tax-avoiding fat cats so beloved of the party in power as the rest of us continue to tighten our belts whilst being reassured that "we are all in this together".

One could just as easily ask, of course, just how many teachers and nurses we could be taking on with the money we are wasting prosecuting a dishonest war in Libya, occupying Afghanistan or maintaining a nuclear "deterrent".

Then we are asked to consider the unpopularity of AV and the fact that it is only used in a few countries worldwide, with the inference contained therein that the rest of the world operates First Past The Post.

It doesn't, of course. Much if not most of the world enjoys some form of real proportional representation. But we are debating AV, not PR, precisely because David Cameron was not prepared to have a referendum on anything other than AV and Nick Clegg was, frankly, too weak to call his bluff when the coalition deal was being agreed. Now Clegg is being ridiculed by David Cameron, amongst others, for seeking approval for a voting system that David Cameron foisted upon him! You just couldn't make it up, could you?

But without doubt the most pernicious argument of all appears on the back page of the glossy, under the heading "AV Leads to Broken Promises" alongside a photo of Nick Clegg holding up a placard containing the promises he broke over student fees when he entered into coalition with the Tories. Remember it the Tories, more than anybody else, who are supporting the campaign that has produced and is circulating this glossy leaflet. The Tories are publicly ridiculing Clegg, their own coalition partner, for sacrificing his own credibility in order that they might realise their political objectives.

I dearly hope the general public has the foresight and the intelligence to see beyond the gloss, the spin, and the combined unscrupulousness of the two big vested political interests who have carved up the political process between them in this country and whose self-serving spin machines have for the time being at least come together to try to pull off one gigantic confidence trick against the very people in whose name they purport to govern. But if the self-serving vested interests do succeed, I hope even more dearly that the Lib Dems will take stock of the situation, understand that they have been had, and do something about it very quickly.

There would, after all, be nothing left for them in continuing to support a coalition partner that sets them up and stabs their backs so shamelessly and so publicly whilst pursuing a neo-Thatcherite political programme in government that depends entirely upon Lib Dem support.

This has to be make or break time for Nick Clegg, and I wish him well.

Some Dates For Your Diary

2011-04-16T10:59:00.005+01:00

Two important events will be taking place in Isleworth this summer:

Monday 18th July: 6.30 for 7 p.m

Talk by Christine Diwell - An A-Z of Isleworth at Isleworth Library

Start off with tea/coffee and a 10 minute presentation by Sanda Connolly (an outreach worker for library services), followed by an informative talk by the Secretary of The Isleworth Society.

Saturday 13th August: 11 a.m. from the Library

Guided Walk

Theme - "Following the TV series Filthy Cities, explore Isleworth's own grimy past from the smoke of steam trains to odours of pigsties, a soap factory and Mogden Sewage Works".

A 90 minute walk led by Christine Diwell, ending at the Library for coffee.

£1 entry will be charged.

At a time when Isleworth's community is under threat from all sides it is important that residents turn out to demonstrate their solidarity with local groups such as TIS and the ICG, who are fighting to preserve our local facilities. As both these activities are taking place at or around Isleworth Library it is particularly essential that they are well-supported, and that the right message is sent.

Please put these days in your diary and come along and give our tireless local campaigners the backing they deserve.

The Deed Is Done

2011-04-16T10:44:00.001+01:00

Well, the ballot paper arrived this morning and it has been completed and is in the post. It is official, the "Yes to AV" campaign now has at least one vote.

Anything that shakes up the archaic and self-serving political system in this country has to be a good thing, if only because it will demonstrate to the public that things can be different. There is always another way.

Let's hope the referendum brings about a fairer system of voting but, far more importantly, that the switch will prove to be the harbinger of a real, meaningful shake-up of the seedy Old Boys' Network that is the two-party system in this country.

Councils Cut Back on Free Adult Social Care

2011-04-16T10:36:00.002+01:00

The number of councils in England cutting back on free adult social care has increased by 13% this year, a survey has suggested.

The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services study found just 26 out of 148 councils would fund people in "moderate" or "low" need, down from 41.

The moves follow a sharp reduction in central funding for local authorities.

However, the government said it had recently allocated an extra £2bn a year by 2014-15 for social care services.

TAKING BATH

The survey revealed that 19 local authorities had raised the eligibility bar for free adult social care.

Only 22 councils in England out of the 148 which responded will now fund those assessed as having moderate needs, down from 36 last year.

This category includes people who are so ill or disabled that they have trouble preparing a meal for themselves or taking a bath.

Six councils have now opted to limit help to people in "critical' need, which includes those suffering from life threatening conditions.

Some authorities say the need to save money has left them with no option but to cut one of their biggest areas of spending.

Andrew Harrop, of the charity Age UK, said people could die as a result of the cuts and many more may land up in hospital unnecessarily.

The government has set up an independent commission on social care, which is due to report in July, and will put forward plans in a White Paper by the end of the year.

'MOST VULNERABLE'

Andrew Dilnott, chairman of the commission, said there was no doubt that social care was being squeezed and there was "a growing amount of unmet need".

He said the current system seemed to "invite variability" and "there was merit in trying to find an assessment system... that seems to give people more of a sense that there was fairness and equality across the UK".

But he said regardless of the cuts, the system needed to be reformed.

"The balance between individual responsibility and state responsibility that we have at the moment doesn't seem to be the right one, it's widely seen to be unfair.

"What we found is that many people think it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to make some contribution.

"They just don't want the system that they face at the moment where if they turn out to be one of the least fortunate who ends up needing a very great deal of care, that they lose everything," he said.

A Department of Health spokesman said: "Protecting and improving local social care services is vital, especially for the most vulnerable.

"The coalition government recently allocated extra money - meaning an additional £2bn a year by 2014-15 - to encourage more joined-up working, support the delivery of social care and protect the most vulnerable in society.

"This funding, together with an ambitious programme of efficiency, should enable local authorities to protect people's access to services and deliver new approaches to improve their care."

Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News.

John Baron MP - A Lone Voice of Integrity Amid a Sewer of Deceit

2011-04-15T17:37:00.000+01:00

Fair play to John Baron MP, astonishingly the only one out of 306 Conservative MPs in the House of Commons who understands the difference between imposing a No Fly Zone to protect civilians and bombing a sovereign nation into submission in order to steal its natural resources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13091693

It seems clear to me that Cameron and Hague simply assumed that Parliament, and the United Nations, either wouldn't notice when the terms of the original UN resolution were being flagrantly violated, or would turn a blind eye. But unfortunately for these two utterly deceitful and contemptible excuses for human beings it would appear there are some who care for the rule of law, and for truth.

Anybody who has been involved in politics for any length of time will confirm that the very biggest mistake anyone can make is to believe one's own propaganda. Cameron, Hague and the national media have invested a lot of time and effort into selling the conflict in Libya as being one between an entire, unarmed population that spontaneously rose up against oppression in the selfless, lofty pursuit of some high principle and a universally despised dictatorship that suppresses them by force, shooting and killing them indiscriminately for fun.

The reality of course is that whilst Gaddafi's regime certainly is a ruthless dictatorship in a great many respects it also enjoys the support of a signicant proportion, quite possibly a majority, of its population, particularly in the west of the country.

It looks increasingly likely too that the insurgents, far from being unarmed innocents (with a tank division and an air force), represent in fact an unholy alliance of militant Islamists and Western lackeys who were misled into believing that the nature of Gaddafi's regime and its lack of a conventional army of any consequence left it vulnerable to any sudden attack from within, especially when fortified by Western air power.

In their lust to bring about regime change by deception in a country that was threatening to become just a bit too possessive about its own natural resources Cameron, Hague and Sarkozy misjudged an awful lot of people. They overestimated the capablities of their "rebels", misunderstood the structure of Gaddafi's power base in the west of Libya, and probably assumed too that Barack Obama would be keener than he apparently is to out-macho his chimpoid predecessor.

They seem too to have reckoned without the courage and decency of a solitary backbench MP, whose potential to expose them and their agenda is almost limitless should that be his desire.

I want to see more democracy and improved human rights in Libya, but this can only come about by honest pressure and courageous political engagement. Not by deceit, military bombardment and pillage.

The amusing irony is that as everything that can go wrong does go wrong in their increasingly wobbly North African crusade there is one law that Cameron, Hague and Sarkozy are going to find themselves increasingly compelled to acknowledge, and that is the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Whatever humiliations and repercussions they suffer they will only have themselves to blame.

Direct Action to Save Chiswick Day Centre - Saturday, 16th April

2011-04-15T14:54:00.003+01:00

Hounslow Council is threatening to close the Chiswick Day Centre due to funding cuts. The Centre is a vital local resource providing much needed support and respite care for vulnerable pensioners and the disabled in Chiswick, and the only place in Chiswick to do so.

Come join us for tea, cake and bingo at a peaceful protest pop-up Day Centre, dress code is plucky pensioner granny-chic; sparkly cardies, hair rollers, zimmer frames and bi-focals.

Meet at the War Memorial on the corner of Heathfield Terrace and Chiswick High Road at 10.45am, for a location that will be revealed on the day.

http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/actions/518

Reproduced with acknowledgements to Carrie Richards at the Chiswick W4.com forum.

Write to Your MP to Help Save Our NHS

2011-04-14T12:38:00.004+01:00

Your name, address and email address

Date

Dear MP

There has been a lot said about how the NHS reforms will affect doctors, NHS and PCT staff who no doubt have the best interests of patients at heart, but do have conflicts of interest – their jobs and their roles. I do not have any conflicts of interest. I have only one concern – the standard of healthcare I will receive. The complete dismantling of a system which has served us for over 60 years, leaves me fearful about my future care and with many unanswered questions.

Such fundamental changes require time for consideration with all views being taken into account, especially patients who will be the recipients of the reforms. With ‘consultation’ taking place whilst the Bill is being read and 52 consortia already in place, albeit a pilot, I don’t feel that patients have been involved in decisions about reform and wonder if lip service is being paid to the ‘consultation’.

I hope that you will be able to answer the above questions and the following unanswered questions:-

Where is the evidence base to demonstrate that these reforms will produce a better standard of care for patients? Are patients going to be part of just a huge experiment that may or may not work?
Many of us treated in both primary and secondary care, why are hospital consultants with their expertise not involved with GPs in designing services and how money will be spent?
How can I have the promised greater choice and more involvement in my care when consortia will have already decided from which of the “any willing providers” they will purchase services? Will I be given an informed choice of treatment which, by definition, could be the information that the consortium cannot afford my treatment this year? Will I trust my GP to give me a truly informed choice when they are in control of the financial and administrative running of the NHS?
The stated intention is to overturn the previous emphasis on targets and make quality of care and clinical outcomes the benchmark for setting service standards. Are “benchmarks” just a different term for targets? Who defines the benchmarks and are they set nationally or locally?
Where is the logic in scrapping PCTs when the same work will have to be done by GP consortia while at the same time running their surgeries? Do GPs have these skills or will this management be farmed out to private companies?
Apparently all hospitals have to become Foundation Hospitals, is this irrespective of the standards of care they offer?
Given that the element of price competition between any will providers appears to have been removed, what role does Monitor have?
Where is the accountability? What is the complaints procedure for patients if the level of care is not satisfactory or does not meet standards?

I would like to stop the Bill in its present form and slow down the process so that I can be provided with the evidence and the answers I need. I need “no decision about me without me” to become a reality.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Your name

Conservatives in Coalition Do Their Own Thing

2011-04-14T11:26:00.001+01:00

The Business Secretary Dr. Vince Cable has this morning criticised comments about to be made by the Prime Minister about the overall impact of immigration into the UK. The full story can be found here at BBC News.

There is of course a debate to be had on immigration, however the significance of this disagreement between coalition partners is that it would appear the Prime Minister is doing his own thing, without first having sought any kind of accommodation or common ground with those upon whom he depends for his continued tenure.

As somebody who has been there myself I instinctively recognise all the signs. Coalition begins with a sense of excitement on the part of all concerned, with a tangible and genuine feeling of elation and promise of great things to come. When credit is due it will be due all round, and everybody involved is entirely cool with that.

Then, after a short while, a negative mentality sets in in which the senior partner, being a major party, begins to feel resentful towards the "imposter" upon which it is compelled to depend for its continued presence in office.

Like the Labour Party, the Conservative Party instinctively believes that democracy is a process that belongs essentially to the two main parties, and that small parties and independents, although an integral and necessary part of the democratic process, are really there to maintain the charade rather than to actually wield real power.

By now the Conservative part of the coalition will be looking at its agreement with the Liberal Democrats as something to be got around rather than honoured in spirit as well as in deed. It will be scrutinising the small print to see how it can be interpreted to its own benefit, rather than troubling itself too deeply about what was actually intended when the agreement was drawn up.

The bad news for the Lib Dems is that it will get worse, as the next election approaches not only the terms but even the very existence of the coalition will be in danger of becoming completely forgotten. The Lib Dems will find themselves undermined, with progressively less co-operation from Whitehall and a gradual but sustained increase in political attacks and general mischief emanating from the national media.

And then, when Labour is returned to office with a thumping majority in 2014, the Conservatives will scratch their heads and wonder, honestly, where it all went wrong.

What can the Lib Dems do about it? The answer is really not very much. Lib Dem voters supported their party in the hope that it would be in a position to exercise some power. To decline to do so when the opportunity arises would be seen by many as a betrayal, and carries with it the risk of rendering a vote for the Liberal Democrats singularly pointless.

The option of coalition with Labour after the last general election was never a realistic one. Notwithstanding the fact that it lacked legitimacy, having acquired less votes, the Labour Party is even more sectarian than the Conservative Party and would not have been prepared to give an inch in exchange for Liberal Democrat support. When a similar situation arose locally in 2006 I don't recall having given the prospect of a coalition with Labour a second thought. It was simply assumed by us all that it was a thing that wouldn't and couldn't happen.

When looked at in this way AV begins to make perfect sense. I am hoping that the Liberal Democrats are holding out, buying time, until a different electoral system empowers them to the point where they no longer have to play the part of the poor relation in somebody else's government.

Let's just hope they are not so damaged by that time that they still have the opportunity to explain that to the electorate.

Because if their "partners" have anything to do with it, they will be.

69 Years And Still Waiting

2011-04-06T00:29:00.002+01:00

Belated commiserations to Brentford FC, who gave their all during a spirited second half at Wembley on Sunday at the Johnson's Paint Trophy Final against Carlisle United after having gone a goal down during a disappointing first half.

They did well to get there, and in the event were the width of a goalpost away from extra time.

It was a great experience for my son Joe, my father, my brother-in-law, my nephew and his friend, and my first time at the new stadium.

A big thank you to Vic London and to all at the Isleworth Royal British Legion who organised the double decker bus that got us there and back, and to Di for the bar and barbie beforehand.

It has been 69 years since Brentford last won a cup final. Maybe next time?

Why I'll Be Voting "Yes" to AV

2011-04-05T23:38:00.000+01:00

Next month I will be voting "Yes" in the referendum to change the voting system at British general elections from First Past The Post (FPTP) to Alternative Voting (AV).

I have never been one to get particularly excited about proportional representation. My default view is that when the time has come for change then democracy's natural selection process will eventually see to it that that change happens irrespective of which voting system we have. However slow and stupified they may sometimes appear, the voters tend to make the right decision on the day.

Alternative Voting is not proportional representation, of course. It is a fudge that lies somewhere between PR and FPTP. Essentially it means you can vote for a candidate whom you like but who is unlikely to win in the knowledge that when he or she is inevitably unsuccessful your second preference vote for a more credible candidate will still count for something. In other words you need not vote for a candidate who would not otherwise be your first choice for fear of wasting your vote completely.

From a purely selfish perspective I believe that on balance AV would have benefited ICG candidates at local elections, some might argue unfairly so, and that we probably would have won across the board in both Isleworth and Syon wards had it been in operation locally in 2010 in spite of the general election having been held on the same day. My reason for thinking this is that, whilst the politicos from both of the major parties might themselves prefer the relative safety of one another to the (to them) uncertain radicalism of the ICG, the voters themselves would probably have thought differently. In my view casual Labour voters (as opposed to members) would in most cases have preferred the ICG to their traditional Tory opponents, and likewise Tory voters would in most cases have opted for the ICG ahead of Labour.

In other words in the absence of a straight 50% first preference vote for either Labour or the Conservatives (unlikely in Labour's case and nowt but a pipe dream for the Conservatives), the likelihood is that the ICG's second preference vote tally would have been substantially more powerful than either of theirs.

At the local elections in 2002 and 2006 on the other hand, when we won our seats with very strong majorities in the absence of a "general election factor", AV would almost certainly have made no difference to the outcome.

But all that is by the by. All those elections were fought under FPTP and even the proposed changes would only apply to general elections, at least to begin with. So my interest in the subject now, inasfar as I have any, concerns the effect upon the national body politic of a conversion to an AV system of voting.

The likely consequence of "Yes" vote would be a significant increase in the number of seats held by the Liberal Democrats (under less controversial conditions than presently exist anyway), and an effective normalisation of the currently unusual spectre of coalition government.

Some Labour politicians (although not Ed Miliband) are opposing AV because they feel a "No" vote will weaken the political standing of the Liberal Democrat leadership, who have kissed a lot of butts in order that this referendum might become a reality. A "No" result would make so many of those sacrifices appear to have been in vain. Others are whining about the cost of holding the referendum.

But it is surely wrong to judge an issue as fundamental as electoral reform on consideration of short-term political advantage? And it is certainly not good enough to try to place a price on democracy (and let's face it, money is certainly no object where the crusade to "bring democracy" to the lesser breeds of the Middle East and North Africa via the bomb and bullet are concerned).

A more valid fear is that AV will lead to perpetual coalition in which Labour might be the loser. Anybody who has had dealings with Labour as an organisation will know how politically frigid and unapproachable they tend to be and this leads sometimes to the most improbable coalitions finding themselves lined up against them often almost by default.

Some, most notably the Labour leader Ed Miliband, take the contrary view that Britain has an inbuilt "progressive majority" which would make it much more difficult for the Conservatives to achieve absolute power, a view that may be shared by the Tories themselves if their almost unanimous opposition to AV is to be explained.

One possibly accidental consequence of the AV debate therefore has been to force the Labour camp to consider what is ultimately more important to them - their "progressivism" or their party badge.

I believe Ed Miliband has taken a very intelligent position, probably recognising as a forward-thinking and relatively young man that the shelf-life of the Labour Party, like those of the other traditional parties, is nearing its end and that the product is likely to be replaced sooner or later by something altogether less tribal, less reactionary and more suited to the open society that must be an inevitable consequence of the Internet age.

There will as I see it be a realignment in our body politic with new alliances being formed that will empower the progressive majority but at the expense of the Labour Party in its current insular persona.

Almost anything that shakes up the stale old system and that encourages voters to think outside the box into which it has successfully confined them for so long has to be a good thing. That is why I intend to vote "Yes" on May 5th.

Meanwhile, the Plunder Begins...

2011-04-05T13:47:00.001+01:00

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12969004

Libya : Why a Two-State Solution Offers Civilians the Best Protection

2011-04-05T02:38:00.001+01:00

I do realise that I am probably overdosing on articles about the situation in Libya. It is not, after all, a part of my community and it is upon events affecting my community that I do prefer to concentrate.

Nevertheless as I have said many times before I do feel strongly that honesty in politics is essential if our claim to uphold real democratic values and our expressed concern for protecting the public interest are to be taken at all seriously.

Where the current bombing campaign against Libya is concerned we are being lied to. Pure and simple. Lied to by a government and a national media that depends upon a perceived inherent inability of the British people - stupified by reality TV, soccer and soap operas (panet et circenses for the modern age) - to follow even short and simple sequences of events in a logical manner or to study the underlying causes of them.

It is my belief that the establishment's arrogance is misplaced. A recent poll conducted by the BBC showed that just 38% of British people, from a sample of a little over 2000, actually support this latest military crusade.

Think about that carefully - in the face of almost a month of unrelenting propaganda less than 4 out of every 10 UK citizens actually buy this latest war. The power of the Internet and the ability of its users to access information from all around the world and from literally any source is breaking the power of our lords and masters to exercise complete control.

And complete control, or something at least approaching it, is what the New World Order will need if it is to achieve its objectives without fear of disruption or significant dissent.

This why I truly believe that the fraudulent "democracy" that bases itself on the current two-party or three-party system will crash within the lifetimes of many people reading this blog, but I guess I am digressing somewhat. For the moment let's concentrate on Libya.

A QUESTION OF SOVEREIGNTY

The West has no right to tell the Libyan people whom they must have as leaders and which political system they must have in place in their country.

This notwithstanding it is obvious that a very large body of opinion in that country is opposed to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and to his regime. This is particularly so in the east of the country, where tribal loyalties are not to Gaddafi and his entourage as they are in the west of Libya.

Whilst there would certainly seem to be a significant Al Qaeda element amongst the rebels and whilst it is clear the Islamists are waiting in the wings for their opponents on both sides to fight each other to a standstill, it is equally clear that there is a strong pro-Western element involved too. It is an uneasy alliance, which will probably turn on itself if and when the battle against the Gaddafi loyalists concludes in the rebels' favour.

Misrata excepted, this is self-evidently not the case in the west of the country and no amount of ridiculous nonsense from Western media sources telling us that hundreds of thousands of residents of Tripoli and Sirte wave green flags and dance in the streets under threat of being shot is going to change that. Whether their misrepresentations are deliberate or whether there is a genuine inability amongst Western leaders and their news media to understand that even dictators can be popular amongst their own, it is patently obvious that Gaddafi and his regime enjoys widespread support in large areas of the country, and in particular in the west of Libya.

THE WEST'S DILEMMA

All of this presents the forces of the NWO with a not inconsequential logistical problem. Even if they, with their special services, can arm and train a pitiful but motivated rag-tag army of rebels into a force capable, with the benefit of the air cover that they are already providing, of reversing its current fortunes and advancing to the gates of the capital, just how do they propose to defeat the citizens of Tripoli without the wholesale slaughter of hundreds or even thousands of civilians which would make a mockery of their already unconvincing pretence of involving themselves in this war to "protect civilians"?

Western military leaders will, of course, have worked this out for themselves already. Which is why they are already bombing Tripoli mercilessly on a daily and nightly basis in spite of the fact that the civilians they profess to be protecting are located several hundreds of miles due east. They are not targeting civilians but there will have been accidental civilian casualties as there always are in any war, particularly when the Americans are involved (in the conflict with Serbia, for instance, despite its boasts of "smart" pinpoint technology the US couldn't even manage to direct all its missiles to the right country). The official response has been to tell us that claims of civilian losses "cannot be verified", which of course they can't because the West doesn't have anybody on the ground in Tripoli to count the bodies and it routinely rejects claims of civilian losses by the government, possibly with good reason.

Even if, having artificially reversed the natural order of things from the air, the West then stands back and allows the rebels to sack Tripoli on their own, it will not be able to absolve itself of responsibility for any loss of innocent life.

LIBYA'S OWN TWO-STATE SOLUTION?

This is why I am persuaded, reluctantly, that the best and most bloodless solution must lie in the creation of a two-state Libya, east and west, with an NWO-approved regime in the east of the country with Benghazi as its capital and a regime in the west of the country, whether led by Gaddafi or somebody else, remaining true to the principles of the Third Universal Theory that he devised early into his tenure as leader - if, of course, that is what the citizens there want.

Whilst such a solution has the potential to create a state of permanent tension between the two "Libyas", my view is that fear of attack by the west will lead the east to seek cordial relations with its neighbour, whilst its own fear of attack by the US and its allies would deter any aggression by the western nation towards its neighbour. Some accommodation would have to be reached in respect of the country's natural resources, most particularly oil, but there is plenty enough of it to go round.

WOULD THIS SATISFY THE WEST?

To answer this question one needs first to be clear about the true objectives behind the West's involvement in Libya. I would suggest there is no one single objective, but rather at least four and possibly more:

1. Oil. Obviously. Just as was the case in Iraq, there is a great deal of evidence to be found in events leading up to the attack to suggest that Gaddafi was becoming rather too protective of his own natural resource and choosy about whom he decided to share it with than the West would have liked.

2. China. Whilst it may not enjoy the high profile that the old Cold War with the USSR had a few decades ago, there is a lot of concern over China's growing involvement and influence in Africa. The replacement of Gaddafi's regime with one under the effective ownership of the West would help address this situation.

3. Ideology. Despite widespread dissatisfaction and a well-earned growing distrust of the political system in the West, it is in my view unlikely that the Third Universal Theory would gain much currency in Europe or the USA. However the Western establishment has always been paranoid and may have considered a need to err on the side of caution. Capitalism is in its death throes and state socialism died many years ago. Something has to fill the vacuum.

4. Pride. Within a day or two of the insurgency coming into being Western nations were writing off the man they had re-embraced in 2003 and his regime and were telling him to go whilst going to great lengths to ingratiate themselves with the rebels. Then suddenly it all went belly up, and the West's new friends found themselves staring military defeat in the face. How would that have worked out if the insurgency had been quashed for good? On one side embarrassed Western leaders and on the other a man with an awful lot of oil and the hump.

Would a two state solution address these Western concerns?

First of all a pro-West eastern Libya would, one assumes, be happy to supply oil to Europe and to the US. They may not have access to all of Libya's oil, but they would have access to a lot of it. So I guess this would depend on how greedy the Western leaders in fact are.

Secondly the NWO would at least have expanded its influence to another swathe of North Africa, and diminished that of China at the same time. Again, whether this would be acceptable would depend entirely on whether the West is in a mood to compromise.

Where ideology is concerned, history shows that an idea does not die with its creator. If the West finds itself discredited, at the time or in the future, by the wanton slaughter of thousands of civilians loyal to the government either by means of its own air campaign or through its arming of the rebels then some of that discredit will undoubtedly attach itself to the values held dear by Western governments. Thus a fight to the finish could have the effect of raising awareness of Gaddafi's ideology rather than extinguishing it. Western leaders should think well on this.

Lastly, the West could save face following its early championing of the insurgency by bringing about the creation of a new NWO-friendly eastern Libya. It would give some purpose to its intervention and would certainly have a "freedom" factor for those many Libyans who are at war with Gaddafi's regime.

There is a fifth objective that would undoubtedly be served by the creation of a two-state Libya, of course. That would be to greatly minimise loss of life as a result of this conflict from amongst the civilian population.

The fact that I have thrown this factor into the discussion almost as an afterthought will give the reader some idea as to how much credence I give to the "offical" reason for military intervension - to protect innocent civilians.

Nonetheless if I am wrong, and this was indeed the underlying ethic that inspired Western leaders to attack Gaddafi with the same enthusiasm as they have defended their pet dictators in the Gulf as they suppress their own rebellions with similar violence, then this would be the best argument of all for a two-state solution - that it would protect innocent life in a way that it would not be protected by a Libya either under a continuation of Gaddafi's regime or under a new government led by the rebels.

So here is the question - bearing in mind that the objective of the military campaign is to "protect civilians" and that Western leaders so desire to scrupulously observe a UN resolution which categorically does not provide for regime change from outside, would they be prepared to explore the feasibility of a two-state solution?

And if not, why not?

The Biggest Lie in British Politics

2011-03-31T10:06:00.000+01:00

By Johann Hari

British politics today is dominated by a lie. This lie is making it significantly more likely you will lose your job, your business, or your home. The lie gives a false explanation for how we came to be in this crisis, and prescribes a medicine that will worsen our disease. Yet it is hardly being challenged.

Here’s the lie. We are in a debt crisis. Our national debt is dangerously and historically high. We are being threatened by the international bond markets. The way out is to eradicate our deficit rapidly. Only that will restore “confidence”, and therefore economic growth. Every step of this program is false, and endangers you.

Let’s start with a fact that should be on billboards across the land. As a proportion of GDP, Britain’s national debt has been higher than it is now for 200 of the past 250 years. Read that sentence again. Check it on any graph by any historian. Since 1750, there have only been two brief 30-year periods when our debt has been lower than it is now. If we are “bust” today, as George Osborne has claimed, then we have almost always been bust. We were bust when we pioneered the Industrial Revolution. We were bust when we ruled a quarter of the world. We were bust when we beat the Nazis. We were bust when we built the NHS. Or is it George Osborne’s economics that are bust?

Our debt is not high by historical standards, and it is not high by international standards. For example, Japan’s national debt is three times bigger than ours, and they are still borrowing at good rates.

David Cameron claims that, despite these facts, they need to cut our debt by slashing our spending because the bond markets demand it. If they do not obey, then our national credit rating will be downgraded, and we will have to pay much higher interest on our debt. But here’s the flaw in that plan. That’s not what the bond markets say. Not at all. Professor Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist whose predictions have consistently proved right through this crisis, says Cameron is conjuring up “invisible bond vigilantes” who “don’t exist.” Who is the bond market really punishing? It’s the countries that cut too fast, and so kill their economic growth. The last two nations to be down-graded were Ireland and Spain, who followed Cameron’s script to the letter.

It turns out that cutting our debt rapidly doesn’t cause an increase in “confidence” and so save the economy. Professor Krugman mocks this idea by calling it “The Confidence Fairy,” and goes through the historical record to show she doesn’t exist. Cutting doesn’t create fairy-magic. No: it has a very different effect.

Here’s what we learned during the Great Depression, when our view of economics was revolutionized by John Maynard Keynes. In a recession, private individuals like you and me, perfectly sensibly, cut back our spending. We go out less, we buy less, we save more. This causes a huge fall in private demand, and with it a huge fall in economic activity. If, at the very same time, the government cuts back, then overall demand collapses, and a recession becomes a depression. That’s why the government has to do something counter-intuitive. It has to borrow and spend more, to apply jump-leads to the economy. This prevents economic collapse. Instead of spending a fortune on dealing with mass unemployment and economic break-down, with all the misery that causes, it spends the money on restoring growth. Keynes called it “the paradox of thrift”: when the people spend less, the government has to spend more.

Wherever it has been tried, it has worked. Look at the last Great Depression. The Great Crash of 1929 was followed by a US President, Herbert Hoover, who did everything Cameron demands. He cut spending and paid off the debt. The recession grew and grew. Then Franklin Roosevelt was elected and listened to Keynes. He ramped up spending – and unemployment fell, and the economy swelled. Then in 1936 he started listening to the Cameron debt-shriekers of his day. The result? The economy collapsed again. It was only the gigantic spending of the Second World War that finally ended it.

It is working now. There are enough countries in the world trying enough different economic solutions that we examine them like laboratories. which countries have come out of this recession fastest? They are the ones like South Korea, which have had by far the biggest stimulus packages, paid for with (yes) higher debt. Which countries have fallen furthest and shattered most severely? The ones that tried to pay down their debts immediately with huge cuts.

Indeed, there’s an irony here. It turns out that if all you do is fixate on paying your debt now now now, and so you smother your economic growth, you will end up not being able to pay your debts off anyway. That’s what just happened to our nearest neighbor Ireland, may she rest in peace. And it’s what has happened throughout British history. Professors Victoria Chick and Ann Pettifor conducted a detailed study of the last ten recessions, and they found that consistently “fiscal consolidation increases rather than reduces the level of public debt as a share of GDP.” Think of it this way. It’s as if tomorrow you became so panicked about your mortgage that you decided to pay it all off in one year, by ceasing to buy food and water. You get sick, and your house gets repossessed.

So debt isn’t the problem. Debt is part of the cure. The facts suggest need to spend more, not less, to get the economy back to life – and pay back the debt in the good times, when we will be able to afford it.

I am not a doctrinaire defender of the last Labour government. I think Tony Blair should be in prison, and Gordon Brown will be damned by history for his role in deregulating the banks – the real cause of this crisis. But to claim that this crisis was caused by Labour “racking up debt” is simply false. When the Great Crash hit, Britain had the second-lowest debt in the G7 club of leading economies. To react to a recession by increasing spending, and so keeping the economy afloat, is the only rational response. The real criticism is that they didn’t go anything like far enough, and now Ed Miliband’s Labour Party is now too cowardly to defy the false conventional wisdom and make the case for fiscal stimulus, instead promising merely slower, smarter cuts.

The real reason why David Cameron is imposing these massive cuts has nothing to do with the national debt. It is because he regards himself as, in his words, “the child of Thatcher”, and he wants to pursue her agenda harder and faster than she ever dreamed. He can do the difficult job of selling that to the British people if he wishes – but he should stop doing it on the basis of a swollen, suppurating lie.

For further updates on this issue, you can follow Johann on Twitter at www.twitter.com/johannhari101 and listen to his podcast here.

New World Order Prepares to Protect Sirte Residents From Themselves

2011-03-27T13:26:00.002+01:00

It would appear that the Libyan "rebels", actively assisted by Western air power, have retaken the towns of Ajdabiya, Uqayla and Brega from Libyan government forces.

Obviously it is always difficult to decipher through propaganda and counter-propaganda quite what the situation is, but it seems likely that the Western-backed insurgents do enjoy some popular support, quite possibly majority support, in these particular towns.

According to the BBC the triumphant anti-government forces now intend to advance on Sirte.

Sirte is, without any shadow of a doubt, a town in which almost all if not all of the civilian population are loyal to the government. This fact is even acknowledged by the Western media.

In effect then the next job on the list for the insurgents and the coalition air forces, whose role seems to have morphed seamlessly from one of "protecting civilians" into one of pro-actively softening up targets before they are attacked by "rebels", will be to "liberate" a town the civilian population of which has no desire to be "liberated".

Assuming the people of Sirte hold their nerve, what this means in practice is that the coalition air forces will need to attack and batter the civilian population of the town to such an extent that it weakens their capacity or their determination to fight off the insurgents who will, the moment is right, subsequently invade.

Which really does give the concept of "protecting civilians" a whole new meaning, doesn't it?

In order to prepare Western opinion for this, expect lurid "discoveries" of mass rape, pillage and baby-eating by Gaddafi supporters, civilian as well as military, over the next few days.

And expect the usual suspects to lap it up gratefully as they do every single time.

However, the encouraging news is that a recent poll showed 46% of the British people to be opposed to military action in Libya, against a smaller percentage in favour. This is in the face of the barrage of pro-war propaganda to which they are unrelentingly subjected by politicians of all the major parties and the national media.

What a blessing the Internet, which enables people to access information from all sources and reduces dependence upon official media, allowing thinking people to make their own minds up, has turned out to be.

Thinking the Unthinkable

2011-03-24T23:25:00.003Z

I am watching Ken Livingstone on Question Time as I type. The debate is still going on but he was right on the money on Libya and he was also impressive on the general direction of the present government.

I have to admit that I have begun to think the unthinkable, at least in respect of the upcoming London Mayoral election. Whether or not the Libyan campaign is over by then there will be others and having an anti-war voice in such a prominent position during the 2012 Olympics in particular could be immensely beneficial. Indeed it could well save many innocent lives.

If anybody thinks I am wrong, please use the Comments section below to tell me why.

US Struggles to Explain Difference Between Bahrain, Libya

2011-03-22T00:52:00.005Z

Mullen's Surprisingly Honest Answer: Bahrain a Long-Standing Ally

by Jason Ditz

The Obama Administration’s rush to escalate Libya into a full-scale war, nominally as a reaction to the Gadhafi government’s violence against protesters, has put it in an awkward position. The violence was far from exclusive to Libya, and similar crackdowns are growing all the time in Yemen and particularly Bahrain.

Which leads to the inevitable question: how can the Obama Administration use Gadhafi’s crackdown on Libyan protesters as an excuse for war, while insisting Bahrain not only has the right to do the same, but has the “sovereign right” to invite Saudi Arabia et al. to join in on the fun?

It is a question that was raised on a number of stages over the weekend and tackled by a number of top officials, particularly Sen. John Kerry (D – MA), who insisted that Iran and Hezbollah were secretly to blame for the protests.

The most honest answer, however, came from Admiral Michael Mullen, who insisted that Bahrain “has been a critical ally for decades” but Libya hasn’t, and that in and of itself justified treating it as a totally different matter.

Bahrain’s opposition, for its part, has been urging the UN and the Obama Administration to put a stop to the crackdown. No one seriously expects this to actually happen, but other than Admiral Mullen’s unusual candor, no one seems willing to explain why.

Reproduced with acknowledgements to AntiWar.com.

The Blood of Our Heroes is On Their Hands

2011-03-19T12:30:00.006Z

Good news, the deficit has been cleared!

How else - at a time when our libraries are closing, our public services are being cut to the core and we are all being asked to tighten our belts - can we suddenly afford yet another military adventure in an oil-rich country under the guise of a "humanitarian" act? Last time it was non-existent WMDs, now we have a new concept - the ceasefire that only applies to one side!

That's right, the UN resolution on Libya forbids government forces from engaging civilians, but makes no reference to aggressive acts by anti-government forces (whom we keep being told are unarmed but who nonetheless initially succeeded in occupying half the country within the space of a few days and who now seem to have tanks and an air force).

This means in practice that opponents of the regime are free to attack government forces with impunity but if those government forces defend themselves against attack by the "rebels" - who are civilians - then they are in breach of the UN resolution and will provide an instant excuse for the US and its clients to intervene and force regime change in yet another sovereign state.

Is there anyone left anywhere in this country who is still mug enough to buy this crap?

We may have a different Prime Minister, from a different party, but the forces whose role it is to direct a deeply sinister and secretive international strategy would appear to remain in place.

The blood of every heroic British serviceman and woman who loses their life for the government under the false flag of "democracy" is on their hands.

From time to time I am asked why I never joined any of the British establishment's politicial parties. I'm sorry, but I need to be able to sleep at night.

Opinion: Liberals Shouldn't be Scared of Murdoch

2011-03-07T19:22:00.002Z

By Matthew Green

Trying to stop Murdoch from consolidating his hold on BSkyB was always going to be difficult. That is mainly because the case for stopping him was rather weak in the terms that governments are allowed to intervene in such matters. Murdoch already has practical control; he does not dominate the total television market, with the BBC and ITV still strong. The case rested on the proposition that he would further dominate the news market as a whole. But what really drove the campaign against Murdoch was fear and loathing. Liberals should have no difficulty with the loathing side of this, against the organisation that created Fox News, but this does not constitute grounds for intervention.

The fact is that Murdoch does not have a monopoly of hateful rightwing propaganda in the UK. He’s in stiff competition with the Mail, the Express and the Telegraph. And he does not have a monopoly on dodgy journalism, where the Mirror joins the list. It is these organisations that should fear him, and they were a strong part of the campaign to stop his takeover of BSkyB. Liberals can be much more sanguine: he’s not really after our part of the market.

But we do have to swallow a hard fact. An awful lot of people in our country will pay good money to read right-wing rubbish. Murdoch is exploiting this fact, not creating it. Promoting liberal values is about making stronger arguments. Press regulation needs to be firm; we must protect the independence of the BBC. Who owns BSkyB is a pretty secondary issue.

Reproduced with acknowledgements to Liberal Democrat Voice

Lib Dem Urges RBS and Lloyds Shares Giveaway

2011-03-07T10:23:00.001Z

By Andrew Bryson

Senior Liberal Democrats want the government to give away billions of pounds of its shares in Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group to the general public.

The radical idea would see most of its stake in the banks shared between 46 million adults on the electoral roll.

A floor would be set so the shares could not be sold until they had passed the price paid by the government.

Individuals would only keep any gains made above that floor price.

The government spent £65.8bn buying shares in the banking giants.

It owns 83% of RBS and 41% of Lloyds.

The idea is set out by Stephen Williams, Liberal Democrat MP for Bristol West, in a pamphlet for the think tank Centre Forum.

He said: "There is a danger that when the banks return to the private sector, it is business as usual. There is a general feeling in this country that we need to get something positive in return for the bail-out.

"This plan would recoup the public's investment and allow the taxpayer to get the benefit from any increased value in the banks."

Under the proposal, shares would be deposited in individual trading accounts.

Mr Williams told the BBC how he saw the plan working: "Every citizen would have the same rights as shareholders at the moment, so they'd have the rights to get the company annual report. They could turn up at the AGM.

"What might happen, for instance, is there could be shareholder associations set up of citizens who own these shares, who will put pressure on the banks to change their behaviour. Banks and all other companies are meant to be owned by their shareholders and to respond to their shareholders' wishes."

Popular appeal

At current prices, every adult would receive shares worth just under £1,000.

Each account would be set up with a default option to sell the shares over two or three years, although individuals could opt to hold the shares for longer.

The idea may have popular appeal - but it was not conceived by politicians.

The city firm Portman Capital devised the model for the Liberal Democrats as a way round some of the problems the government could face in a traditional share sale.

Privatisations in the 1980s saw shares offered at a big discount.

That tempted institutional investors to buy in, but led to criticism the government was "selling the family silver" off too cheaply.

In 2008 and 2009 the government injected approximately £45.5bn into RBS by buying shares, and £20.3bn into Halifax Bank of Scotland, which was taken over by Lloyds.

Stagger

UK Financial Investments, which manages the public's stakes in the banks, is currently expected to sell them through conventional means.

That is likely to include placing the shares with pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, as well as offering them to retail investors.

UKFI is likely to have to stagger the sale of the shares over a number of years in order to get the best price so that the market has time to absorb the huge amount of shares on offer.

The shares are currently trading a few pence below the government's "break even price" of 51p for RBS shares, and 74p for Lloyds.

Toby Fenwick from Portman Capital says the shares suffer from an "overhang" - a situation where the market knows a lot of shares are likely to be sold and consequently depresses the share price.

"Under the current scenario there is one seller with a very big stake to unload and the market knows its break-even price," he said.

"A share distribution would create a new scenario with tens of millions of sellers each with a small stake and no incentive to sell below the 'floor'."

The idea is backed by Mr Williams and Lord Dick Newby, the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman in the House of Lords.

It is not official Liberal Democrat policy, although the party's ministers are understood to be sympathetic to exploring whether the idea would work.

A source close to Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said: "No decision has been taken about how or when this issue is going to be dealt with. But this is a welcome contribution to the debate."

Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News

One Down, Three To Go

2011-03-05T14:00:00.004Z

I watched the webcast of the all-important meeting of Borough Council on Tuesday night, where the annual budget for the London Borough of Hounslow for the financial year 2011/12 was set.

Actually I watched most of the meeting. Having planned to watch the whole thing I initially forgot about it, perhaps betraying my declining interest in some of these things, and tuned in at about 8.15. My guess is that the substantive debate would have begun about fifteen minutes or so before that time.

My first sense was one of amusement not only at how seamlessly the poachers had apparently morphed into the gamekeepers, but at how equally untroubled the former gamekeepers seemed to be in playing the role of poachers.

During the Conservative/ICG administration of 2006-2010 (the last eighteen months or so of which could more accurately have been described as the Conservative/Chief Officer administration due to the fact that unelected employees were quite shamefully permitted to engage in open warfare with the junior partner in the coalition) the Labour opposition criticised the administration for making cuts to services, and the administration would defend its savings on the grounds of necessity. Now the roles were reversed, and the Conservative opposition lobbied passionately for the retention of essential frontline services such as the Chiswick Day Centre whilst the Labour leadership flitted between making light of the closure of such facilities for the vulnerable and blaming the government for making them do it.

Some of the faces were familiar. Councillor Adrian Lee, now Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group, can be relied upon to amuse and entertain whilst delivering his damning verdict about the shortcomings of "the party opposite". Councillor Gerald McGregor always does angry and indignant very well. Some references to the shameful closure of John Aird House in Brentford during the previous Labour administration of 2002-2006 had Labour reeling for a while, and the Deputy Leader of the Council Ruth Cadbury made a brave but wholly unconvincing defence of this particularly callous decision. For all their protestations about being there for the poor and needy the record in Hounslow shows quite clearly that said poor and needy are more likely to be picked off by a Labour administration that takes advantage of their vulnerability and relative defencelessness than by any other.

But I also sensed that not only had Labour regrouped and taken back "control" of the local authority, but also that the Group had much more about it than it had during its days in opposition. It had more professionalism, more competence, and exuded more of an authority than it had done during those (for them) lean and chaotic times.

More than this, to me it exuded more of a sense of responsibility. It was visibly less arrogant than it had been during those bad old days, when it had seemed to preen itself with its belief that it was in opposition solely because the electorate had lacked the sophistication, wit and intelligence to recognise the party's higher being and its general wonderfulness.

The Mayor handled the meeting very well, and fairly too, giving the opposition every chance to engage. The Leader of the Council, Jagdish Sharma, is always gentlemanly and magnanimous in his delivery. As I have said elsewhere, I was particularly impressed by Isleworth ward councillor Ed Mayne, whose frequent contributions were made with a confidence and coolness that belied his age and inexperience as he accepted and generally fended off the challenge from some quite senior Conservatives. I don't know if it sounds perverse of me to say this in the light of the fact that he won one of "our" seats in Isleworth, but I felt a strange sense of pride in the fact that an Isleworth councillor was performing so well. It is my view that Ed may well be leading the Labour Group in the not too distant future, that is if he doesn't go onto higher things before he gets the opportunity.

Comfortable in Opposition

My endearing memory though is of how comfortable, some would say natural, the Conservatives looked in opposition. They are invariably a good opposition, always challenging and probing, some of them making their case with eloquence and finesse. I have been taken to task for saying it before but I repeat my belief that many of them would appear happier being the minority party on a council comprising only "proper" councillors than they were when having to share power with a group of interlopers from the community who had dared to gatecrash the cosy set-up that had existed before the ICG kicked its way onto the scene. In this outlook they and Labour actually have a lot in common.

In a strictly local context the Labour councillors seem to understand already that the secret to their continued success lies in engaging and trying to win around the hardcore active community that abandoned their predecessors for the ICG, not without good reason I should add, in most cases probably a decade or so ago. Meanwhile said predecessors continue to try to undermine their efforts via the local internet forums, betraying a bitterness towards Labour's new kids on the block that almost equals their bitterness towards us.

These are interesting times. I don't envy the task of the current administration as it looks to find the £42m that it still needs to chop from the budget over the next three years in order to meet the shortfall from central government funding.

Far from being the irritant that some of our politicians would seem to consider it, the community has a more important role than ever to play in ensuring that the administration resists the temptation to look to our libraries and community facilities for some of that saving. If our new crop of politicians want to work with us, rather than against us, in that endeavour then the imperative for us to want to take their seats and do the job ourselves diminishes.

No Representation in Lieu of the People?

2011-03-03T02:09:00.006Z

Despite my relative lack of interest in national and international politics these days I do find myself pondering the current troubles in Libya.

As a leading National Front activist in the late 1980s I was an avid admirer of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi (or "Qathafi" as my erstwhile comrades and I liked to spell it at the time, lending us a sense of affected superiority). Where there was a suggestion that his regime was anything short of perfect, for instance his arming of terrorists, I simply ignored the evidence. In that way I was able to able to maintain a rose-tinted picture of revolutionary perfection throughout. So ghettoised and unpopular was the NF at the time that it considered Gaddafi and the Ayatollah Khomeini to be desirable sources of political respectability!

Those who find comfort in the traditional view of extreme nationalism in the UK as being motivated only by race hate and driven by a political worldview which sits conveniently to the right of the most hardline Conservatives on the "political spectrum" would be confused by this infatuation with a Libyan revolutionary who includes the word "Socialist" in the title of his "State Of The Masses".

But in fact Gaddafi and his Green Book was one of the many ideological affectations embraced by the very eccentric version of the NF of which I was a member circa 1987-1989, and of all those in the party I was probably at the time his most devoted enthusiast.

So I occasionally have to remind myself that my view of the world has altered radically since those bad old days if I am to take an objective view of the events of the last few weeks over in the "Splaj".

The essence of Gaddafi's ideology is that he believes power to lie with the masses and not with centralised government, and that those who speak for those masses do so as delegates rather than as representatives. No Representation in Lieu of the People is a slogan than reoccurs throughout his seminal work.

I have to admit that I retain a great deal of sympathy for this as an ideal. Nonetheless it would seem to be the case that the practice has deviated from the principle rather a lot, and much though Gaddafi would have us (and himself) believe that he is a mere symbol of the Green Revolution and that he wields no executive power of his own, the actuality is almost certainly entirely different. The replacement of most of his conventional army with an "armed people" may avoid giving off an appearance of a military dictatorship but one suspects that, as on Animal Farm, some of the guardians of the Revolution are in fact more equal that others.

All the same it is quite alarming to listen to the news in the UK and to realise just how little the commentators at the BBC and Sky actually understand, or affect to understand, about Libya.

We are told that the army has gone over to the protestors, with the implication that this must inevitably spell doom for the Gaddafi regime. But rarely is there any hint of an understanding of what little importance the men in uniform actually have in a country in which everybody is armed and where power comes through committees of civilians.

We are told that nobody is supporting the government, and yet it would appear not only to be holding the capital but also launching counter-attacks against cities that have fallen into the hands of anti-government forces, albeit today's attempt to retake Brega transpired to be something of a damp squib.

We are told that the strength of the rebels in Benghazi makes a final and decisive incursion into Tripoli an inevitability, rather ignoring the inconvenient fact that the two cities are several hundred miles apart with a desert in-between and that the rebels have no transport.

We are told that the Libyan government has launched air strikes against its own people, a truly despicable thing to do if it is true. The Libyan government insists it is not true, as of course it would, but the Russians who have been monitoring the situation by satellite are saying the same thing.

The real difficulty that arises when trying to understand what is going on in Libya is that nobody seems to be telling us the truth. Gaddafi, absurdly, has tried to suggest that Al-Qaeda is behind the uprising when a cursory glance at the demonstrators will tell any observer that these protests are not the product of an upsurge of Islamism. Quite the opposite in fact - the hand of the United States and its Western allies suggests itself, which would explain the rather peculiar demand that Gaddafi should stand down after having been partially successful in resisting uprisings of a kind that brought down the leadership in both Tunisia and Egypt. It is the cry of an outside party that has seriously botched its attempt to overthrow a sovereign state and wants to destroy the evidence as quickly as it can.

One considers, but not for too long, whether David Cameron and his government would resign and hand over power to the students should they ever decide to replace fire extinguishers with guns, and single-issue protest with revolutionary intent. We all know that in such an event the response of our government - like that of the Libyan government or indeed any other government when faced with the same situation - would be to suppress the uprising ultimately by using any means necessary.

Of course, whatever lies behind the upheaval the people fighting on the streets of Libya against the regime are not Americans and they are not Israelis. The sincere aspirations of the Libyan protestors would appear to be freedom and democracy and if, perhaps a little arrogantly, we are to assume that our version of democracy is entirely good and that Gaddafi's is entirely bad, we should see this as a positive. But a US-sponsored revolution would, given the choice, replace the current regime with something that was more US- and Israel-friendly, which in turn would provide massive political ammunition to the Islamists who wait in the wings.

Whichever way one looks at it, it is not pretty. As I see it there are three possible outcomes for the immediate future:

1. A bloodbath as pro-government forces use their superior firepower and strategic advantage to reassert control.

2. A "two nation" solution, at least in the short term, with the government remaining in control of a smaller Libya governed from Tripoli and the rebels governing themselves independently from Benghazi, possibly under the protection of the UN, the US and/or the Arab League, or

3. Military intervention by the US and its allies to finish the job they began without (incredibly) any proper knowledge of how Libya operates, resulting in illegal regime change openly imposed by invading powers a la Iraq.

Whichever it is to be, I truly hope that it can be done with quickly and with as little innocent blood shed as is humanly possible.

Despite All, Our Community Is Stronger Than Ever

2011-02-26T14:24:00.005Z

Despite having returned to rainy England some fourteen days ago, this is my first new post on this blog.

There have been two reasons for this. The first was the simple imperative to prioritise the need to make a living. Work that earns me money and enables the family to keep afloat must at most times take priority over what is in effect a labour of love.

The second is that what has been by far the most significant event since I returned was the hugely successful residents' march to Save Our Libraries and Public Hall which took place last Saturday.


Christine Diwell of The Isleworth Society and ICG Chair Ian Speed celebrate the opening of the new leisure centre and library with a symbolic cutting of a green ribbon. Despite millions having been spent on the refurbishment of the facility, Hounslow Council was considering it for closure just a few weeks after its official opening. ______________________________________________________________

In the build-up to the march I have to say that I wanted to post, but didn't have the courage. Despite past experience teaching me that Isleworth people come out with a vengeance when called out onto the streets in support of a good local cause there was always a nagging fear that something would go wrong. Inclement weather, a whispering campaign by the local Labour Old Guard spreading the false news that the libraries were safe, combined with some uncertainty as to whether the spirit of the active local community had been broken following last year's election to leave me wondering whether the whole thing would be a washout. There is only so much humble pie that one can eat without being sick, and cowardice got the better of valour. So I kept away from the blog.

In the event it seems I had nothing to fear. The weather was lousy, absolutely rotten, and yet over 300 people (some suggested as many as 500) came out to demonstrate their opposition to the cuts. Brentford and Isleworth MP Mary Macleod joined our demonstration, as did Isleworth ward councillors Mindu Bains, Ed Mayne and Sue Sampson. The event received an excellent write-up in the Hounslow Chronicle as well as a mention in the London Evening Standard. Nobody was left in any doubt whatsoever as to the opposition that will come from Isleworth should any suggestion of closing or curtailing our community facilities in Isleworth be revisited by this council administration or by any other.

ICG leader Ian Speed with Mary Macleod MP and the three Isleworth
ward councillors at the head of the column ______________________________________________________________

As I've said before I sympathise with the local authority in its current predicament. I know from personal experience that its task of having to find £18 million in savings this year and next year, and £12 million in each of the subsequent two years, will be nigh on impossible without having to make some cuts to frontline services. Especially in the light of the fact that the previous administration, of which I was a part, took out much of the fat from the bureaucracy which the current administration could have done itself as part of its savings programme had it still been there.

Nonetheless I believe that whatever pain we must take we must never, ever be prepared to attack the core of our community life. Once libraries, public halls and community buildings close they will be closed forever.

I also reiterate my belief that Labour administrations tend by nature to be less well disposed towards organised communities than to dependent communities. All else being equal they would prefer to spend what little resources they have on those whom they believe need them rather than those whose aspirations for our community may diverge a little from their own.

But at least they are listening. I was massively inspired and reassured by the fact that the councillors came along and spoke to concerned locals, and I believe they quite rightly earned a lot of respect for doing so. The idea of the previous Labour councillors back in the 1990s and prior to 2002 attending any activity organised by the community, let alone one organised by the ICG itself, would have been simply unthinkable.

Things have changed. And just possibly we have achieved at least some of our objectives in spite of our reverse last May.

Can You Hear Me Major Tom?

2011-02-10T21:35:00.000Z

Major Tom, you may recall, was the astronaut who featured in David Bowie's classic Space Oddity.

Whether through accident or choice (it wasn't entirely clear in the song) he became disconnected from Planet Earth and drifted hopelessly away into space, never to be seen or heard again.

I felt a little bit like that earlier this week. Having arrived in Portugal for my annual working holiday my mobile telephone, which Virgin had promised me had been set to roaming, hadn't been set to roaming. True, my business 'phone did have roaming enabled, but as I only use it for incoming calls it had no credit.

The booster package that I'd purchased for £40 from T-Mobile to provide me with mobile broadband for 30 days with "normal usage" expired after two days, meaning that either T-Mobile or I have a strange idea of what constitutes normal usage.

It took an age before it occurred to me that I could use the telephone in my apartment to call home. Psychologically I had for some odd reason convinced myself that it would cost millions of pounds to use, when in actual fact it is only a few pence dearer than using the mobile.

For the most part I have been communicating with my family through Facebook chat. I have also been placing myself under far too much pressure than is healthy, having assumed that with a week to myself it would have been easy to get so much done, only to realise (for the second year running) that there is only so much one can do even in a week.

As it happens I spent the first few days looking and feeling busy but in actual fact doing very little of real value and then, having subsequently got most of the urgent stuff out of the way, decided to live a little. As I am writing this I am by the pool, enjoying the last hour or two of sun on my penultimate whole day. In a little over 48 hours I'll be stepping onto the transfer bus to take me back to Faro.

Contrary to what certain people would have others believe I do not own a "holiday home". Indeed unlike most of those who like to peddle these stories I don't own any home at all. What I have is a timeshare, for which I pay over £600 each year to enjoy a holiday that, due to the financial climate, non-owners can purchase for not much more than £100.

But as the saying goes, I'm not bitter. I really do love it here at the Clube Praia da Oura, doing my thing during the day and wandering off to Amanda's Bar in the evening. I feel terribly selfish with my family being at home (our timeshare week is not compatible with the school holiday timetable) but I'm hoping that in a few years, when the kids are grown, Caroline and I will be able to enjoy it.

As for myself, whilst I enjoy my holidays very much and look forward to them with an impatience that is difficult to contain I do like the familiarity of returning to a place I know and seeing people I recognise, even I do not know them much at all. It is quite difficult for me to describe the inner emotions I experience when I return to certain places that I have been away from for a while.

My next challenge upon returning is to make sure I have enough in the kitty to return with my family in December, when we are "owed" a week. Boa noite.

This consultation is meaningless

2011-01-16T03:58:00.011Z

The following letter was sent to the Hounslow Chronicle last week by Isleworth-based community activist David Pavett, of the campaign group Campion Concerns. Whilst the views contained in the letter are entirely those of the author, I believe they raise some interesting issues and are worthy of wider circulation.

THE budget consultation document on which residents have been asked to comment is a new low point for Hounslow's local democracy.

It reduces the political process to the sum of (mainly) uninformed opinions. And the latter is, of course, difficult to distinguish from straightforward prejudice.

We are asked to comment on such things as the working conditions of council workers, whether particular teaching posts should be cut, and the Civic Centre's management of its fuel consumption. No background information is provided. On what basis are we supposed to decide?

Worst of all, in my view, is that buried in the consultation is a threat to area committees. These are the one point at which residents get a chance to engage with the political process and where members are able to investigate proposals of direct interest to their area.

This is the opposite of serious politics. It suggests that Hounslow Labour has no vision to offer. This explains its lack of a clear programme. That in turn reflects the alarming lack of political awareness of the average councillor. The sad fact is that most councillors have no more idea about the complex issues in the budget consultation than the average resident.

The point of the party political system is that different parties represent different political philosophies and offer different programmes for dealing with social problems and for giving guidance on new directions for society.

The parties should explain the principles on which they base their reasoning on detailed matters. In Hounslow the Labour and Conservative parties are very far from doing this.

This is political leadership in the form of a headless chicken. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives offer a clear programme to residents. Neither make clear anywhere in detail the basis on which they make their decisions. Neither has the habit of making the rationale for its decisions publicly available. Some individual councillors, of both parties, do their best to represent residents but they do so in a political vacuum. The political parties should explain their approach and their programmes in detail to the electorate. They could start by providing websites with this information. It speaks volumes that they have not yet done so.

DAVID PAVETT
Thornbury Road
Isleworth

Those were the days

2010-12-31T10:21:00.007Z

As the final hours of 2010 tick away and we prepare ourselves for an evening of merriment, followed just a few hours later by the cold realisation that we have entered another uncertain year, I am chilled by the knowledge that something truly terrible is about to happen.

Something about which no new administration at the council, coalition government nor even Santa can do anything. Something more terrible than the rising National Debt, student fees or the prospect of Boney M topping the first New Year chart on a wave of sympathy.

On a certain fateful day during the latter part of this coming year, 2011, I will be fifty.

That is 5-0 folks. Half a century.

I often find myself reflecting rather too deeply upon these things. Fifty years before I was born the First World War, let alone the Second, had not yet even begun. We had still to commemorate the centenary of the Battle of Waterloo. Winston Churchill, at 36, was little more than a lad. The Russian Revolution was six years away, the March On Rome - which was to set in motion a train of events culminating in the horrors of World War Two - eleven.

Even the day when I was born seems such an eternity away. Churchill was still alive. The Beatles had just been formed but nobody had yet heard of them. Her Maj had been on the throne for less than a decade. Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister. England had yet to win the World Cup. Most of McFly's parents had probably not even been born.

I used to tell my kids that until I was about ten the whole world was in black in white. They still don't believe me when I tell them that we had only three television channels to choose from and that it all finished at about 10.30 at night with the playing of the National Anthem followed by a white noise and a fading spot of light in the centre of the screen.

I cuss when the disco boy arrives on my estate at three o'clock in the morning, car windows wound down in the height of winter so as to enable the entire neighbourhood to share in the delights of his repetitive, crappy "music". Then I find myself wondering whether I have started to become my father, who used to come up to my room and shout at me whenever I played my Slade, Sweet or that bloke whose name we're no longer allowed to mention at a volume that he considered excessive.

For many years I've told myself that I'll see the world, get some security and a decent roof over our heads, things that normal people think about doing when they are in their twenties. Sadly when I was at that age I was clowning around involving myself in extremist politics, which even when I had renounced it led in turn to a "career" in community activism which, whilst entirely fulfilling, has kept me and my family in poverty in a way to which even my very closest friends appear utterly oblivious.

I don't feel fifty. Twenty years or so ago I would walk over to the gym at Isleworth Recreation Centre and would feel really freaked out when I saw men in their forties and fifties working out on the weights. One of the guys whom I used to feel this way about is still at it, in his mid-seventies. I don't know whether people are just staying young for longer, or whether my view of what constitutes an "old" person has changed instinctively as I head relentlessly towards becoming one myself.

Some people try to reassure me that 50 is but a number. Most of them, being over that age themselves, could be said to have a vested interest in believing that. But I find myself looking at some of them and thinking, well, he or she may be 51 or 52 but now I think of it they don't look that old.

But then maybe a person of 100 won't look that old when I am 99? In the extremely unlikely event...

I probably spend too much time thinking about these things. But what is inescapable is the fact that time "accelerates" the older one becomes. When I was fifteen I would think back to things that happened when I was fourteen that seemed to belong to some blissful, bygone age. Now whole decades seem to pass by in the blinking of an eye.

If you are a youngster and you are reading this, please take my advice and use your time wisely. Get some security behind you and then, if you like, set the world to rights. If only because you will then be in a stronger position to do so.

If however you are an old-timer like myself then you'll have all the time in the world to read blogs, write your memoirs and plan out your career.

If, like me, you've ever wondered why 17-year-olds with their first car whizz around fearlessly like there is no tomorrow whilst old people at the wheel trundle nervously along the middle of the road like they have all the time in the world you will appreciate the paradox that is modern life.

Happy New Year.

Charity chief warns cuts could 'kill off' Big Society

2010-12-31T01:36:00.004Z

Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News

A leading charity figure has warned David Cameron that the pace of cuts could "kill off" the groups he needs to build his "Big Society".

Community Links co-founder David Robinson was invited to Downing St in May to discuss the social policy idea.

But in an open letter he urged the PM to "allow us to draw breath" and phase in plans to remove Legal Aid funding.

The government said charities could not be immune from cuts but it aimed to open up new funding sources.

Mr Cameron has championed the concept of the "Big Society", which encourages greater personal and family responsibility and community activism.

Community Links, an east London-based charity which provides welfare services, such as housing and debt advice, employment support and youth clubs, was praised by Mr Cameron as an "inspiring" organisation.

Mr Robinson was among charity representatives invited to Downing Street to discuss it with the PM and Deputy PM Nick Clegg after the general election.

In his letter, he said he admired the prime minister's "big hearted vision" and respected his "clear sighted perseverance" in pursuing it.

But he said he was worried about the impact of spending cuts and that organisations like his, which should be the "bedrock of the Big Society", were "wobbling".

Legal Aid

Mr Robinson drew particular attention to changes to Legal Aid and the New Deal which, he said, put most of Community Links' budget for 2011-12 at risk.

With big changes to the welfare system due to come in, he said the government had acknowledged there would be initial confusion - and expected agencies like his to provide support.

"Removing legal aid funding for advice on welfare benefits will wipe out agencies who would otherwise resolve these problems and there is next to no chance of local councils picking up the tab when most are stopping funding, not increasing it," he said.

He said many of the disadvantaged - particularly the elderly - would instead struggle on until they reached crisis point - illness or eviction.

Warning against a "barrage of uncoordinated cuts that hit the poorest hardest" he urged the PM to phase in planned cuts and do a "serious and urgent impact assessment", giving groups more time to adjust. He proposed allowing Legal Aid to support groups giving advice until welfare reforms were "bedded down".

"Allow us to draw breath or you will kill off the agencies you need to build the society you seek," he said.

"You've staked your political future on the prospect of a stronger, more compassionate society. Don't let your own government's policies undermine it."

'Appalling financial mess'

Plans for a Big Society Bank were announced by the prime minister in July. The independent organisation would help generate income for voluntary groups and social enterprises, using funding from money reclaimed from dormant bank accounts - the aim was to have it established by April 2011.

Mr Robinson said £5bn was needed for the sector, not including the unclaimed assets, to fund preventative work with people "at risk" from social problems.

The Cabinet Office said Britain was "in an appalling financial mess" and charities and social enterprises "cannot be immune from the necessary reductions in spending".

But a spokesman said: "Despite having had to take difficult decisions, the government is determined to open up new sources of funding for charities and voluntary groups to give them independence from state hand-outs and cut away the red tape that holds them back.

"The Big Society Bank will use money from dormant bank accounts to help capitalise the sector and we have worked quickly to open up a £100m short-term fund to help charities and voluntary groups through this transition period."

He added that a total of £470m would be invested in the four years to 2014-15 to support charities and voluntary groups and money would be "targeted where it is needed most" - including a £50m Community First Fund for the most deprived areas and, £10m to match fund private donations.

Merry Christmas Everybody

2010-12-25T02:50:00.003Z

I would like to wish all this blog's visitors, readers and contributors a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Evans Above!

2010-12-23T23:19:00.007Z

When I was first elected to Hounslow Council on 7th May 1998 as a community councillor there were a number of individuals who tried to make capital from the fact that I had been a member of the National Front back in the 1970s and 1980s.

Of course having a history as a senior activist in a fascist party is a cause for concern, but only if there is any reasonable suspicion that the ex-activist in question still holds views of that kind. My renunciation over several years of racist and fascist opinions on the other hand had been very, very unambiguous and very, very public. Anybody who knew me even at that time knew full well that by 1998 I was about as far removed from being a racist or a fascist as it was possible to be.

This is precisely why most of my critics emerged from within the ranks of those people who didn't know me. And this in turn is the reason why I had, and still have, no respect for those individuals who tried to use my history either for political advantage, or just for a soundbite.

Amongst the ranks of the latter was the broadcaster Chris Evans, who for some reason best known to himself felt the need to express an opinion on the "real" views of somebody he had never met and about whom he knew absolutely nothing.

I am not a person who particularly holds grudges, but try as I have I have found it difficult to like this talentless, pointless and opinionated pillock ever since his completely unnecessary intervention in the political discourse of a borough he had nothing to do with and which he had probably never even set foot in.

So when he appeared tonight on a live celebrity version of the excellent TV Quiz Show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? I braced myself for two and a half minutes of undiluted embarassment, and the ginger whinger did not disappoint.

However even I didn't expect a radio disc jockey to fail on a question about the lyrics of a hugely successful Christmas song, Fairytale Of New York.

After having asked the audience which words followed "And the boys from the NYPD choir were singing...", and after having been told by 69% of said audience that the correct answer was "Galway Bay", he then decided the plebs obviously didn't know what they were talking about and instead went 50/50.

Needless to say he went out on the following question, having raised just £1000.

Sad though I feel for his charity of choice, I do feel strangely reassured by the fact that the man who made some inane and ill-informed references to me on his radio show over twelve years ago is still just as big a moron today.

Apparently this waste of space celebrates his birthday on April 1st. Why am I not surprised?

A message from the Financial Ombudsman Service

2010-12-21T05:10:00.002Z

Hello there,

As a valuable finance site to many, we wanted to share with you and your readers our guide to the Financial Ombudsman Service. We have tried to address as many queries as possible, whilst laying it out in an easy to read fashion. Here it is:

http://www.money.co.uk/article/1006062-inside-the-financial-ombudsman-service-an-adjudicator-speaks.htm

We feel that this guide could be useful to your readers. Please feel free to mention the guide on your site, should you feel that it has the potential to add some value.

The dilemma of having a nuclear option without a gun

2010-12-21T03:03:00.007Z

Of all the big party politicians (that's big parties, not necessarily big politicians) my favourite by some margin is Dr. Vince Cable, Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for nearby Twickenham and currently the government's Business Secretary.

Not only is he a brilliant economist and a political big player by anybody's standards, but the man also has a likable manner, exudes honesty and integrity and generally comes across, in the simplest of parlance, as being "a nice bloke".

It is not only his televisual persona that persuades me of this. I have met Vince Cable on a few occasions, chatted to him in Marble Hill Park when I happened upon him on a family outing, and also had the chance to exchange a few brief words when he came to offer local residents his support at two brief public gatherings outside West Middlesex Hospital and Mogden Sewage Works earlier this year.

What really warmed me to him on those occasions was his very genuine humility. The body language was that of somebody who considered himself to be a guest on our turf and, whilst of course not deferential, his manner was respectful in a "thanks for inviting me into your living room" kind of way.

It didn't have to be like that of course. A man of his political stature could have strutted into focus, stood in front of the residents who had gathered to meet him with a pretentious "look at me" kind of grin as the cameras clicked away, then hopped into a big black car and been whisked off with an insincere royal wave to his next photo opportunity. Let's face it, it's been done in these parts before and not so very long ago.

Instead once the formal business had been done he hung around and chatted to ICG members every bit as much as to his own party folk who had turned out for him.

Today it would seem he is to be found wiping a little egg from his face. Not in the literal sense in the manner of a John Prescott or a Nick Griffin, but egg of a metaphorical kind following a report in the Daily Telegraph that he has allegedly made comments to the effect that he has the power to bring the coalition down and could walk away should the relationship between his party and the Conservatives begin to go rotten.

His exact comments, which he seems to admit to having made, include the following:

“Can I be very frank with you ... I have a nuclear option, it’s like fighting a war. They know I have nuclear weapons, but I don’t have any conventional weapons. If they push me too far then I can walk out of the Government and bring the Government down and they know that.”

Speaking personally, I don't feel there is anything particularly dishonourable about what Dr. Cable has said.

I can of course understand why, as a member of the government, he is a tad embarrassed. But my immediate feeling was one of "I know just how the man feels".

Not that I am making a comparison of scale or importance between the coalition of which I and the ICG were a part when managing Hounslow and the one that governs our country today, naturally. But whilst the scale might be vastly different, the principle remains the same. It is a peculiar feeling indeed to have at one's disposal the means to cause a nuclear explosion without being in possession of the necessary tools to swat a troublesome fly.

I have related before how the senior officer team during the 2006-2010 coalition administration in Hounslow was mobilised to action the demands of the senior coalition partner and to frustrate those of the junior partner (the ICG). Whether this situation was deliberately inspired by our partners, or whether it was officer-driven insubordination that our partners simply ignored, is largely immaterial. Historically speaking the only fact worthy of record is that it happened.

It was 12-18 months before the local elections that the first signs of this bad faith began to make itself obvious to us. It was probably less than twelve months before we went to the polls when it had become a problem of such magnitude that ICG members began to speak openly of walking away.

We had the nuclear option, and more than once we considered using it. We knew our partners were desperate to deliver a fourth 0% budget in 2010, a few months before a general election at which they had high hopes on both a constituency and a national level. We knew we could damage these hopes and dent our partners' aspirations within the borough.

On the other hand we had a responsibility to those who had elected us to exercise power wherever we could. We were making some good progress in our own backyard, and on the Area Committee, in spite of the quite brazen and blatant non co-operation of the Environment Department at and between its meetings.

My colleague Paul Fisher had just completed a year on the Executive in which he had performed magnificently and had every reason to look forward to a second. Another colleague, Jon Hardy, had just joined the same body and both I and he were keen to showcase his undoubted talents. Call it poor leadership if you will, but it just did not seem right to me to pull them away in their prime, and that is even assuming I could have done so.

As the months rolled on the nuclear deterrent failed increasingly to deter. The closer the election came, the more cynical it would have appeared to have pulled out. Chief officers made noises to the effect that it was all a misunderstanding and that they would like to talk through our difficulties with us, although clearly they were simply playing for time and we knew that was the case. If I had had a political pistol I could have held it to certain people's heads and had a good chance of achieving some justice. But all I had was a nuclear trigger which, if detonated, would have blown us up along with the quarry.

Fortified by the belief that the local elections of 2010 would once again result in No Overall Control and that there was a good chance we would be in a position to return to the negotiating table with a much stronger hand than we had played before, we let it ride. In the meantime our partners and the chief officers both impatiently counted the days until the election of the Conservative majority administration they both assumed was on the cards had come about.

In the event of course we had miscalculated, and our partners had miscalculated even more so. The rest is history, but valuable lessons have been learnt.

In the meantime I find myself reflecting upon the fate of the Liberal Democrats in the current government coalition. The equivalent situation, I suppose, would be the Civil Service openly undermining the Lib Dems but I don't think the comparison is an exact one. There is too much scrutiny around the place for this to be permitted to happen.

Instead the Fifth Column the Lib Dems need to be looking over their shoulders at is, in my view, the national press. There is a strong Conservative bias in these circles and, if the same tricks are used against the Lib Dems as were used against us, this is whence the real poison will come.

It would appear that the big man from Twickenham was deliberately set up by the guttersnipes of the Telegraph. It is going to be a long four years.

The Axeman Cometh

2010-12-18T01:58:00.005Z

We are fast approaching that time when the London Borough of Hounslow delivers its budget for the coming year. In early March 2011 Borough Council will debate and vote upon a series of proposals that will, it hopes, enable it to reduce the local authority's annual spending by £18m. Inevitably valuable provision will be cut and the public will see a reduction in the services it receives.

The Axeman is an avowedly non-party political being. Up until 2006 he slashed services under a Labour administration, causing much angst as he closed John Aird House (a residential care home in Brentford), threatened to privatise vital health care services and hacked £1m in a single blow from the Education budget at a time when monies provided by the government for that very purpose were not ring-fenced. I attended more than one demonstration against what appeared to me to be acts of almost gratuitous inhumanity.

Then in 2006 a new administration took office of which the Independent Community Group (ICG) was a part. Almost immediately our Conservative coalition partners announced the launch of a drastic cost-cutting initiative called the Performance Improvement Programme (PIP) and declared its intention to freeze Council Tax levels, which we generally supported and between us actually managed to do for four years in a row. But there were casualties, not least the Hounslow Language Service, and from opposition Labour opposed many of the savings made by the coalition Axeman, campaigning against cuts in public services as we ourselves had done in opposition.

Now Labour is back in office, and the Axeman is once again playing for the team in red. Granted the impetus for the drastic programme of cuts upon which Hounslow is about to embark comes from central government and its savage Comprehensive Spending Review, but nonetheless the Labour administration has to deal with the same reality as the coalition administration before it and the old Labour administration before that. That reality is that the level of central government support for local councils declines year upon year no matter who is in charge at the Exchequer.

What happens at the stage we are at now is that Lead Members will have asked Chief Officers to identify potential savings in their own departments. Some of those suggested savings are included in this document, which will be discussed by the Executive next week.

The flaw in this process, and which has always been the case, is that Chief Officers will invariably identify those savings that they themselves are comfortable with, and omit those that they are not. For instance, rarely if at all will Lead Members be presented with a proposal to reduce Chief Officer salaries, or to merge departments so as to reduce their number. Unless the Lead Member is unusually hands-on, he or she will almost always accept the options presented as being the only ones realistically available.

The ICG has not had the opportunity to formally discuss these proposals as yet, but what I imagine will concern my colleagues in particular are the various implied assaults on local democracy. In particular the suggestion that Area Committees could be abolished or curtailed. My guess is that these were probably amongst the first proposals to have been mooted by certain of our Chief Officers and I would be surprised if much sleep was lost as they found their way onto the list.

It would be tempting, of course, to consider Area Committees as a luxury by comparison with frontline services to the really needy such as Older People or Children's Services. By that logic we might just as well do away with elections to the council as well - the potential saving involved would be considerable.

But the whole rationale of local government is that it enjoys a democratic mandate. This is precisely why elected members, as opposed to the more "expert" officers, are ultimately responsible for making decisions. Once that principle has been compromised we are embarked upon a journey down a very slippery slope with no handbrake. One cannot put a price on democracy.

I am also concerned by the suggestion that local community centres may be cut adrift. Sure, I do note from the document that the need for local community groups to be given time to build the capacity to take them over is acknowledged, but knowing as I do the complete lack of interest in resident involvement or even opinion that exists in certain departments there is little doubt in my mind that, were such a proposal to be taken up, our community centres would be abandoned with indecent haste and indeed closed down as soon as it was felt it could be got away with.

This is not about empowering communities, this is about certain senior officers seizing a perceived opportunity to remove themselves forever from meaningful public scrutiny.

These are difficult times, and I am reluctant to try to score points by blaming the current administration for the predicament it finds itself in (although it has to be said, under the circumstances, that some of the ruling party's election promises were reckless to say the least - everyone knew there would be cuts whoever triumphed at the general election). However I do believe that the organised community must lobby hard to protect itself from any attempt to use government cuts as a convenient excuse for curtailing its freedoms and its ability to organise.

Isleworth residents brave the cold

2010-12-17T17:57:00.006Z

There was a fairly good crowd at the annual Carols in The Square event, organised by The Isleworth Society (of which I am proud to be a Life Member), in Old Isleworth last night despite the treacherous cold. The Mayor of the London Borough of Hounslow, Councillor Colin Ellar, was there and stayed until the end in spite of the weather.

After the event my ICG colleagues Paul and Shirley Fisher and I had the opportunity of a long chat over a pleasant drink with two of Isleworth's three ward councillors (Councillor Mindu Bains has by all accounts suffered a dislocated shoulder after a fall, I wish her a speedy recovery).

It was really useful to get a perspective from the new administration, and in particular to see how these two "newbies" were settling in to their respective roles. It is clear that they are both very keen to succeed and to do a good job on behalf of their constituents, and my feeling is that they will succeed in spite of the difficult situation in which the new administration finds itself with the central government cutbacks.

All in all a good, constructive evening on every front.

Some boom amid the gloom

2010-12-15T09:56:00.005Z

Andrew Stunell: "The Localism Bill presents a lot of positive news for local government. We are devolving power back to local authorities, communities, and individual people up and down the country. Lib Dems have long campaigned for power to flow from the bottom-up not top-down. The “Man in Whitehall” doesn’t know best, and the publication of the Localism Bill marks the end of Labour’s top-down presumption they know more than local people about how their area should be run."

Andrew Stunell is the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Communities and Local Government. The above is reproduced with acknowledgements to Liberal Democrat Voice.

D'oh! (Part two)

2010-12-13T02:01:00.003Z

Now that I've discovered how to set the text size on this new Blogger format, I'm going back to Trebuchet.

Q: When is a racist not a racist? A: When he is in your party

2010-12-07T13:20:00.008Z

Liberal Democrat MP Mark Hunter has challenged Ed Miliband to condemn the racially divisive tactics used by Phil Woolas in his General Election campaign in Oldham East and Saddleworth.

Mark Hunter said:

“It is becoming more and more apparent as the weeks pass that Ed Miliband just doesn’t have the clout within his party to show some leadership and admit that Woolas was wrong. If he did he’d be shot down in flames by other Labour MPs.

“I was genuinely shocked that Miliband didn’t make a statement as soon as he became leader that this sort of racially divisive politics will not be tolerated.

“For him to then make the monumental misjudgement of appointing Woolas to his frontbench team speaks volumes.

“If Labour is to draw a line under this scandal, then Ed Miliband needs to shout from the rooftops that the kind of campaigning used by Phil Woolas - intended to ‘get the white folk angry’ - can never again be any part of Labour politics.

Reproduced with acknowledgements to LibDems.org.uk.

D'oh!

2010-12-04T13:24:00.003Z

This made me laugh:

A trail of footprints in the snow led police to catch a burglar shivering in a bush.

The 17-year-old was spotted by a homeowner stealing a bicycle from a garage in Sutton, south London.

Police noticed his footprints and followed them for several streets until they found him cowering under frozen foliage.

The officers then followed the trail back - to discover several other garages had been targeted.

Insp Colin Baker, of Sutton Police, said: "This burglar left great big footprints for officers to follow.

"So, despite the difficult weather conditions, officers were able to track him down, following the tracks in the snow."

The teenager was arrested on suspicion of burglary at about 0300 GMT on Friday and was released on bail pending further inquiries.

It is not the first time snow has helped police in Sutton defeat criminals.

Two teenagers were caught stealing electronic goods from a garage in January after officers followed their footprints.

Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News.

United in celebrating a wonderful community effort

2010-12-01T02:09:00.006Z

Two years ago, when my father Ron in his capacity as Poppy Organiser for the Isleworth Royal British Legion organised a social evening to thank those who had sold poppies, not even the lure of a free bar persuaded more than about seven or eight people to come out and join in the celebration.

However last Saturday scores of people came out to the Legion to enjoy a great evening at which it was announced that in 2010, for the first time, the local community had collected over £22,000 for the Poppy Appeal. Two Isleworth ward councillors joined us and stayed for most of the evening (certain of them had helped us to collect money outside supermarkets in the build-up to Remembrance Sunday), and the Mayor made a welcome speech before himself joining local community activists at the bar for a drink and a pleasant chat.

There is nothing to be feared or ashamed of on the part of people in positions of office supporting and encouraging community-led activity such as this. Everybody wants to do well by those who have given their lives, those who have suffered injury, their families and their loved ones.

This year, once again, I like to think the community did those people proud, and we are very grateful and appreciative for having received the support of all those who gave up their free time to help.

A privilege and an honour

2010-11-26T13:04:00.002Z

I was humbled one again on Wednesday night to have been re-elected by members of my Church to serve for another year as a Deacon.

A cynic could argue that it isn't difficult to win the support of the required two-thirds of the membership at a meeting when everyone has an unlimited number of votes. But that threshold has been missed by others before now and, more importantly, members could and would have been forgiven for rejecting me on the grounds that for a variety of reasons (Joe's football, work, community commitments) my attendance at Church services and other functions has not been as good as that of some others.

It is a source of real comfort and gratitude to know that, in spite of my shortcomings, my fellow Church members have sufficient faith in whatever it is I do to want me to serve them for another twelve months and I will do my very best not to let them down.

We Will Remember Them (Part 2)

2010-11-19T00:18:00.004Z

In the course of remembering those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in two World Wars, it would be remiss not to remember those who work so hard year in and year out to keep the memory alive.

It is obviously with a certain bashfulness that I pay tribute to my own father, but I have done already in any case in a previous post. For many years he has organised the poppy sales that have thus far produced a higher yield with each year that passes. The poppies may only go on sale a week or so before Remembrance Sunday, but the preparation work begins long before.

Similarly one must mention the Branch at the RBL and particularly the indefatigable Linda Green who, despite having difficulties and hardships of her own which would have deterred most other people from becoming actively involved, has been in the thick of the preparations as always.

Lastly one must give thanks to all those volunteers who took the time to stand outside supermarkets and other outlets, sometimes unprotected in inclement weather, to sell poppies and to collect money for the cause.

A big well done to everyone who took part in this excellent effort, and here's to many more in the future.

We Will Remember Them - Sunday, 14th November 2010

2010-11-16T01:28:00.008Z

This year's Remembrance Day Parade, although sadly shortened by the rain, was probably the largest that I have ever attended.

Some years ago the general public would just stand and watch as the ex-servicemen and a few local dignitaries marched past them. One of the achievements of the "Community Culture" heralded by the rise of the ICG over the past decade or so has been to turn this occasion into a public event. Nothing, after all, was ever more public than a war in which millions of "ordinary" people made the ultimate sacrifice.

At the War Memorial ICG Vice Chair Andy Sibley (above right) laid a wreath on behalf of the community. All the new ward councillors from Isleworth and two from Syon were present; the Isleworth councillors laid wreaths on behalf of the Mayor, the Labour Party and the new Member of Parliament for Brentford and Isleworth, Mary Macleod.

Following the parade there was the familiar gathering at the Isleworth Royal British Legion, which was enjoyed by many. The Mayor of the London Borough of Hounslow paid a visit and met many of the local ex-service people and organisers of the parade.

This major and sombre event on the local calendar always presents a welcome opportunity to meet colleagues and other friends, some of whom are not as regular at the IRBL as others amongst us!

Lib Dems call for action on Gunnersbury

2010-11-10T11:31:00.003Z

Reproduced with acknowledgements to BrentfordTW8.com

Hounslow Liberal Democrat campaigner Joe Bourke has called for the Gunnersbury Joint Advisory Committee to reconvene urgently. It has not met since the May local elections. Meanwhile he claims the park, mansions and museum - containing local history collection - continue to decay.

In early September the Hounslow Liberal Democrats offered to work with Council leaders to engage ministers in the Coalition Government. The Lib Dems have still not received any response. Since the election Ealing Lib Dems confirmed that the new administration in Ealing stands by the previous Ealing leadership's commitment to put £5m into the regeneration project. Hounslow has to date failed to match this commitment.

Joe Bourke, Hounslow Liberal Democrat Campaigner, said, "We are deeply disappointed that the Council was not prepared to take action earlier this year and invest the money required to stop the decline of the park, local history museum and mansions. This is a site of local and national importance. We put forward carefully costed proposals and used the work of the consultants employed by the Council to chart a way forward.

"The indecision that has blighted the park and its mansions for years seems to be continuing with no meeting yet agreed of the Joint Advisory Panel on Gunnersbury Park, Museum and Mansions.

"The arguments have gone on for too long. Whilst we accept a lot of money is required at a difficult time, we are very worried about the future of the Local History Museum in view of the deteriorating fabric of the building it is in. Leaking roofs threaten the collection. This project and investment could develop local skills and provide employment."

Some people just don't get it

2010-11-10T11:02:00.005Z

An excellent analysis of the Woolas ruling by blogger Cory Hazlehurst. There's nothing that really needs to be added:

http://paperbackrioter.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/some-people-just-dont-get-it/

Revolting Labour backbenchers fight for the Right to Lie

2010-11-10T00:10:00.005Z

Their protests against the illegal war in Iraq amounted to nowt but a damp squib. Concerns over student loans and the introduction of ID cards were whispered briefly about the place before fizzling out with a phut.

But at last Labour backbenchers have found a cause around which to rally with gusto, indignation and shrill vengeance in unprecedented measure. The second largest party in the UK and aspirant government of the future is furious that a decision by two High Court judges could compel them to conduct their future election campaigns without knowingly making false and malicious statements about their opponents without running the risk of losing their seats.

The "Right to Lie" campaign is in full flow and Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the party who has very decently made clear her view that dishonest politicking of this kind is in her view unacceptable, is its target.

Nobody, as far as I am aware, has disputed the fact that Phil Woolas not only lied about his Liberal Democrat opponent during his general election campaign but did so wilfully. None of his supporters, as far as I can tell, would appear to feel at all uncomfortable about the fact that Woolas would seem to have based his campaign on stirring up racist sentiment in his constituency.

As is the case here in the London Borough of Hounslow the party that publicly preens itself on its "enlightenment" and its commitment to equality, which it would have us believe is totally unique to itself, evidently has no qualms about provoking racial tensions if there is a perceived electoral benefit to be had.

That in Hounslow their tactic is to try to frighten minorities into voting for them by invoking threats to their safety that do not really exist, whilst in Oldham it is the white racists to whom they pander, would appear to be no more than a matter of simple demographics.

I dearly hope that decent elements within the Labour Party rally round Harriet Harman in the same way that the politically unscrupulous have gathered around Woolas. A fight for the soul of a once great party and a subsequent triumph of honest values of such a magnitude that it reverberates throughout the party would have a seismic effect on the future political landscape in our borough.

Despite the fact that this is not on the surface of it a local issue to us here, the ICG will for obvious reasons be watching how this one plays out with an enormous amount of interest.

Politicians squeal over loss of their right to deceive the electorate

2010-11-09T12:15:00.006Z

The fallout from the Phil Woolas ruling was never going to be long in coming.

Woolas himself, whilst not appearing to deny that he wilfully lied about an opponent in order to gain a political advantage, whined that the judgement "raised fundamental issues about the freedom to question politicians.

"Those who stand for election...must accept that their political character and conduct will be attacked.

"It is vital to our democracy that those who make statements about the political character and conduct of election candidates are not deterred from speaking freely for fear that they may be found in breach of election laws."

One needs to remember that "speaking freely" in this context means actually telling deliberate lies about the character of an opponent.

Some might be surprised that the Labour Party itself has not rallied round Woolas, indeed Deputy Leader Harriet Harman has stated in quite unambiguous terms that telling deliberate lies about opponents is not a part of the party's modus operandi (it would of course be very interesting to hear what she would have to say if she knew half of what her party members got up to in our little corner of the world).

It was "not part of Labour's politics for somebody to be telling lies to get themselves elected," she insisted.

Woolas not unreasonably complains that he has been hung out to dry. Clearly there are those in his party who exude an aura of relief at having been gifted such an opportunity to show him the door. One is reminded of the words of the late Alan Clark, who once famously observed: "There are no true friends in politics. We are all sharks circling, and waiting, for traces of blood to appear in the water".

Amusingly, Woolas bewails the fact that his party will not be funding his legal challenge to the ruling and that it will cost him some £50,000-£60,000 from his own pocket. I would guess the irony of the fact that that places him in the exact same boat as most of us victims of his party's routinely libellous campaigns will have been lost on him entirely!

Predictably other members of the political establishment have weighed in to his defence. Conservative MP Edward Leigh complained: "What worries me about this is that, if this is allowed to stand, it will be virtually impossible for there to be really robust debate during elections.

"People will be terrified of attacking their opponents."

No you moron, it means you will have to start considering whether the things you are saying to the electorate actually have a grain of truth in them!

The most telling comments of all however are those of former Labour Party General Secretary Peter Watt, who asked: "He was definitely found guilty of breaching electoral law by telling untruths about one of his opponents. But does that overwrite his history and contribution to the party of so many years?"

Not to the likes of you probably Mr. Watt, who seem to take it for granted that everyone in your party will put tribal loyalty before principle - party before people. But thankfully the days of creatures such as you exercising complete dominance over our body politic would seem to be drawing to a close at long last.

Entec report into Mogden odour now available

2010-11-08T14:55:00.002Z

Please e-mail me at phil@communitygroup.org.uk if you would like a free copy of this 48-page PDF document.

Comment would be superfluous...

2010-11-06T12:57:00.005Z

Trebuchet or not Trebuchet?

2010-11-06T11:12:00.009Z

One or two people have commented that since I changed the layout of this blog the enlarged Trebuchet typeface doesn't look quite right for what is supposed to be a medium of serious comment (well, sometimes anyway!).

I am thinking of switching over to Verdana.

This paragraph is an example of the Verdana typeface. I use it on a number of other blogs that I run for sundry different projects which are probably of no interest to readers of this one.

Does anybody have a view on this please?

Elwyn Watkins' statement

2010-11-05T17:54:00.004Z

Further to the item below, Liberal Democrat Elwyn Watkins has released the following brief statement:

"This verdict is a historic victory for the people of Oldham East and Saddleworth, a victory for fair play and a victory for clean politics.

"Anyone who knowingly lies to the voters or looks to set constituent against constituent has no place in a democracy.

"I hope this judgment makes it very clear that if you deceive your constituents you should be kicked out of Parliament.”

Ruling could pave the way for a return to honest politics

2010-11-05T12:02:00.007Z

I don't imagine I'll have to explain to anybody from around these parts the significance of the verdict in the Phil Woolas case heard by two High Court judges:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11699888

Phil Woolas, Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth (and former party activist in Hounslow), beat his Liberal Democrat rival by 103 votes at the recent general election. The Lib Dem, Elwyn Watkins, claimed that Mr. Woolas had knowingly made false statements about him in his election material that may have had a decisive impact upon the result.

He took legal action against Mr. Woolas under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act and the case was heard before a special elections tribunal, the first of its kind to sit for almost a century.

The Act makes it an offence to publish "any false statement in relation to the candidate's personal character or conduct" in order to prevent their election - unless they believed it was true and had "reasonable grounds" for their belief.

Having considered the evidence, the judges found in favour of Mr. Watkins and a re-run of the contest has been ordered.

I've not yet studied the Act to ascertain whether or not it applies to local elections as well as to general elections. Natural Justice would suggest that it should.

As we know, Labour in Hounslow not only regularly produces material about its opponents during elections that it knows to be untrue, it even openly boasts of the fact.

There are several examples from Isleworth during recent contests to which I can point. The alleged "firebomb attack" on a Labour candidate's house in 2006 followed almost instantly by a leaflet suggesting that the ICG was responsible. A leaflet circulated in 2010 claiming that I owned a holiday home in Portugal when its originators knew at the time that I was in an Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA) with my creditors which would have made it impossible for me to so. Another leaflet circulated during the same campaign alleging that ICG candidates had held a meeting discussing plans to sell off local authority housing stock. There are countless examples of which these are just a tiny few.

That the circulation of untrue and sometimes malicious allegations about opponents is deliberate local party policy was confirmed in a debate at Borough Council when the Deputy Leader of the then Labour opposition, Councillor Ruth Cadbury, casually dismissed criticisms of dishonest campaigning with the immortal words: "You call it dishonesty, we call it politics".

Anybody who has ever spoken to these people on a personal level will confirm that when confronted about their actions they appear genuinely confused as to what all the fuss is about. They almost all give an impression of regarding dishonest campaigning and vicious personal smears against their opponents as being an integral and quite normal part of the process of political campaigning, and that the end result completely justifies the means. One must assume that such a peculiarly mercenary approach to human engagement is instilled in them by the organisation the service of which would appear to dictate their every deed and emotion.

Away from politics many of them are actually quite decent, trustworthy, friendly, sometimes helpful. I have found myself especially impressed that they always seem to stand their round. And yet when they don the rosette...

For what it is worth, I would like to state publicly that I do not believe local Labour's dishonest campaign methods cost us the seats that we lost in Isleworth and Syon back in May. The political conditions under which that election was fought did for us, and in my considered view we would have lost all six seats even had the Labour campaign been a paragon of honesty and honour. Let me be quite clear about that.

However in another place and in another time it is conceivable that a small reverse could be brought about as a result of local Labour's policy of deliberately smearing and misrepresenting its opponents in the most crude and malicious manner.

I hope the electorate punishes Labour dearly in Oldham East and Saddleworth in a determined expression of righteous anger. If there is any justice the Lib Dem victim of Labour's smears will be selected by his party and elected by the voters. As victory was probably rightfully his in May it would be nice to see the Conservatives stand down and give him a clear run, but I doubt whether they will.

It will also be interesting to see whether Labour have the nerve, not to mention the contempt for the electorate and for the integrity of politics, to field Mr. Woolas once again.

Thames Water's and LBH's faecal attraction

2010-11-03T13:46:00.005Z

The consultant Entec has been commissioned to hold a public consultation tonight on the odour nuisance created by the activities of Thames Water at the Mogden Sewage Treatment Works in Isleworth.

Although residents suffering the Mogden Pong for the most part reside in Isleworth, Whitton or Twickenham the meeting is being held at the Civic Centre in Hounslow, at least two miles away from most of Mogden's victims.

It begins at 7.00pm - not that most residents will know that, as the start time was accidentally omitted from the mailout that was allegedly delivered to 10,000 households in the area.

Most of the people within the claimed distribution area that MRAG (Mogden Residents' Action Group) have spoken to have not received a newsletter.

Questions sent by MRAG to Entec have not been responded to. We were told yesterday that Entec had taken a "policy decision" not to respond to individual questions. Apparently a question from a residents' group demonstrably representing thousands of households still constitutes an "individual question".

A cynic would suspect that tonight's meeting will be nothing but a stage-managed public relations exercise. A cynic would expect that the inevitably low turnout will lead the organisers to publicly aver that Mogden is not an issue for most residents.

And what, I wonder, would the same cynic make of the fact that Entec and Thames Water have chosen the Civic Centre as a "home" venue, when so much hot air has been expended over many years by successive administrations about the local authority being on the side of the residents?

Collectors wanted for Poppy Day 2010

2010-11-02T01:15:00.009Z

Once again we approach the time when we remember those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country in two World Wars and subsequent conflicts.

On Sunday 14th November 2010 local people will join the annual Remembrance Day parades in various towns around the borough. In Isleworth the local community pays tribute to its fallen at the War Memorial at the junction of Twickenham Road and South Street.

As in previous years my father has been entrusted with the task of organising the poppy collections in the run up to the main event. Each since he started he has managed to better the previous one in terms of the total amount collected.

However he could always use more volunteers to assist the fund raising effort by giving up a few hours to collect money outside local supermarkets and from local businesses.

If you can spare any time to help between now and November 13th please call Ron Andrews on 020 8892 4260 and leave your name and contact details.

Thank you.

The oily rag goes forth

2010-10-31T11:11:00.012Z

It would appear the local Labour Party wasn't very happy with my light-hearted piece about Mindu Bains and her "is it a week, is it a month" disappearing act the other day.

Availing itself once again of the services of the truly pathetic Mr. Al Ayoby of Ivybridge, the following e-mail has been sent to backbench Conservative councillor Peter Thompson demanding his resignation from a post he hasn't held for the past six months and copied to every member of the council and to the borough's two MPs.

I republish the letter in its original gobbledegook for maximum amusement:

"Cllr Peter Thompson

"I was surprised by your response denying all knowledge of Phillip (sic) Andrew’s (sic) IVA You base your argument on the legality of the matter, but fail to include Ethics and Moral obligations you have towards the electorate.

"The electorate are not important to Phillip (sic) Andrews, only at election times when he wants our vote that is. But you have always appeared to be a man of principle; it just goes to show how wrong someone can be.

"However, I strongly believe that you deliberately ignored the fact that Philip Andrews had entered into an IVA arrangement in order to keep you position as Leader of the Council (no, I don’t understand this one either – PA).

"Had it have been made public knowledge about Philip Andrews IVA in Feb 2009 when it was first recorded, what do you think the electorates response would have been had they known? Do you think they would have approved of a person who wasn’t even able to run his own finances and affairs to run that of the Boroughs.

"What do you think the response would have been from all the council employees who were subsequently made redundant due to your coalition budget decisions that year?

"Therefore I continue to demand your immediate resignation from your position forthwith.

"Regards,

"Al AYOBY
London Borough of Hounslow Constituent"

As will be immediately obvious to anybody who knows Mr. Ayoby he was not the originator of this letter. As was the case with the unlawful and libellous election leaflet that he issued in late April (to which I'll return in a few moments) he is being used as a patsy lest there be any recriminations of a kind that the local party itself would prefer to avoid. However as he continues to allow his name to be appended to these missives it is reasonable that we should be permitted to take a look at the somewhat original brand of "Ethics and Moral obligations" that drive and motivate this peculiar chap.

Mr. Ayoby first came to the ICG's attention in 2006, when a member with strong connections to the Ivybridge estate advised of us of this man who apparently had some great ideas for the future of the estate community. I visited him at his home in Easedale House to introduce myself and to discuss his ideas. Whatever criticisms I may make of him today, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that Mr. Ayoby is a wonderful cook.

Not understanding quite how these things work, our intermediary could be forgiven for the fact that it had not been immediately obvious to him that Mr. Ayoby was a fantasist of truly ludicrous proportions.

Apparently he had a plan. He wanted to build some houses, on the hard standing that is the play area close to his tower block to be precise. In order to sell this idea to me (I had just become the local authority's Lead Member for Housing at that time) he would give me several of these houses when they were built. Others would be given to the ICG. He had the finances available due to his connections to sundry Saudi and Palestinian billionaires. All he required from me, as Lead Member, was to give him the land that he for some reason presumed was mine to give.

This placed me on the horns of a terrible dilemma. Not whether or not to turn him in (let's face it our lunatic asylums are crammed to bursting point as it is), but whether to make my excuses and leave or to continue to enjoy the wonderful fare that kept emerging anew with his every visit to the kitchen. It was not a difficult choice, I have always been game for a laugh. I eventually left Mr. Ayoby's flat feeling very, very full.

In the meantime it was incumbent upon me, of course, to explain to Mr. Ayoby that there were one or two minor flaws in his plan that he might wish to factor into his considerations. In particular, the fact that in the very unlikely event of me being able to persuade the local authority to hand him the land he desired and him subsequently giving me, as Lead Member, several of the homes that he built upon it we would both be looking at a very long stretch at Her Majesty's pleasure.

The proposal was put on ice, for the time being at least, and I mentally prepared myself for a telephone call from the Sultan of Brunei at some unspecified time in the future.

In the meantime Mr. Ayoby had other interests to pursue. He wanted to join IVYTAG (the Ivybridge Tenants' Action Group), an independent group that had been formed under the previous Labour administration by residents who had not been able to get actively involved with their own tenants' association on account of the fact that they were not members of the Labour Party. This he subsequently did, and one has to say he did some useful work for the group.

As we know in May 2006 a new administration had assumed office and a coalition had been formed between the ICG and the Conservatives from which I had managed to secure the post of Lead Member for Housing as mentioned above. One of my first challenges was to chair the Hounslow Homes Management Review, which had always been due to take place during 2006/07 but which, the housing magazine Inside Housing was told when reporting on the Review, was to have been conducted as a nudge and a wink exercise by Labour had they held onto "control" of the London Borough of Hounslow in 2006.

Trivial though it may have seemed to some in the wider scheme of things I determined to use the Review to honour a promise to my constituents to open up the process of tenant participation, throughout the borough in general but on Ivybridge in particular due to the historic problems created by the uncompromising organisational Stalinism of the outgoing regime.

My plans were not well received by the cronies of the Old Guard. Howls of protest at Review meetings, and dirty tricks of the kind which the people in question had over the years turned into an art form, were the order of the day. Certain senior officers at Hounslow Homes who had been involved up to their necks in the dark practices of old upped sticks and departed completely, leaving their cronies deep in the proverbial and staring the inevitability of defeat in the face.

Mr. Ayoby was delighted. This, he felt, was his opportunity to kick the old tenants' leaders on the Ivybridge into touch and to replace them with a new IVYTAG-dominated association led by himself.

Unfortunately though he was to be disappointed. My aim was to unite, not to replace one set of dictators with another. Once it had become clear to him that my actions had been motivated by principle rather than being some narrow-minded exercise in power politics his attitude towards me changed, and thereafter in his eyes I became the enemy.

In the meantime Mr. Ayoby had exploited a weakness in the ICG Constitution to get himself elected onto the group's Committee. He attended several meetings and each time he sat there in a state of sullen confusion, clearly oblivious to 90% what was being discussed. Thankfully when it all became too much for him he resigned.

A new residents' association was created on Ivybridge, the United Residents' Association of Ivybridge (URA), bringing together the best elements from the old group - the New Ivybridge Tenants' Association (NITA) - and IVYTAG. The former NITA Chair was elected as Chair of the new association and Mr. Ayoby as Vice Chair. Some happy photos were taken to record the occasion but Mr. Ayoby was not at all content with having to share the limelight with the old NITA people and set about trying to undermine the democratically elected Chair (amusingly they are now both comrades in the same party!).

So now we had a new association comprised of good people from all political persuasions and of none, and raring to get going and to do some good, constructive work on behalf of all the residents of Ivybridge estate. It had the full support of the ward councillors, the administration at the Civic Centre, the London Borough of Hounslow's Housing team and Hounslow Homes. Even HFTRA - the Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations - were at least partially reassured by the fact that someone they knew and trusted had retained the Chair. Mr. Ayoby fumed on the sidelines and plotted his revenge.

His revenge came in 2009 when he quite disgracefully hoodwinked the organised Somali community on the estate into believing that the existing association (which had been chaired for most of the time by a Labour Party member) was "racist" and hostile to their interests and well-being on the estate. Using their support he staged a coup d'etat which was supported by the Labour Party. By this time their own member and former URA Chair had moved to another estate and thus any potential conflict of interest on their part was avoided.

Although Labour had supported the coup in the belief that it would give them a foothold of some kind within the URA, Mr. Ayoby was not yet at that time entirely in their camp. Having resigned from the ICG he had then courted the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, both of whom had politely encouraged him to go forth and multiply once the nature of the man had become apparent to them. He only had one place left to go, and fortunately for him his reputation as a liar and an idiot meant it was a marriage made in Heaven.

After a few months the Somalis too cottoned on to Mr. Ayoby and withdrew their support from him. Indeed they formed a strong bond to their elected councillors and to the ICG which remains true to this day.

With his credibility on the estate by now completely in tatters he naturally gravitated towards the only people left who would have him. The Labour Party proudly paraded their "catch" on the estate throughout the local election period which must have played a major part in the polling district of which Ivybridge comprises the largest part becoming the only one in which the party actually lost ground to the ICG at an election at which it otherwise held all the aces.

A couple of months after having “helped” his new Labour friends to victory in Isleworth ward Mr. Ayoby bowed to the inevitable and declined to seek re-election as Chair of the URA, having been promised that the new administration would wangle him a seat on the Hounslow Homes Management Board as a Tenant Member by way of compensation. For whatever reason this failed to materialise.

Today Mr. Ayoby busies himself spreading wild and almost always groundless rumours at the behest of his new masters. During the election campaign he had circulated a leaflet claiming to have attended an ICG Committee meeting at which the selling off of local authority housing stock was alleged to have been discussed - an absolute fabrication. As the leaflet did not contain a publisher's imprint it was also unlawful, and as it didn't appear against his party's election returns his agent was culpable as well as probably complicit. I may have more to report on this soon.

An example of Mr. Ayoby's mad lies that is currently doing the rounds is that both Councillor Thompson and myself have somehow managed to acquire and embezzle all the money collected by a firm of solicitors from residents of Isleworth, Whitton and Twickenham towards a high-profile legal action against Thames Water in respect of the odour nuisance caused by Mogden Sewage Treatment Works. Quite how I would have come to gain access to this money, which was sent directly to the solicitors by individual residents, is beyond me and Councillor Thompson has had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in the legal action, being a resident of Chiswick. The solicitors have the money and the action is ongoing as I write.

This is the state of the Labour Party in Isleworth today, a conspiracy of lies and deceit, often against its own constituents, directed by a resident of another borough who isn't even a party member and tolerated by a local party leadership smug in the belief that it can wash its hands and deny all knowledge if/when the whole thing goes bosoms up.

Irritating though this state of affairs may be for us old-fashioned sorts who believe that honesty and integrity still have a role to play in local politics, our great satisfaction comes from the fact that Mr. Ayoby is now the Labour Party's problem and not ours. When it dawns on him that his new allies are no more prepared to bestow upon him the rewards of office to which he believes himself to be entitled he will turn on them in exactly the same way as he turned on us, and will spread lies about them too with gay abandon as is his wont.

Their only source of reassurance is that we will not dredge the gutter in helping and encouraging him to do so as they have done with us because we are better than that.

Oh and just for the record, the Labour Party's debts currently stand at around £20 million. Some may consider it a trifle worrying that a party that cannot run its own finances and affairs should have been placed in charge of the London Borough of Hounslow's £600m annual budget.

But I dare say that neither Mr. Ayoby nor his handlers will be amongst them.

Sorry I'm away for a week, see you in a month

2010-10-29T11:52:00.009+01:00

Anybody who has ever been a councillor will tell you that the weeks roll very seamlessly into the months.

So Isleworth councillor Mindu Bains could be forgiven for leaving this rather confusing message for constituents who may have been trying to get hold of her between September 26th and October 26th (although this Out Of Office Auto-Reply came in response to an e-mail sent to her on October 28th).

Maybe they will have had better luck following the link to "Councillor Sue Smpson"? Or does this mean poor old Ed copped all the casework for a whole calendar month (click above image to enlarge)?

In Memory and Honour of Cameron Short - "A true inspiration to us all"

2010-10-22T11:23:00.012+01:00

Please donate to Charlton Farm Children's Hospice in Cameron's memory

I have found myself strangely and deeply affected over the last two days by the very sad death of a young man whom I didn't know and never met.

Cameron Short was just ten years old when, in September 2009, doctors discovered a tumour in his brain. Sadly doctors who performed tests on the growth confirmed it was cancerous.

Cameron, or Cam, was treated and operated on at Frenchay Hospital in Bristol, where he lived. He battled on for a whole year and returned to school. In September this year he became a one year survivor. Those who knew him and cared for him were amazed by the courage that he consistently showed, never complaining about his ordeal, no tantrums or tears.

Regrettably it was recently discovered that another tumour had developed and he began undergoing treatment for this.

Cam passed away peacefully and painlessly in his sleep at Charlton Farm Hospice on 20th October 2010, a place where he had spent many happy hours during his last year and in his final days, making friends with the staff who cared diligently for his every need and even helping other children to cope with their illnesses. He appeared in a film helping children to come to terms with radiotherapy and not be daunted by it.

You can see his story at Cam's Place, a lasting tribute to the life and the extraordinary courage of this wonderful boy.

My only connection with Cam was that I attended primary school with his grandmother Sharon. I hope she'll forgive me for saying that was quite a long time ago. It was through Sharon's posts on Facebook that I followed his story, and was devastated when she posted recently that doctors had given his family the news that he had only days to live.

Sharon's brother David posted on Wednesday that Cam's courage had been "a true inspiration to us all". I wouldn't try to put it better myself.

Cameron's friends and family have launched an appeal to raise funds for Charlton Farm Hospice to help them with their work for children suffering with terminal illness. Please give generously in Cam's memory to help other children to enjoy their last days in an atmosphere of love and laughter.

Please click on the button below to make your donation through JustGiving. Your details are safe and secure,the process is simple and Gift Aid will be reclaimed on every eligible donation. Thank you.

The dark soul in our midst that cannot move on

2010-10-22T08:57:00.008+01:00

I suggested a couple of days ago that I might try to get hold of the appalling Labour Party leaflet that is (very) slowly doing the rounds in Isleworth right now. However in the absence of half my family I have placed myself under virtual house arrest this week whilst trying to get things done, and so I still don't have a copy to hand. For those who await visual confirmation of this literary masterpiece with baited breath I urge patience. It is coming.

In the meantime I find myself reflecting with some amusement upon the various grumbles and allegations contained therein.

The main thrust of the attack was as follows:

1. When in office ICG councillors received the standard members' allowance, paid for from the local authority's budget. This included a Special Responsibilities Allowance (SRA) for those holding certain offices such as Executive members, Area Committee Chairs and so on.

2. I personally have become exceptionally wealthy as a consequence of having received these allowances, and simultaneously have been forced to enter into an Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA) with my creditors following personal and business difficulties arising from the recession.

The indignation over ICG councillors receiving members' allowances tells us quite a lot about the mindset of those behind the leaflet. All councillors receive these allowances. The Labour councillors who succeeded us as representatives of Isleworth and Syon wards - and in whose name this leaflet was published - receive them. As Executive members Isleworth councillor Ed Mayne and Syon member Theo Dennison each receive around £22k per annum. Should they remain Executive members for the duration of their terms of office, both will have received more from the taxpayer than any ICG councillor did during the administration of 2006-2010.

Similarly, Isleworth councillor Mindu Bains draws nearly £16k each year when her SRA as Vice Chair of the Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee is factored into the equation.

So how then do the authors of the leaflet have the brass neck to complain about the fact that ICG councillors, like all other councillors the length and breadth of the country, received an annual allowance? The answer is simple - in the minds of these people Labour councillors are "real" councillors and are thus entitled to be remunerated for their time and effort, whilst non-Labour councillors are in some way unreasonably occupying seats which rightfully "belong" to them.

Worst of all ICG councillors are not even politicians, not members of any of the exclusive little clubs that by right of birth govern our localities and impose their ideologies and their expertise upon us lesser mortals. ICG councillors are mere residents, upstarts from amid the ranks of the hoi polloi. How dare we gatecrash their little set-up and claim for ourselves anything whatsoever that was really intended for them?

On the subject of my own personal finances and indeed of all aspects of my private life much angst apparently abounds in Local Labour Land. Wild and usually inaccurate speculation about my working arrangements, an unhealthy interest in my children and the educational provision we have made to protect them from the deranged attentions of the kind of scum who disseminate the bilious filth that pervades these leaflets, unashamed lies about properties that I am alleged to own in sundry far-off lands - all of this competes for valuable space on a newsletter that could otherwise have been devoted to the cause of explaining to us what positive things our newly-elected councillors plan to do for their constituents over the three and a half years between now and the next local elections.

Some might consider it odd that newly elected councillors, supported by an administration of their own colour with a clear majority, should have nothing better to offer than bitter, ranting and spluttering attacks upon those they defeated several months ago. Especially when the object of their vitriol has made clear its preference for reverting to a role within the community which does not entail involvement in the electoral fray.

Others might think it even more strange that the individual singled out for particularly personal abuse (moi) is one who has clearly expressed his desire not to stand for election again.

But in actual fact a very clear pattern is emerging wherein the level of abuse and harassment that local Labour tries to mete out stands in directly inverse proportion to the willingness of the ICG to involve itself in electoral politics. This is a point worth reminding ourselves of over and over again when considering the actions of those concerned, and what our response to it ought to be.

A recent very good example arrived in the form of a letter sent to all sixty elected members at the London Borough of Hounslow, the Chief Executive, the Borough Solicitor and the borough's two Members of Parliament. Ostensibly from an Ivybridge-based individual (actually a former member of the ICG whose estate-wide and thoroughly deserved reputation as a fantasist, an incontinent liar and a general loony prevented him from achieving the high office he clearly felt he deserved), the letter brought to the attention of its recipients my personal financial difficulties and, characteristically confusing an IVA with bankruptcy, demanded the "resignation" of a backbench opposition councillor on the grounds that he had apparently somehow been responsible for a non-existent "constitutional breach" on my part.

Nobody who received the letter will have been in any doubt as to its true origins. The reasons for using the Ivybridge Idiot as a patsy were twofold:

Firstly, apart from the well-known fact of my having entered into an IVA the majority of the content was self-evidently libellous, making all manner of allegations. Whilst my critics know I am not litigious, and in any case will for obvious reasons have taken it as read that I could not afford the legal costs usually involved with an action for defamation, its authors will also have known that in the most obvious and clear-cut instances of libel a successful action (on prima facie evidence) can potentially be mounted for as little as £300. There is also the small matter of probably libellous remarks about a current councillor (Peter Thompson) and a former councillor (Jon Hardy) contained in the document. Much better to get a stooge to sign the letter who can be left to take the rap if the smelly stuff hits the fan.

Secondly, and more significantly, the fact of my IVA does not run comfortably alongside the picture they prefer to paint - that of the good-living, property-owning, champagne-swilling man of permanent leisure, shanting it up on the proceeds of my £26k per year (£18k during the last year) as an elected member.

It takes some chutzpah, not to mention a little imagination and creativity, for the same people to run two mutually contradictory smear stories about the same person, at the same time and in the same neighbourhood. It will be interesting to see how long they can keep both balls in the air without the whole thing coming crashing down around them.

In the meantime those of us with constructive work to do in the community will continue to do it, whether our doing so "intimidates" our poor elected members or not.

Britain just became a colder, crueller country - and for nothing

2010-10-21T09:44:00.007+01:00

By Johann Hari

Johann Hari is an award-winning journalist who writes twice-weekly for the Independent, one of Britain's leading newspapers, and the Huffington Post. He also writes for a wide range of other international newspapers and magazines. Publication of this article does not necessarily imply endorsement of every comment expressed therein.

Margaret Thatcher is lying sick in a private hospital bed in Belgravia – but her political children have just pushed her agenda further and harder and deeper than she ever dreamed of. When was the last time Britain’s public spending was slashed by more than 20 percent? Not in my mother’s lifetime. Not even in my grandmother’s lifetime. No: it was in 1918, when a Conservative-Liberal coalition said the best response to a global economic crisis was to rapidly pay off this country’s debts. The result? Unemployment soared from 6 percent to 19 percent, and the country’s economy collapsed so severely that they lost all ability to pay their bills and the debt actually rose from 114 percent to 180 percent. “History doesn’t repeat itself,” Mark Twain said, “but it does rhyme.”

George Osborne has just gambled your future on an extreme economic theory that has failed whenever and wherever it has been tried. In the Great Depression, we learned some basic principles. When an economy falters, ordinary people – perfectly sensibly – cut back their spending and try to pay down their debts. This causes a further fall in demand, and makes the economy worse. If the government cuts back at the same time, then there is no demand at all, and the economy goes into freefall. That’s why virtually every country in the world reacted to the Great Crash of 2008 – caused entirely by deregulated bankers – by increasing spending, funded by temporary debt. Better a deficit we repay in the good times than an endless depression. The countries that stimulated hardest, like South Korea, came out of recession first.

David Cameron and George Osborne have ignored all this. They have ignored the warnings of the Financial Times, the newspaper most critical of their strategy. They have dismissed the warnings of Nobel Laureates for Economics like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, whose warnings have consistently been proven right in this crisis. They have refused to learn from the fact that the country they held up as a model for how to deal with a recession – “Look and learn from across the Irish Sea,” Osborne said – has suffered the worst collapse in the developed world. They have instead blindly obeyed the ideological precepts they learned as baby Thatcherites: slash the state, and make the poor pay most.

Osborne galloped through his Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) speech, failing to name almost any of the services that will be slashed or shut down. It’s revealing that he doesn’t want to publicly name them while the nation is watching.

But beneath the statistics, there was a swathe of human tragedies that will now unnecessarily unfold across Britain. PriceWaterhouseCooper – nobody’s idea of a Trotskyite cell – says that a million people will now lose their jobs as a direct result. My father lost his job at the height of the last Tory recession, and had to leave the country to get another one. I remember how that felt. I remember what that did to my family. Now it’s going to happen to a million more families – and probably more after that. For the private sector to get all these people into work, as Osborne claims, there would have to be the most rapid business growth in my lifetime. Does anyone think that will happen?

Osborne has chosen the weakest people to take the worst cuts. The poorest sixteen year olds were given £30 a week to stay on in education, so they could afford to study – until Osborne’s team dismissed it as a “bribe” and shut it down. The most frail old people depend on council services to wash them and feed them – yet Osborne just slashed their budget by 30 percent, which service providers say will mean more pensioners being left to die in their own filth. Every family living on benefits is set to lose an average of £1000 a year – which, as I’ve seen from living in the East End of London, will mean many poor kids across Britain never getting a birthday party, or a trip to the seaside, or a bed of their own, or a winter coat. This isn’t just On Yer Bike, it’s On Yer Own.

The irrationality of this approach is perhaps plainest when you look at housing. We badly need more affordable housing in Britain. Some 4.5 million people are stuck on waiting lists, and the average age of a home buyer is now 37. It’s a cause of constant stress to the real middle class and despair for the poor. By a happy coincidence, house-building is one of the best stimulators of the economy: it employs a lot of people on average wages, who then spend their money quickly in a “multiplier effect.”

Yet Osborne has chosen the opposite. There will be on average one new home built per week in the whole of London and the south-east. That’s one. Indeed, instead of building homes, he’s driving people out of them. By slashing housing benefit, London councils alone say 83,000 people here are going to be forced to leave their homes, with 1.3 million ending up in more debt. Cameron has revealed that his baby daughter sleeps in a cardboard box decorated for her by her big sister. Thanks to him, a lot more people are going to be sleeping in cardboard boxes soon.

It can’t be coincidental that this is being done to us by three men – Cameron, Osborne, and Nick Clegg – who have never worried about a bill in their lives. On a basic level, they do not understand the effects of these decisions on real people. Remember, Cameron said before the election: "The papers keep writing that [my wife, Samantha] comes from a very blue-blooded background", but "she is actually very unconventional. She went to a day school." Osborne lives in a £4m trust fund he did nothing whatsoever to earn, and which is stashed offshore to prevent it being taxed. Clegg actually thought the state pension was £30 a week, a level that would kill pensioners.

These attitudes have real consequences. We’re not in this together. Who isn’t in it with us? Them, their friends, and their families. They were asked to pay nothing more in this CSR. On the contrary: they are being let off left, right and centre. To pluck a random example, one of the richest corporations in Britain, Vodafone, had an outstanding tax bill of £6 billion – but Osborne simply cancelled it this year. If he had made them pay, he could have prevented nearly all the cuts to all the welfare recipients in Britain. You try refusing to pay your taxes next time, and see if George Osborne shows the same generosity to you as he does to the super-rich.

There is one stark symbol of how unjust the response to this economic disaster caused by bankers is. They have just paid themselves £7bn in bonuses – much of it our money – to reward themselves for failure. That’s the same sum Osborne took from the benefits of the British poor yesterday, who did nothing to cause this crash. And he has the chutzpah to brag about “fairness.”

Britain just became colder and crueler country. And for what? To pantingly follow a disproven ideology over a cliff. On the eve of the general election, Cameron told us: "There'll be no cuts to frontline services," "we're not talking about swingeing cuts,” and “all cuts will be fair.” Is it possible to call him anything but a liar and an ideologue today?

You can enjoy a long rest, Baroness Thatcher – your successors have embarked on a Mephedrone-charged imitation that exceeds your most fantastical dreams.

While the cat's away...

2010-10-20T01:43:00.009+01:00

My son Joe and I have recently returned from a brief weekend stay at Gurnard Pines, on the Isle of Wight. I am a little envious of Caroline and my daughter Rosie who will still be there until Friday afternoon.

I've mislaid the mobile phone cable again so I'll post up a few photos if and when I manage to locate it.

While I was away I received a message from one of our Worton members advising me of what would appear to be a spectacularly appalling Labour leaflet, even by the standard of its authors, which has evidently been distributed on part of the Worton estate (they appear to lack either the manpower or the stamina to be able to circulate all 500 doors on the estate in one day as we frequently do).

I don't have a hard copy to hand, but by all accounts it consists solely or at least mainly of a bilious attack on the ICG in spite of the fact that we no longer have any councillors and have stated publicly that we would prefer henceforth to pursue our community objectives in a non-political way and outside of the electoral process. For those inclined to wonder why this statement of intent would appear to have especially irked them, a clue lies in the word "community" - it can reasonably be deduced that the scum element remains in control of the party in Isleworth at the time of writing.

When I take physical possession of the item I'll scan it and post it up. Presumably its originators will snigger that we will have given them free publicity, whilst the grown-ups amongst my readership will have the opportunity to behold precisely what it is we are dealing with today in local Labour.

For now, for me, it is on to more pressing things, such as the need to earn a living. So with the promise of more soon, I will away.

Isleworth councillor meets US anti-graffiti campaigner

2010-10-06T18:48:00.007+01:00

What a splendid initiative by Isleworth councillor Ed Mayne (left), taking advantage of a private visit to New York to meet up with a well-known US anti-graffiti campaigner to pick up some advice on fighting crime at no cost at all to the Hounslow taxpayer.

Councillor Mayne, who is Lead Member for Community Safety (a post I held between 2006 and 2009), met with Council Member Peter F. Vallone Junior (!) during his trip to the States and was also able to discuss issues surrounding possession of firearms and relationship between civic leaders and police.

Speaking to the Hounslow Chronicle (click here for full story), Cllr. Mayne commented: "It was enlightening to meet such a high profile councillor who was happy to engage and share ideas. Councillor Vallone has been a major part of New York's drive for public safety and decreased levels of crime. It was exciting to have him agree with many of the ideas I was proposing and share some of the ways he has made his city significantly safer for residents".

Let's hope that some of the lessons learned by Cllr. Mayne during his visit can be put to good use for the benefit of Hounslow residents.

Photograph reproduced with acknowledgements to the Hounslow Chronicle.