In my last update on the subject of the London Borough of Hounslow's Statement of Community Involvement I pointed out that the Cabinet, and thereafter Borough Council, was set to debate and hopefully adopt its own Statement (SCI) imminently.
I further pointed out that the powerful Group of 15 residents' alliance - in which the ICG plays a significant role - had drawn up a set of robust amendments which have all been endorsed in their entirety by the Planning Committee, and that these proposed amendments would be presented to the two meetings on that basis.
It would appear now that the Statement's appearance will be less imminent after all than first we had hoped. It would seem we are now looking at it being presented to Cabinet on March 12th.
Ordinarily it would have been our assumption, based on past experience, that the ruling administration simply didn't wish to discuss the Statement and its guiding principles and was stalling for time as a means of avoiding getting the amendements onto the statute book and rolled out into the public domain. However word has it (although admittedly from an eternal optimist) that the delay has been caused by the need to extensively revise the draft in the light of the community's concerns.
We have been around long enough, of course, not to accept such a plea at face value. Politicians generally speaking do not like community involvement unless it can be marshalled and corralled by themselves, whilst in this instance the initiative has clearly been taken by the community. But can they ignore such an irresistable and well-organised force as the Group of 15 in what is now only a little more than a year before next year's local elections?
Has the Lead Member delayed publication from a position of respect for the residents and their concerns? Or is the hold-up indicative of a leadership that is still wondering what the hell it is going to do to get itself out of this one?
We will know the answer to that question in March.
Showing posts with label Community Engagement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Community Engagement. Show all posts
Tuesday, 22 January 2013
Wednesday, 14 November 2012
Community - Just How Far Has Hounslow Moved?
Today I was asked by two very prominent and influential members of the active community in Isleworth whether the Independent Community Group (ICG) would once again be fielding candidates at the next local elections in May 2014.
It’s not the first time that I have been asked this question in recent weeks, but the answer I gave them was the same as I have given to others who have inquired from a less favourable perspective. That answer is that it is not my decision to make and, to the best of my knowledge, those whose decision it will be have yet to make it. And that it is the very truth.
It was a useful and constructive meeting over coffee and cakes. For the most part we discussed the wider question of community involvement, the differing attitudes towards it between various individual councillors, and between councillors in general and officers. I would like to stress that it was noted in particular that one councillor – Theo Dennison (Syon) – has quite consistently demonstrated what we all believe to be a really sincere commitment to the cause of our community’s emancipation and would appear to have paid the price within his own party for doing so.
Theo was one of three local councillors whom I got the opportunity to speak to last Sunday after the fantastically well-supported Remembrance Day Parade in Isleworth. The others were Ed Mayne and, more briefly, Sue Sampson. Both Ed and Sue have been very supportive of the Isleworth Royal British Legion and of the efforts of the local Branch to raise funds for the Poppy Appeal each year. I understand that the third Isleworth ward councillor, Mindu Bains, was representing the Mayor at another parade on the same day.
I have been disappointed that in spite of the obvious goodwill that exists amongst all concerned our efforts to heal old wounds and eradicate any lingering divisions remain hampered by the self-centred activities of an outsider to the ward (and to the borough) about whom I have written previously. In spite of Theo’s optimistic pleas to the contrary, this man retains the ear of some of our elected members, and has clearly been the driving force behind some of the negative activity, at least in Isleworth ward, which has taken place since the 2010 local elections and which is quite obviously designed to scupper any attempt by us to try to find an honourable consensus with our current elected members. In the words of one councillor with whom I spoke a few weeks back, “we can’t let him go”.
As I have said before, it is not this ridiculous man that is important but the relationship and the reaction of others to him. Isleworth councillors may have binned a particularly poisonous and defamatory post-election leaflet after having second thoughts once a relatively small number had gone out, but by whose authority is an outsider producing such material in the name of our local Labour Party and what were councillors thinking of by even venturing to deliver them in the first place? How can the strategic direction of a group of intelligent and enthusiastic new councillors reasonably be influenced, in whole or even in part, by the consistently ill-informed and irrational prejudices of an unelected individual from another borough who shows serious signs of mental and emotional imbalance?
But when all is said and done it would be wrong to base our whole approach on the self-serving activities of one obscure individual. We need to take a wider view. We need, above everything else, to consider how the current administration at the London Borough of Hounslow is dealing with the question of Community Engagement, and to do so in recognition of the fact that past election defeats at the hands of the organised community and the “threat” of an ICG electoral resurgence is likely if anything to artificially distort the Labour regime’s current approach to the subject in a more pro-community direction than might otherwise have been the case.
Or to put it another way – if they are not “doing it” now, what chance is there that they will be doing it when and if, to adopt an Irish analogy, the ICG has decommissioned its electoral weapons?
I have already related how long-time Brentford councillor Ruth Cadbury, still a hugely influential figure within the Labour Group, quite shamelessly attempted to take the credit for her party for a commitment of funds to the St. John’s Community Centre in Isleworth which had been made by the ICG when we were in office and which she and her party had actually voted against.
This morning (Tuesday) I am advised that Councillor Colin Ellar, now once again Deputy Leader of Hounslow Council, regaled amused residents’ leaders at a community event with his account of how the current council leadership is supporting them (whilst trying to corral them under his party’s strategic leadership of course) and the previous administration wasn’t. There can surely be nothing more perverse than a Hounslow Labour politician pleading that an administration in which the ICG took the lead on Communities was less of a friend to organised residents than one in which he and the likes of Councillor Cadbury are involved!
Overall, Councillor Dennison excepted, I have to say I do not see an administration champing at the bit to relinquish its power to the residents’ associations and amenity groups, to the voluntary organisations and the civic societies. Its continued coolness towards the ICG even after we had offered the hand of friendship is in itself testimony to this. I don’t think I am assuming too much of a sense of our own importance when I aver that an administration that truly wanted to embrace the community ideal would have reacted to the new reality that followed the 2010 local elections by seeking to incorporate our knowledge and experience – if only to neutralise a potential rival – rather than by circulating scurrilous leaflets commenting on the private financial affairs of individual ICG members and making wholly false claims about alleged holiday homes. By these actions they simply made it clear that it was the whole community concept, rather than just our organisation, with which they felt they had an issue.
I must confess I feel my scepticism became apparent to the two community champions as I sipped my medium Americano with a small dash of milk. We regretted the abolition of the Area Committees and the reclamation of planning powers by officers. We shared a sense of dismay over the loss of the Brentford Festival to the borough, and over the administration’s instinctive response to the news by trying to blame their predecessors rather than dedicating their efforts towards reversing this sorry and quite unacceptable situation.
This evening I received a document from a community leader in another part of the borough referring to the local authority’s “Statement of Community Exclusion” (it is supposed to read “Involvement”). I know what he meant.
I recognise, of course, that if the ICG is involved in the 2014 local elections it is compelled to contest those areas in which it has a reasonable chance of success, and that in so doing the councillors we will be trying to knock out will not necessarily be those with whom we have much of a quarrel. This is regrettable, even a tad ironic, but sadly unavoidable. With a bit of luck they will be able to find safer seats elsewhere, as others have done rather than face us in the past.
Nevertheless I feel that unless an unambiguous sign is forthcoming shortly from Labour (and it has to be Labour, as they are in office) that real Community Empowerment and not more inane political gamesmanship is on the agenda the ICG’s committee should take the plunge and commit to continued involvement in the electoral process in a once and for all conclusion of sadly unfinished business.
Sunday, 30 September 2012
Hounslow Labour Group - No Change, No Quarter
I commented in a previous thread about Syon Labour Councillor Theo Dennison and his noble sentiments about engaging with the community, albeit from the perspective of a Labour administration.
In that article I noted that Theo had been demoted from the Council Cabinet, and expressed the view that this did not send a good signal to those of us who might be looking for some way in which to try to subsume the now borough-wide movement for a community role in decision-making into the existing political structure so as to negate the need for perpetual electoral challenge, and all the hassle that that entails.
There have been some further developments since I wrote that article, regrettably none of them good.
An intervention on the Comments section of prominent Labour councillor Ruth Cadbury's blog by a well-known Labour supporter from Southall, whose membership status is unclear but who nonetheless involves himself heavily in Hounslow politics, prompted me to comment on the Brentford TW8 community forum.
Perhaps unsurprisingly given his positive approach to local political engagement, Councillor Dennison made it clear that he had no respect for the Southall interloper. In response the latter not only made some unflattering remarks about Councillor Dennison but presumed to do so - interestingly - in the name of the Hounslow Labour Group. In particular, he announced that Councillor Dennison had been demoted due to his colleagues having a low opinion of him as a person.
I enquired as to whether any of Theo's colleagues would be offering any words in his defence, bearing in mind that he is a colleague, anytime soon. In particular they might wish to reassure us that the interloper was not in a position to speak for the Hounslow Labour Group, bearing in mind his status as a non-councillor, non-Hounslow resident and possibly even non-party member.
In reply Theo very honourably attempted to mitigate their apparent lack of support by pointing out that no other member of the Labour Group (other than Councillor Cadbury, a now self-declared mate of the interloper despite having previously told us that she didn't know him!) ever posts on the forum.
No sooner had he done this than another member of the Hounslow Labour Group, a Cabinet member no less, further undermined Theo by herself entering the debate on the forum, not to defend her colleague but to speak out in support of the interloper!
To date neither the Hounslow Labour Group nor any member thereof has seen fit to speak up for Councillor Dennison, despite the fact that he regularly makes it his business to defend them whenever any of them come in for any criticism, even when it is sometimes well-deserved. It would appear that in the Hounslow Labour Group loyalty is very much a one-way street.
One is, very reluctantly, forced to conclude that it is very much the Taylor/Cadbury approach to local engagement, rather than the approach clearly preferred by Theo Dennison, which is in the ascendancy at Lampton Road, and that the show is being run by outside forces with their own agenda rather than by elected members in Hounslow.
It's not looking good.
In that article I noted that Theo had been demoted from the Council Cabinet, and expressed the view that this did not send a good signal to those of us who might be looking for some way in which to try to subsume the now borough-wide movement for a community role in decision-making into the existing political structure so as to negate the need for perpetual electoral challenge, and all the hassle that that entails.
There have been some further developments since I wrote that article, regrettably none of them good.
An intervention on the Comments section of prominent Labour councillor Ruth Cadbury's blog by a well-known Labour supporter from Southall, whose membership status is unclear but who nonetheless involves himself heavily in Hounslow politics, prompted me to comment on the Brentford TW8 community forum.
Perhaps unsurprisingly given his positive approach to local political engagement, Councillor Dennison made it clear that he had no respect for the Southall interloper. In response the latter not only made some unflattering remarks about Councillor Dennison but presumed to do so - interestingly - in the name of the Hounslow Labour Group. In particular, he announced that Councillor Dennison had been demoted due to his colleagues having a low opinion of him as a person.
I enquired as to whether any of Theo's colleagues would be offering any words in his defence, bearing in mind that he is a colleague, anytime soon. In particular they might wish to reassure us that the interloper was not in a position to speak for the Hounslow Labour Group, bearing in mind his status as a non-councillor, non-Hounslow resident and possibly even non-party member.
In reply Theo very honourably attempted to mitigate their apparent lack of support by pointing out that no other member of the Labour Group (other than Councillor Cadbury, a now self-declared mate of the interloper despite having previously told us that she didn't know him!) ever posts on the forum.
No sooner had he done this than another member of the Hounslow Labour Group, a Cabinet member no less, further undermined Theo by herself entering the debate on the forum, not to defend her colleague but to speak out in support of the interloper!
To date neither the Hounslow Labour Group nor any member thereof has seen fit to speak up for Councillor Dennison, despite the fact that he regularly makes it his business to defend them whenever any of them come in for any criticism, even when it is sometimes well-deserved. It would appear that in the Hounslow Labour Group loyalty is very much a one-way street.
One is, very reluctantly, forced to conclude that it is very much the Taylor/Cadbury approach to local engagement, rather than the approach clearly preferred by Theo Dennison, which is in the ascendancy at Lampton Road, and that the show is being run by outside forces with their own agenda rather than by elected members in Hounslow.
It's not looking good.
Saturday, 31 March 2012
How the Political Parties Exclude the General Public
By Peter Watt, former General Secretary of the Labour Party
George Galloway was right. I can hardly believe that I have typed that but on at least one thing he really is right. In his post-election interviews he said that:
“There are very large numbers of people completely disenchanted and alienated from the political process and from the mainstream political parties”.
And he is spot on. The problem is that the mainstream political parties can’t see it or choose not to. On the whole the big three UK Parties operate as a closed shop. They talk the language of reaching out to communities and engagement but they don’t really mean it. Instead they operate a series of cosy closed and highly secretive cabals that suit everyone involved and no one who isn’t. That may sound harsh but it is pretty accurate.
Let’s take selecting candidates for election which is absolutely a closed shop. Candidates are selected from a tiny group of activists who have to preform strange rituals to impress other activists in order to try and be selected. You have to stop having much of a life outside of politics in order to focus your efforts. You have to endure endless and often pointless meetings held in bizarre locations and appear to enjoy them. You have to learn how to access blocks of flats with entry phones in order to leaflets that no one reads. And you have to make sure that you learn the language of the political elite, the lexicon of the politically initiated within your chosen political tribe. And all of this just to be considered. The chances are that the whole thing will end up being stitched up in some way or other anyway and your best bet is that you are the beneficiary of said stitch-up.
Or let’s take rational argument and debate which cannot happen within the cabal, in fact has to be stamped out. Put simply, if your side’s front bench says something then it must be true and has to be supported. If the other side’s front bench say it then it is a lie, worse a self-interested lie and must be opposed. So Labour opposes Free Schools because they are a Tory policy; even though for all intents and purposes they are academy schools which Labour introduced. Labour opposes the current welfare reform legislation because it is ‘Tory’ reform and therefore bad; even though Labour would have passed something very similar. The Tories accused Labour of cutting equipment from our troops and say it is typical of their attitude towards our armed forces; and then in Government scrap our aircraft carriers. They condemned Labour for blocking any referendum on EU treaties as evidence of their rampant Europhilia; and then in Government block a referendum on changes to an EU treaty.
Or take policy development within parties which is essentially a fix. Structures are created and the language of inclusion and openness is used to justify them. But in reality the process is exclusive, deliberately designed to make involvement more difficult. Certainly more difficult if you are not in the cabal, all but impossible if you are one of the 96% of the population who are not members of a political party.
In fact the party machines have a language and culture that justifies this exclusion. Member engagement is seen a more important than engaging the public. Allowing the public a glimpse of the inner workings of political life is fought tooth and nail by activists who want to preserve their privileges. So attempts to engage the public end up being barely that at all. They are grudging and desperately unattractive offers to the public to visit the Party rather than the Party going out to visit the public. The result are misnamed ‘open days’ at Conferences which you have to apply to in advance. Or handfuls of ‘real people’ being hand-picked to hear a speech after being carefully vetted for suitability. It’s not engagement at all and in fact just reinforces the sense of separation.
My favourite comment from party members is the one about ‘I did/I didn’t hear that on the doorstep’. As if the odd and snatched conversations between a party canvasser and a member of the public is a rational way to gauge opinion! But to hear activists talk you’d think that there is no purer and efficacious way to ascertain what is really going on out there than knocking on the doors of total strangers whilst wearing a rosette and carrying a clipboard!
So it all ends up in a closed and cosy world that benefits a tiny proportion of the 4% of electors who choose to join a political party. This tiny, exclusive and closed elite have developed a system that justifies its own existence to itself. That has a collective belief in its own sense of superiority. That creates jobs and elected positions from within its own ranks. And that is alienated from the vast majority of the public. But they can’t see it. And to be honest even if they could they wouldn’t want to change it because they like it just the way it is.
It’s why there attempts to look in touch look so desperately staid and inauthentic. Ed Miliband might think that buying sausage rolls makes him look in touch; most people suspect that he dumped them when he got round the corner. David Cameron might think that playing badminton makes him look like action man; most people thought he looked a prat.
But it can’t go on. A healthy democracy needs healthy political parties and right about now we have sick and dying parties. And in order to become healthy they will need to open up. Selections need to be open to the public not closed as must policy development. In fact central control generally has to reduce so that innovation and creativity can thrive. And the emphasis should be on being in partnership with electors not being their master. It will certainly take a damn sight more than any of the so called reforms that the main parties have tried so far.
The big political parties are seen as irrelevant by most voters. For now however they tend to vote for them come election time, even if unenthusiastically. But as Bradford West shows you can’t take even that for granted forever.
Reproduced with acknowledgements to Dale & Co., the current affairs mega blog by Iain Dale & Friends
George Galloway was right. I can hardly believe that I have typed that but on at least one thing he really is right. In his post-election interviews he said that:
“There are very large numbers of people completely disenchanted and alienated from the political process and from the mainstream political parties”.
And he is spot on. The problem is that the mainstream political parties can’t see it or choose not to. On the whole the big three UK Parties operate as a closed shop. They talk the language of reaching out to communities and engagement but they don’t really mean it. Instead they operate a series of cosy closed and highly secretive cabals that suit everyone involved and no one who isn’t. That may sound harsh but it is pretty accurate.
Let’s take selecting candidates for election which is absolutely a closed shop. Candidates are selected from a tiny group of activists who have to preform strange rituals to impress other activists in order to try and be selected. You have to stop having much of a life outside of politics in order to focus your efforts. You have to endure endless and often pointless meetings held in bizarre locations and appear to enjoy them. You have to learn how to access blocks of flats with entry phones in order to leaflets that no one reads. And you have to make sure that you learn the language of the political elite, the lexicon of the politically initiated within your chosen political tribe. And all of this just to be considered. The chances are that the whole thing will end up being stitched up in some way or other anyway and your best bet is that you are the beneficiary of said stitch-up.
"The problem is that the mainstream political parties can’t see it or choose not to. On the whole the big three UK Parties operate as a closed shop. They talk the language of reaching out to communities and engagement but they don’t really mean it. Instead they operate a series of cosy closed and highly secretive cabals that suit everyone involved and no one who isn’t. That may sound harsh but it is pretty accurate."
Or let’s take rational argument and debate which cannot happen within the cabal, in fact has to be stamped out. Put simply, if your side’s front bench says something then it must be true and has to be supported. If the other side’s front bench say it then it is a lie, worse a self-interested lie and must be opposed. So Labour opposes Free Schools because they are a Tory policy; even though for all intents and purposes they are academy schools which Labour introduced. Labour opposes the current welfare reform legislation because it is ‘Tory’ reform and therefore bad; even though Labour would have passed something very similar. The Tories accused Labour of cutting equipment from our troops and say it is typical of their attitude towards our armed forces; and then in Government scrap our aircraft carriers. They condemned Labour for blocking any referendum on EU treaties as evidence of their rampant Europhilia; and then in Government block a referendum on changes to an EU treaty.
Or take policy development within parties which is essentially a fix. Structures are created and the language of inclusion and openness is used to justify them. But in reality the process is exclusive, deliberately designed to make involvement more difficult. Certainly more difficult if you are not in the cabal, all but impossible if you are one of the 96% of the population who are not members of a political party.
In fact the party machines have a language and culture that justifies this exclusion. Member engagement is seen a more important than engaging the public. Allowing the public a glimpse of the inner workings of political life is fought tooth and nail by activists who want to preserve their privileges. So attempts to engage the public end up being barely that at all. They are grudging and desperately unattractive offers to the public to visit the Party rather than the Party going out to visit the public. The result are misnamed ‘open days’ at Conferences which you have to apply to in advance. Or handfuls of ‘real people’ being hand-picked to hear a speech after being carefully vetted for suitability. It’s not engagement at all and in fact just reinforces the sense of separation.
My favourite comment from party members is the one about ‘I did/I didn’t hear that on the doorstep’. As if the odd and snatched conversations between a party canvasser and a member of the public is a rational way to gauge opinion! But to hear activists talk you’d think that there is no purer and efficacious way to ascertain what is really going on out there than knocking on the doors of total strangers whilst wearing a rosette and carrying a clipboard!
So it all ends up in a closed and cosy world that benefits a tiny proportion of the 4% of electors who choose to join a political party. This tiny, exclusive and closed elite have developed a system that justifies its own existence to itself. That has a collective belief in its own sense of superiority. That creates jobs and elected positions from within its own ranks. And that is alienated from the vast majority of the public. But they can’t see it. And to be honest even if they could they wouldn’t want to change it because they like it just the way it is.
It’s why there attempts to look in touch look so desperately staid and inauthentic. Ed Miliband might think that buying sausage rolls makes him look in touch; most people suspect that he dumped them when he got round the corner. David Cameron might think that playing badminton makes him look like action man; most people thought he looked a prat.
But it can’t go on. A healthy democracy needs healthy political parties and right about now we have sick and dying parties. And in order to become healthy they will need to open up. Selections need to be open to the public not closed as must policy development. In fact central control generally has to reduce so that innovation and creativity can thrive. And the emphasis should be on being in partnership with electors not being their master. It will certainly take a damn sight more than any of the so called reforms that the main parties have tried so far.
The big political parties are seen as irrelevant by most voters. For now however they tend to vote for them come election time, even if unenthusiastically. But as Bradford West shows you can’t take even that for granted forever.
Reproduced with acknowledgements to Dale & Co., the current affairs mega blog by Iain Dale & Friends
Friday, 3 September 2010
Reflections on the new IBAC
Last night, in the company of Liberal Democrat leader Andrew Dakers, fellow ICG Committee members Andy Sibley and Caroline Andrews, and several other Community colleagues, I attended a meeting of the now Labour-dominated Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (IBAC). As well as having an interest in some the issues discussed I was also curious to see how the new team perform.
I have of course been a member of IBAC at a time when it had a Labour majority and was about as welcome as an outbreak of flatulence in an astronaut's suit. But this was the first time I had attended a meeting as a member of the public.
Initial impressions were varied. The Isleworth councillors were quiet, doubtless they will become more confident and assertive with experience. Matt Harmer chaired with authority, but was at times a trifle brusque - as Basil Fawlty might have put it - with some of the members of the public. Ruth Cadbury, interestingly, spoke considerably less than she was given to doing during the previous administration. Possibly now that she is surrounded by "real" councillors her calling to educate has abated a tad?
The enigma for me is Theo Dennison, one of the three new Labour members for Syon ward. He was consistently, and quite vocally, an advocate for more consultation with and participation from the wider public, as I am informed he had been at the previous meeting. Naturally with what we know about the Labour Party locally this "does not compute" but I am keen to establish whether this welcome approach is sincere, or whether he simply has more confidence than most of his colleagues that public participation can be managed and channeled in the direction that the Party would like it to go. Doubtless we'll be able to form a clearer view as his term of office progresses but I believe this to be a potentially significant development and one that is well worth monitoring.
More in keeping with the old local Labour mentality that we all know and love was Brentford member Mel Collins, who on four separate occasions referred to the people in the public area as his "audience" and praised the Chair for having been "tolerant" of said public by allowing them to speak, when objecting to Councillor Dennison's proposal to move the Open Forum part of the agenda forward at future meetings as a courtesy to those attending. Conservative councillor Barbara Reid was irritatingly keen to be seen supporting the Chair in rebuffing this particularly helpful proposal. If he is sincere Councillor Dennison is clearly going to have his work cut out over the next four years.
After the meeting several of us retired to the wonderful Magpie and Crown in Brentford High Street where a rather too nice scrumpy was one of the star attractions. It was a long walk home. Happy days.
I have of course been a member of IBAC at a time when it had a Labour majority and was about as welcome as an outbreak of flatulence in an astronaut's suit. But this was the first time I had attended a meeting as a member of the public.
Initial impressions were varied. The Isleworth councillors were quiet, doubtless they will become more confident and assertive with experience. Matt Harmer chaired with authority, but was at times a trifle brusque - as Basil Fawlty might have put it - with some of the members of the public. Ruth Cadbury, interestingly, spoke considerably less than she was given to doing during the previous administration. Possibly now that she is surrounded by "real" councillors her calling to educate has abated a tad?
The enigma for me is Theo Dennison, one of the three new Labour members for Syon ward. He was consistently, and quite vocally, an advocate for more consultation with and participation from the wider public, as I am informed he had been at the previous meeting. Naturally with what we know about the Labour Party locally this "does not compute" but I am keen to establish whether this welcome approach is sincere, or whether he simply has more confidence than most of his colleagues that public participation can be managed and channeled in the direction that the Party would like it to go. Doubtless we'll be able to form a clearer view as his term of office progresses but I believe this to be a potentially significant development and one that is well worth monitoring.
More in keeping with the old local Labour mentality that we all know and love was Brentford member Mel Collins, who on four separate occasions referred to the people in the public area as his "audience" and praised the Chair for having been "tolerant" of said public by allowing them to speak, when objecting to Councillor Dennison's proposal to move the Open Forum part of the agenda forward at future meetings as a courtesy to those attending. Conservative councillor Barbara Reid was irritatingly keen to be seen supporting the Chair in rebuffing this particularly helpful proposal. If he is sincere Councillor Dennison is clearly going to have his work cut out over the next four years.
After the meeting several of us retired to the wonderful Magpie and Crown in Brentford High Street where a rather too nice scrumpy was one of the star attractions. It was a long walk home. Happy days.
Thursday, 4 February 2010
St. George's Day - the "Bigger Picture" comes into focus
Back on 12th August 2008 I commented on this blog in an article entitled "Seeing the Bigger Picture", following a visit to the London Mela in Gunnersbury Park: "Imagine 75,000 people attending a St. George's Day festival, bedecked with English flags and populated by British people of all cultural and ethnic backgrounds, with food, music and dance from South Asia, China, the Caribbean, as well as from the UK. A festival which would flaunt the proud Englishness of the diverse society which we enjoy today. What better way could there possibly be of putting across the message that we are an integrated community, contemptuous of prejudice and disharmony, diverse yet cohesive, brought together by the common values that unite us in a society in which Everybody Matters?"
Almost two years later, thanks largely to the efforts of my dynamic ward colleague Councillor Paul Fisher who is also the council's Lead Member for Community Engagement, residents of Ivybridge will be one of several communities in the local area that will be staging parties to celebrate St. George's Day with the support of the Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee (IBAC).
And here's the exciting bit - the Somali community, now thoroughly integrated into the residents' movement on the estate, has offered to play a leading role in the celebrations, which will stress the sense of common identity that people from different backgrounds enjoy on the estate and throughout our local area.
It is a source of great pride to me that these relatively recent arrivals to our village have become organised and contribute vociferously to our local community life. Their leaders pull no punches in highlighting areas of specific concern to Somalis as a group, but what really is encouraging is their desire and determination to play a full and active role in the life of the wider community also. Their ethos is one which strikes at the very heart of what Community Cohesion is about - eradicating disadvantage whilst encouraging responsibility and a sense of citizenship amongst their own.
The old ways, which encouraged separation and suspicion with a view to garnering votes from perpetually weak and frightened minorities, have been well and truly consigned to the scrapheap.
The key to reclaiming St. George's Day from the far-right is not to suppress it, but to re-present it an the image that is appropriate to the age in which we live. As a celebration of a diverse and tolerant England it provides us with a powerful tool for driving the Cohesion agenda forward.
Almost two years later, thanks largely to the efforts of my dynamic ward colleague Councillor Paul Fisher who is also the council's Lead Member for Community Engagement, residents of Ivybridge will be one of several communities in the local area that will be staging parties to celebrate St. George's Day with the support of the Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee (IBAC).
And here's the exciting bit - the Somali community, now thoroughly integrated into the residents' movement on the estate, has offered to play a leading role in the celebrations, which will stress the sense of common identity that people from different backgrounds enjoy on the estate and throughout our local area.
It is a source of great pride to me that these relatively recent arrivals to our village have become organised and contribute vociferously to our local community life. Their leaders pull no punches in highlighting areas of specific concern to Somalis as a group, but what really is encouraging is their desire and determination to play a full and active role in the life of the wider community also. Their ethos is one which strikes at the very heart of what Community Cohesion is about - eradicating disadvantage whilst encouraging responsibility and a sense of citizenship amongst their own.
The old ways, which encouraged separation and suspicion with a view to garnering votes from perpetually weak and frightened minorities, have been well and truly consigned to the scrapheap.
The key to reclaiming St. George's Day from the far-right is not to suppress it, but to re-present it an the image that is appropriate to the age in which we live. As a celebration of a diverse and tolerant England it provides us with a powerful tool for driving the Cohesion agenda forward.
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Now we're all community councillors!
There's an old quote by somebody or other - possibly G.K. Chesterton - which has it that the essence of democracy is simple. First the people ask for something, and then they get it.
My colleague, ICG Chair Councillor Jon Hardy captured this principle to perfection when seconding my Motion on Community Engagement to Borough Council yesterday. Empowering communities need not entail the pure but impractical concept of the classic Grecian democracy, in which citizens partake in endless referenda about what time the local tavern should cease dispensing alcoholic beverages or how much one should be expected to pay for a tin of beans. Instead, it is simply a case of identifying what it is that people want and then delivering it with the minimum of fuss.
My Motion was quite deliberately basic. It read:
"This Council calls to expand upon the Motion passed on 4th March 2008, which sought to improve Community Engagement and to develop relations with residents’ organisations and civic groups around the Borough.
"This Council now requires that timelines be set in place for the full and final implementation of a radical and robust Community Engagement strategy, which will necessitate the buy-in and full co-operation of all employees of the organisation.
"This Council therefore authorises the Lead Member for Community Engagement to draw up a six-month programme for the incorporation of an unambiguous empowerment strategy into all work undertaken by the local authority, and asserts that the programme will come into operation no later than six months from the passing of this Motion”.
The purpose of the Motion was, self-evidently, to put an end to the dichotomy which exists at present in which the administration expresses its desire to engage in a genuine and meaningful way with our communities, and yet the bureaucracy continues to act as a barrier to such engagement, often treating our residents and their organisations as a problem without which the business of running a local authority would be so much easier, and forever finding reasons why anything remotely inspirational, imaginative or different cannot be done.
Jon emphasised the point quite brilliantly. We want Section 106 money spent on improving the fabric of our communities when they are affected by development - so why is it so difficult to quantify and access? We want clean air for our residents living within sniffing distance of Mogden Sewage Treatment Works - so why are we no further down the line than we were when we assumed power three years ago, with the bureaucracy constantly battling with and fobbing off residents who have the temerity to ask what we are doing to support them? Why does the organisation seem constructed in such a way as to provide built-in, knee-jerk obstacles to more or less everything positive that we aspire to achieve?
What was particularly significant about this Motion - and the importance of this cannot be overstated - was that it received unanimous, cross-party support. When I began the debate on this topic back in March 2008 the Labour Group abstained and my earlier Motion was described by Hounslow Independent Alliance councillor John Connelly as "meaningless" (i.e not about money). This time every hand went up, and I was even taken to task by Andrew Dakers for the Liberal Democrats and Labour's Matt Harmer for not having gone far enough - a bit of politicking, maybe, but a significant indication of the direction in which things are moving.
The London Borough of Hounslow now has six months to do what it has not done up till now, either under this administration or the previous one, and transform itself into an outward-facing, people-focused facilitator of real community participation. The unanimity of the vote means there is no question any more of waiting for a change of administration in the hope that members will revert to bickering about budgets and forget about the more aspirational side of a local authority's work.
The message to the naysayers from last night's vote was that henceforth whoever is in office, the call for a New Way will still be heard.
My colleague, ICG Chair Councillor Jon Hardy captured this principle to perfection when seconding my Motion on Community Engagement to Borough Council yesterday. Empowering communities need not entail the pure but impractical concept of the classic Grecian democracy, in which citizens partake in endless referenda about what time the local tavern should cease dispensing alcoholic beverages or how much one should be expected to pay for a tin of beans. Instead, it is simply a case of identifying what it is that people want and then delivering it with the minimum of fuss.
My Motion was quite deliberately basic. It read:
"This Council calls to expand upon the Motion passed on 4th March 2008, which sought to improve Community Engagement and to develop relations with residents’ organisations and civic groups around the Borough.
"This Council now requires that timelines be set in place for the full and final implementation of a radical and robust Community Engagement strategy, which will necessitate the buy-in and full co-operation of all employees of the organisation.
"This Council therefore authorises the Lead Member for Community Engagement to draw up a six-month programme for the incorporation of an unambiguous empowerment strategy into all work undertaken by the local authority, and asserts that the programme will come into operation no later than six months from the passing of this Motion”.
The purpose of the Motion was, self-evidently, to put an end to the dichotomy which exists at present in which the administration expresses its desire to engage in a genuine and meaningful way with our communities, and yet the bureaucracy continues to act as a barrier to such engagement, often treating our residents and their organisations as a problem without which the business of running a local authority would be so much easier, and forever finding reasons why anything remotely inspirational, imaginative or different cannot be done.
Jon emphasised the point quite brilliantly. We want Section 106 money spent on improving the fabric of our communities when they are affected by development - so why is it so difficult to quantify and access? We want clean air for our residents living within sniffing distance of Mogden Sewage Treatment Works - so why are we no further down the line than we were when we assumed power three years ago, with the bureaucracy constantly battling with and fobbing off residents who have the temerity to ask what we are doing to support them? Why does the organisation seem constructed in such a way as to provide built-in, knee-jerk obstacles to more or less everything positive that we aspire to achieve?
What was particularly significant about this Motion - and the importance of this cannot be overstated - was that it received unanimous, cross-party support. When I began the debate on this topic back in March 2008 the Labour Group abstained and my earlier Motion was described by Hounslow Independent Alliance councillor John Connelly as "meaningless" (i.e not about money). This time every hand went up, and I was even taken to task by Andrew Dakers for the Liberal Democrats and Labour's Matt Harmer for not having gone far enough - a bit of politicking, maybe, but a significant indication of the direction in which things are moving.
The London Borough of Hounslow now has six months to do what it has not done up till now, either under this administration or the previous one, and transform itself into an outward-facing, people-focused facilitator of real community participation. The unanimity of the vote means there is no question any more of waiting for a change of administration in the hope that members will revert to bickering about budgets and forget about the more aspirational side of a local authority's work.
The message to the naysayers from last night's vote was that henceforth whoever is in office, the call for a New Way will still be heard.
Sunday, 5 July 2009
Take Back Power in Hounslow - Isleworth Public Hall, Monday 6th July 2009
Generally I don't make a habit of arranging and participating in deliveries of leaflets around my own ward on behalf of political parties who every four years fight my Independent Community Group (ICG) colleagues and I for our seats. However the TakeBackPowerHounslow campaign led by Brentford Liberal Democrat councillor Andrew Dakers, who is the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for his party in Brentford & Isleworth constituency, offers to place the whole area of Community Engagement onto the parliamentary agenda and as such presents us with a very rare opportunity of rolling out what is essence an ICG programme across the whole country just a few short years after our own unsuccessful venture into the world of parliamentary politics.
The campaign, put in its simplest form, proposes sweeping changes in the way in which our MPs are held to account. New proposals, such as giving voters the power to "sack" MPs who underperform or abuse the system, would radically transform the way in which we're governed. At a time when confidence in politicians is perhaps at an all-time low in the wake of the expenses scandal, such an audacious programme might just be what is needed to restore confidence and thus arrest the drift towards extremism which threatens to cash in on the legitimate public disgust at the disappointing conduct of a discredited political centre.
A series of public meetings has been organised to debate the change agenda, beginning with what I hope will be a well-supported event in Isleworth. Full details are as follows:
ISLEWORTH: Monday, 6th July 2009 - Isleworth Public Hall, 7.30 pm
Chair - David Pavett (Chairman, Campion Concerns)
Councillor Phil Andrews (ICG)
Councillor Andrew Dakers (Lib Dem PPC, Brentford & Isleworth)
John Hunt (Green Party)
HOUNSLOW: Tuesday, 7th July 2009 - Montague Hall, 7.30 pm
Chair - Peter Hughes (President, Brentford Chamber of Commerce)
Councillor John Connelly (Hounslow Independent Alliance)
Councillor Andrew Dakers (Lib Dem PPC, Brentford & Isleworth)
John Hunt (Green Party)
BRENTFORD: Wednesday, 8th July 2009 - St. Paul's Church, 7.30 pm
Chair - Kath Richardson (Editor, Brentford TW8.com)
Councillor Andrew Dakers (Lib Dem PPC, Brentford & Isleworth)
Councillor Jon Hardy (ICG)
John Hunt (Green Party)
Mary Macleod (Conservative PPC, Brentford & Isleworth)
CHISWICK: Thursday, 9th July 2009 - Chiswick Town Hall, 7.30 pm
Chair - Helen Barnes (Editor, Hounslow & Brentford Times)
Councillor Andrew Dakers (Lib Dem PPC, Brentford & Isleworth)
Henry Gewanter (Independent, involved in expenses leak to Telegraph)
Mary Macleod (Conservative PPC, Brentford & Isleworth)
I hope as many people as possible will come along and join in the debate, not just about MPs' expenses but also on the whole issue of democratic reform. More on this will follow the first meeting on Monday evening.
Saturday, 25 April 2009
Out and about with the RSLs - Part One
Despite the gout coming back yet again with a vengeance I managed to stay on my feet for most of the day yesterday to tour the borough with Paul Doe, Chief Executive of Shepherd's Bush Housing Group (SBHG) and Chair of the Hounslow Housing Association Forum.
Shepherd's Bush is one of the larger Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) and it owns a diverse portfolio of properties around the borough from individual, restored street properties, through small isolated schemes comprising a dozen or so units, to medium-sized stand-alone developments. In my own back yard SBHG manages a major chunk of the Smallberry Green estate, in Syon ward.
It would be fair to say - and I did say it to Paul at the first opportunity - that my initial experience of RSLs in this borough left me somewhat unimpressed. Indeed it wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration to suggest that it left me emotionally scarred. As a tenant myself living on Isleworth's West Middlesex estate I spent the first seven or so years trying to make meaningful contact with my landlords to point out to them that the contractor responsibile for putting the buildings up had omitted to install any soundproofing. Three of these valuable years were used up trying to teach them, ultimately to no avail, how to respond to an e-mail.
When I did finally establish proper contact with somebody capable of communicating in polysyllables I spent the next couple of years trying to coax them out of a perpetual state of knee-jerk denial. Many arguments were had, and an embarrassingly fraudulent sound attenuation survey was even conducted to "confirm" the existence of visibly non-existent soundproofing as part of an overall strategy clearly designed to wear us down into silence.
The tragedy of it all was that our landlords had an agreement with their contractor that any faults reported within ten years from the date of construction would be put right at no cost to themselves. Had they worked with us rather than argued with us, they could have compelled the contractor who had ripped them off with substandard work to come back and finish the job gratis, thereby improving the quality of their stock.
The efforts of tenants to launch and sustain a successful residents' association encountered similarly insurmountable obstacles. Earlier in the process there was the usual attempt to politicise us, and when that fell flat due to the vigilance of residents the estate's three landlords all quickly lost interest in supporting us. The community centre ended up as a private nursery for well-healed residents from off the estate, for which payment is extracted both from hirers in the form of a usage charge and - simultaneously - from tenants of the estate who are no longer able to use the premises through service charges.
Shepherd's Bush Housing Group is clearly of an altogether different mindset. Indeed in the field of tenant engagement - in service management as well as simply in community life - it is in many respects ahead of us at the local authority. Paul understood - I mean he already understood, he didn't require me to tell him - that getting tenants involved in such areas as quality control and reporting problems and issues can save the landlord money and enable it to deploy its limited resources more productively as well as being good for Community Engagement in a more general sense.
SBHG encourages tenants' associations, and has a tenants' forum which it funds and supports. Where the establishment of an association isn't feasible, it has a network of Tenant Monitors, three of whom I had the privilege of meeting at schemes in Hounslow and Bedfont. Tenants help to produce the Group's publication and website, and SBHG is currently looking into the viability of creating an e-mail forum for those residents who wish, or are compelled by their lifestyle, to engage differently.
All members of staff employed by SBHG must meet at least four residents in their natural habitat, reminding them in dramatic style of the raison d'etre of a housing provider. And Paul himself hosts a number of "Meet the Chief Executive" meetings, where tenants can come along and ask questions, provide information or simply let of steam according to their wont.
On Monday afternoon I will be attending the borough's first RSL Conference at Hounslow Civic Centre. As the need for social housing becomes ever more acute the RSLs will play an increasingly important role in helping us to bring it about. There has never been a more important time for us and them to find out a little more about how each other works.
Shepherd's Bush is one of the larger Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) and it owns a diverse portfolio of properties around the borough from individual, restored street properties, through small isolated schemes comprising a dozen or so units, to medium-sized stand-alone developments. In my own back yard SBHG manages a major chunk of the Smallberry Green estate, in Syon ward.
It would be fair to say - and I did say it to Paul at the first opportunity - that my initial experience of RSLs in this borough left me somewhat unimpressed. Indeed it wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration to suggest that it left me emotionally scarred. As a tenant myself living on Isleworth's West Middlesex estate I spent the first seven or so years trying to make meaningful contact with my landlords to point out to them that the contractor responsibile for putting the buildings up had omitted to install any soundproofing. Three of these valuable years were used up trying to teach them, ultimately to no avail, how to respond to an e-mail.
When I did finally establish proper contact with somebody capable of communicating in polysyllables I spent the next couple of years trying to coax them out of a perpetual state of knee-jerk denial. Many arguments were had, and an embarrassingly fraudulent sound attenuation survey was even conducted to "confirm" the existence of visibly non-existent soundproofing as part of an overall strategy clearly designed to wear us down into silence.
The tragedy of it all was that our landlords had an agreement with their contractor that any faults reported within ten years from the date of construction would be put right at no cost to themselves. Had they worked with us rather than argued with us, they could have compelled the contractor who had ripped them off with substandard work to come back and finish the job gratis, thereby improving the quality of their stock.
The efforts of tenants to launch and sustain a successful residents' association encountered similarly insurmountable obstacles. Earlier in the process there was the usual attempt to politicise us, and when that fell flat due to the vigilance of residents the estate's three landlords all quickly lost interest in supporting us. The community centre ended up as a private nursery for well-healed residents from off the estate, for which payment is extracted both from hirers in the form of a usage charge and - simultaneously - from tenants of the estate who are no longer able to use the premises through service charges.
Shepherd's Bush Housing Group is clearly of an altogether different mindset. Indeed in the field of tenant engagement - in service management as well as simply in community life - it is in many respects ahead of us at the local authority. Paul understood - I mean he already understood, he didn't require me to tell him - that getting tenants involved in such areas as quality control and reporting problems and issues can save the landlord money and enable it to deploy its limited resources more productively as well as being good for Community Engagement in a more general sense.
SBHG encourages tenants' associations, and has a tenants' forum which it funds and supports. Where the establishment of an association isn't feasible, it has a network of Tenant Monitors, three of whom I had the privilege of meeting at schemes in Hounslow and Bedfont. Tenants help to produce the Group's publication and website, and SBHG is currently looking into the viability of creating an e-mail forum for those residents who wish, or are compelled by their lifestyle, to engage differently.
All members of staff employed by SBHG must meet at least four residents in their natural habitat, reminding them in dramatic style of the raison d'etre of a housing provider. And Paul himself hosts a number of "Meet the Chief Executive" meetings, where tenants can come along and ask questions, provide information or simply let of steam according to their wont.
On Monday afternoon I will be attending the borough's first RSL Conference at Hounslow Civic Centre. As the need for social housing becomes ever more acute the RSLs will play an increasingly important role in helping us to bring it about. There has never been a more important time for us and them to find out a little more about how each other works.
Monday, 6 April 2009
Confronting problems, embracing opportunities
I may have encountered pockets of resistance along the way as I've sought new means through which to empower tenants on our estates, but tonight when the Rainbow Project Panel was deliberating there was nothing but enthusiasm from all quarters when the Round 2 Expression of Interest Assessments took place at the Civic Centre this evening.
The Chair and Chief Executive of Hounslow Homes, the Chair of the Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations (HFTRA), LBH's innovative Principal Community Development & Area Initiatives Officer Kate Tomkinson and myself spent two highly productive hours sifting through a new round of applications from several of the borough's active tenant groups, contemplating funding applications for landscaping, play areas, improvements to community buildings, community cohesion initiatives and educational projects for both adults and children.
The magic of the Rainbow Project is that it provides a mechanism for identifying not only where funding is needed, but also where there are particular issues which may potentially be resolved through other means. For instance a request for CCTV cameras, although not always practical due to ongoing maintenance costs, flags up crime concerns and possible hotspots for anti-social behaviour which might possibly be addressed through other channels. Follow-up work is the rule rather than the exception, few applications are rejected out of hand.
Earlier today an equally productive meeting was held between Isleworth ward councillors, representatives from The Isleworth Society (TIS), Hounslow Homes officers, local authority planning and street management officers, and the council's Head of Customer Services Robert Della-Sala. Several issues of importance to us as a local community were discussed, and it was truly useful for every party to have the opportunity to see the issues at hand from the point of view of others. Although as a council we can sometimes be defensive and opt instinctively for the path of least resistance, what emerged from the meeting was a proposal to come together on a quarterly basis and monitor progress, a completely new opportunity for civic leaders in Isleworth who before today had only the sometimes frustrating option of complaining to or through councillors and engaging in endless and often fruitless exchanges of e-mails.
Once again engagement is demonstrated to be the way forward. I am looking forward to our fourth year as part of the governing administration at Hounslow and to the opportunities yet untapped that it promises to bring.
The Chair and Chief Executive of Hounslow Homes, the Chair of the Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations (HFTRA), LBH's innovative Principal Community Development & Area Initiatives Officer Kate Tomkinson and myself spent two highly productive hours sifting through a new round of applications from several of the borough's active tenant groups, contemplating funding applications for landscaping, play areas, improvements to community buildings, community cohesion initiatives and educational projects for both adults and children.
The magic of the Rainbow Project is that it provides a mechanism for identifying not only where funding is needed, but also where there are particular issues which may potentially be resolved through other means. For instance a request for CCTV cameras, although not always practical due to ongoing maintenance costs, flags up crime concerns and possible hotspots for anti-social behaviour which might possibly be addressed through other channels. Follow-up work is the rule rather than the exception, few applications are rejected out of hand.
Earlier today an equally productive meeting was held between Isleworth ward councillors, representatives from The Isleworth Society (TIS), Hounslow Homes officers, local authority planning and street management officers, and the council's Head of Customer Services Robert Della-Sala. Several issues of importance to us as a local community were discussed, and it was truly useful for every party to have the opportunity to see the issues at hand from the point of view of others. Although as a council we can sometimes be defensive and opt instinctively for the path of least resistance, what emerged from the meeting was a proposal to come together on a quarterly basis and monitor progress, a completely new opportunity for civic leaders in Isleworth who before today had only the sometimes frustrating option of complaining to or through councillors and engaging in endless and often fruitless exchanges of e-mails.
Once again engagement is demonstrated to be the way forward. I am looking forward to our fourth year as part of the governing administration at Hounslow and to the opportunities yet untapped that it promises to bring.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Moving the agenda forward
This evening the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) team with whom I'd spent a highly productive hour yesterday held a session with Executive members, discussing together what Community Engagement means to us as members of the administration and how we feel our residents could be better kept informed and involved. As well as Lead Member Councillor Paul Fisher and myself, the Executive was represented by Conservative councillors Lin Davies, Pam Fisher and Paul Lynch.
It was particularly useful having major service departments represented at the meeting. There were perspectives that were unique to Children's and Adult Services which they brought to the meeting, and Cllr. Lynch's sterling work with the Gurkha community provided a fine example of how we were endeavouring to improve Community Cohesion by understanding the particular difficulties faced by newly-arrived communities.
Area Committees featured prominently in a discussion on improving local democracy. It was brought to our attention that the London Borough of Southwark had eight such bodies (it calls them Community Councils) where we have five, and that they are provided with a total budget of £3 million. Now three million pounds is a lot of money, even to Paul Fisher, until one considers that much of this spend is simply passported to the local groups as opposed to having to be committed centrally, often to the same areas of the council's operation. By giving the money to the devolved groups to spend, however, it is more likely to end up where it is truly wanted and needed by Southwark's local communities. Food for thought, surely?
The IDeA team will be presenting a summary of its findings tomorrow afternoon, and I look forward to having more to report following that event.
It was particularly useful having major service departments represented at the meeting. There were perspectives that were unique to Children's and Adult Services which they brought to the meeting, and Cllr. Lynch's sterling work with the Gurkha community provided a fine example of how we were endeavouring to improve Community Cohesion by understanding the particular difficulties faced by newly-arrived communities.
Area Committees featured prominently in a discussion on improving local democracy. It was brought to our attention that the London Borough of Southwark had eight such bodies (it calls them Community Councils) where we have five, and that they are provided with a total budget of £3 million. Now three million pounds is a lot of money, even to Paul Fisher, until one considers that much of this spend is simply passported to the local groups as opposed to having to be committed centrally, often to the same areas of the council's operation. By giving the money to the devolved groups to spend, however, it is more likely to end up where it is truly wanted and needed by Southwark's local communities. Food for thought, surely?
The IDeA team will be presenting a summary of its findings tomorrow afternoon, and I look forward to having more to report following that event.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
An engaging day at the office
One meeting either side of lunch had me effectively marooned at the Civic Centre for most of the working day today, and both of them impacted greatly on the Community Group's drive to engage the communities we serve.
Before lunch I accompanied the indefatigable Christine Diwell, Secretary of The Isleworth Society (TIS), at a lengthy meeting with a senior officer of the council to discuss a matter of serious import to the Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee (IBAC), of which she is a co-opted member.
It is by no means unknown to me that there are still officers who resent having to interact with and explain themselves to "ordinary" members of the community - be it TIS, MRAG or whoever - but at a council which takes Community Empowerment seriously this mindset is shortly to change, drastically and for the better. Following a long discussion Christine and I were able to gain a better understanding of the issue at hand, and at the same time were able to express some valid concerns about process.
Then after lunch I had the pleasure of a frank hour-long discussion with two ladies who were part of a team provided by the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) to help assess our approach to Community Engagement as a local authority. The team will be interviewing councillors from across the political spectrum who volunteer to take part in the project, and its findings will be published in a few weeks' time.
It will be interesting to have an outside perspective on what we already do to consult and include the people who elected us to office in the process of local government, and how we can improve things in this respect. Any advice received will be fed into what already looks to be shaping up as an exciting and innovative programme under the portfolio of my Community Group colleague Councillor Paul Fisher.
I am very much looking forward to the year ahead and to the opportunities which at last seem to be falling into place to change the culture of our local authority and engage with our communities in a way that we've never done before.
Before lunch I accompanied the indefatigable Christine Diwell, Secretary of The Isleworth Society (TIS), at a lengthy meeting with a senior officer of the council to discuss a matter of serious import to the Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee (IBAC), of which she is a co-opted member.
It is by no means unknown to me that there are still officers who resent having to interact with and explain themselves to "ordinary" members of the community - be it TIS, MRAG or whoever - but at a council which takes Community Empowerment seriously this mindset is shortly to change, drastically and for the better. Following a long discussion Christine and I were able to gain a better understanding of the issue at hand, and at the same time were able to express some valid concerns about process.
Then after lunch I had the pleasure of a frank hour-long discussion with two ladies who were part of a team provided by the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) to help assess our approach to Community Engagement as a local authority. The team will be interviewing councillors from across the political spectrum who volunteer to take part in the project, and its findings will be published in a few weeks' time.
It will be interesting to have an outside perspective on what we already do to consult and include the people who elected us to office in the process of local government, and how we can improve things in this respect. Any advice received will be fed into what already looks to be shaping up as an exciting and innovative programme under the portfolio of my Community Group colleague Councillor Paul Fisher.
I am very much looking forward to the year ahead and to the opportunities which at last seem to be falling into place to change the culture of our local authority and engage with our communities in a way that we've never done before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)