A Chiswick resident who tried to pay an outstanding £80 on his 86-year old mother’s Council tax to cancel a threatened court summons has spoken of his frustration with council bureaucracy.
Andy Pease fell foul of data protection rules when Hounslow Council staff refused to give details as he was not the holder of the account, despite the fact that his mother could not answer for herself. She is blind, and suffers from dementia and arthritis.
The Council has said unless they have permission for others to act on their behalf, legally they can only deal with the account holder. They were willing to discuss the situation with Mr. Pease if he got back in contact, they said and were awaiting further information on the case.
Andy Pease said his mother lives alone in a bungalow provided by Hounslow Council, and he pays all her bills by direct debit from his own account, including her rent.
Last week she received a letter from Hounslow Council informing her Hounslow had applied to Feltham magistrates court for a summons for non payment of council tax.
"This is the first I knew of any outstanding council tax, as far as I was aware Hounslow took any money owing out of my bank account," said Mr. Pease, who then phoned the Council.
"The woman that answered the phone refused to give me any details as I was not the account holder, even though the money came out of my bank account. She insisted on speaking to my mother, who because of her dementia could not answer the security question.
"I explained the situation again and was finally told that my mother’s benefits cover almost all of her council tax apart from £80 per year which my mother should pay. She could not tell me why they had not taken the money out of my account along with the rent. She informed me that the outstanding council tax was £80, but because they had now taken out a summons, the cost would be £283.
"I was told that if I paid the outstanding amount, the summons would be cancelled. I said that I would pay this amount over the phone by credit card. I was then told the lady I was speaking to could not take payment so she said she would put me through to the cashiers, which she did.
"The number she put me through to was an automated line which would not let me proceed until I entered the account number which we did not have.
"I could not go back so I had to hang up. As I had spent 40 minutes on the phone already, I did not have time to call back again.
"I called Hounslow again this morning, and had to go through the whole story all over again. Again I was told I could not pay, because of data protection I asked to speak to a manager. This of course was not possible, but I was told a manager would call me back (they didn't ) so I am now waiting for the court date to be sent."
He said he felt he had "bent over backwards" to pay the money and was prepared to turn up in court and tell his story to highlight the behaviour of the Council.
Hounslow Council have issued the following statement on the matter; “It can be difficult for families trying to help their loved ones in these matters, as legally we are only allowed to deal with the account holder unless, we receive certain information permitting others to act on their behalf. This is an understandable measure to make sure vulnerable residents aren’t open to abuse.
"If Mr Pease provides this information, we would be able to discuss the account with him, as we already do in many other similar cases. We are still awaiting the details we need, but we will contact Mr Pease as soon as possible to arrange for them to be provided.
"In this particular case, no direct debit has ever been set up for the council tax bill, so we had no choice but to deal with the situation as we would with any unpaid bill, including a reminder letter being sent warning that a summons may be issued."
Reproduced with acknowledgements to ChiswickW4.com.
Showing posts with label Council Tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Council Tax. Show all posts
Tuesday, 12 March 2013
Tuesday, 5 February 2013
Savings Without Cuts? Labour Keeps its Promise on Council Tax
Reducing the Council Tax in the London Borough of Hounslow was one of the five pledges the Labour Party made in its successful local election campaign in 2010.
After the way in which voters were conned by the "trick" pledge to introduce "100 new uniformed officers" onto the streets in "this area" (undefined) to cut crime, we could be forgiven for thinking a similar sleight of hand would be forthcoming in respect of the Council Tax pledge.
But, fair play to them, the Labour administration in Hounslow announced last week that it would be reducing the charge to residents by 0.5% - not a fortune, but it trumps the previous achievements of both their own party and of the Conservative/ICG coalition administration.
All the same one has to be careful about taking at face value the claim that this achievement will have been made without any cuts to frontline services. There is no rigid dictionary definition of a "frontline service", and it remains to be seen which service(s) not considered to be frontline will face the chop to accommodate this small saving to residents.
When the ICG was in office some of us were forever nervous about announcing Council Tax cuts or freezes before the books had been opened and the maths done. We were rightly fearful that once a commitment had been made to a figure it would be necessary for the sake of saving face to hit that target come what may. This, we believed, was putting the card before the horse.
But we supported the first three Conservative zero percent budgets of the 2006-2010 administration, some of us voting against the fourth only because our partners had somehow forgotten to consult us about its contents prior to it being brought to Borough Council. There were cuts, inevitably, but ones that were less severe in fact than many that had been imposed by Labour during its own prior term of office.
Not a lot of people know this, as Michael Caine might have said, but at one stage during the 2006-2010 administration there was a proposal by one prominent Conservative councillor to go for a reduction. After some discussion the ICG, and some Conservatives, rejected it. Interesting times.
It is good, of course, that people in the borough will henceforth be paying less Council Tax, but something will have to give as it invariably does. The administration claims it will not be libraires. Other community resources, worryingly, have not so far received a mention.
The ICG is determined that the infrastructure of our long-suffering communities will not be the sacrifice for a fiver-a-year, Tory-style gesture by the Labour regime at Lampton Road.
After the way in which voters were conned by the "trick" pledge to introduce "100 new uniformed officers" onto the streets in "this area" (undefined) to cut crime, we could be forgiven for thinking a similar sleight of hand would be forthcoming in respect of the Council Tax pledge.
But, fair play to them, the Labour administration in Hounslow announced last week that it would be reducing the charge to residents by 0.5% - not a fortune, but it trumps the previous achievements of both their own party and of the Conservative/ICG coalition administration.
All the same one has to be careful about taking at face value the claim that this achievement will have been made without any cuts to frontline services. There is no rigid dictionary definition of a "frontline service", and it remains to be seen which service(s) not considered to be frontline will face the chop to accommodate this small saving to residents.
When the ICG was in office some of us were forever nervous about announcing Council Tax cuts or freezes before the books had been opened and the maths done. We were rightly fearful that once a commitment had been made to a figure it would be necessary for the sake of saving face to hit that target come what may. This, we believed, was putting the card before the horse.
But we supported the first three Conservative zero percent budgets of the 2006-2010 administration, some of us voting against the fourth only because our partners had somehow forgotten to consult us about its contents prior to it being brought to Borough Council. There were cuts, inevitably, but ones that were less severe in fact than many that had been imposed by Labour during its own prior term of office.
Not a lot of people know this, as Michael Caine might have said, but at one stage during the 2006-2010 administration there was a proposal by one prominent Conservative councillor to go for a reduction. After some discussion the ICG, and some Conservatives, rejected it. Interesting times.
It is good, of course, that people in the borough will henceforth be paying less Council Tax, but something will have to give as it invariably does. The administration claims it will not be libraires. Other community resources, worryingly, have not so far received a mention.
The ICG is determined that the infrastructure of our long-suffering communities will not be the sacrifice for a fiver-a-year, Tory-style gesture by the Labour regime at Lampton Road.
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Community at the ready
Well, we now know for certain what everybody had already assumed - that the general election will be held on the same day as this year's local elections, on Thursday, 6th May.
Naturally this will complicate things a little, not only because it is likely to induce a higher turnout in the locals as those attending the polling station are likely, once they are there, to use their other vote, but also because voters will by May 6th have been inundated by the national media with big party politics and the challenge for us therefore is to keep them thinking local.
The ICG will not be taking part in the general election. Our leadership has made it clear that we would like to see the back of the incumbent MP Ann Keen as we feel it is important that borough residents have Members of Parliament who are prepared to work with the local authority regardless of which party or parties happen to be in office at the Civic Centre. However now it is upon us my view is that we will not be devoting too much attention to the shortcomings of our MP, but rather will be concentrating our efforts on getting our own people elected onto the council.
The ICG is fielding a total of nine candidates - Councillor Phil Andrews, Councillor Paul Fisher and Andy Sibley in Isleworth; Councillor Caroline Andrews, Councillor Shirley Fisher and Councillor Jon Hardy in Syon; and Tricia Doran, Cheryl-Ann Khan and Martin Murphy in Hounslow South.
Our policy platform is fairly simple - we wish to empower our community. Whilst recognising that the local authority has an obligation to provide for those who cannot speak out for themselves and who need help and assistance we will not use this as an excuse, as the previous Labour administration did, for exercising political control over the rest of the community. We want to see active, vibrant and independent civic societies, associations and amenity groups operating throughout the community, even if sometimes it means them challenging us as elected members. The Community Group does not consider it has anything to fear from an engaged community.
Whilst our Conservative coalition partners supported our Empowerment aspirations throughout the last four years, we feel their primary interest is low tax and that in the event of an all-out Conservative administration the community agenda is likely to be sidelined. Whilst we support the drive for low tax, we in the ICG see it as a means to an end rather than the end itself. Thus it is our view that the best result for our community at the local elections on May 6th would be once again for the ICG to hold the balance of power on an authority that is under No Overall Control.
ICG councillors will continue to put their own constituents and wards first and will fight for any resources that become available. We will not relent in identifying Section 106 and other funding for local projects, cohesion initiatives and general improvements for those we represent.
We are not satisfied that the new administration which assumed office in 2006 and of which we have been part has completely succeeded in changing the culture within the council bureaucracy. We believe the PIP process, whilst very welcome, was primarily cost driven and that the co-operation of chief officers with this project and with general budget setting has led our partners to look away while our own Empowerment agenda has been frustrated and obstructed by elements within the senior management. Some substantial rectification of this situation is likely for us to be an essential precondition of any future coalition agreement.
Lastly (for the time being) we will continue to provide a voice for the community on such vitally important local issues as Mogden. The campaign against the nefarious activities of Thames Water has demonstrated the value of elected members throwing their weight behind a successful organic initiative by residents.
At the time of writing we have less than thirty days to underscore all the valuable work that we have currently done to open up the process of our local government still further. ICG activists will be unrelenting in our efforts to secure four more years in which to implement our objectives.
Naturally this will complicate things a little, not only because it is likely to induce a higher turnout in the locals as those attending the polling station are likely, once they are there, to use their other vote, but also because voters will by May 6th have been inundated by the national media with big party politics and the challenge for us therefore is to keep them thinking local.
The ICG will not be taking part in the general election. Our leadership has made it clear that we would like to see the back of the incumbent MP Ann Keen as we feel it is important that borough residents have Members of Parliament who are prepared to work with the local authority regardless of which party or parties happen to be in office at the Civic Centre. However now it is upon us my view is that we will not be devoting too much attention to the shortcomings of our MP, but rather will be concentrating our efforts on getting our own people elected onto the council.
The ICG is fielding a total of nine candidates - Councillor Phil Andrews, Councillor Paul Fisher and Andy Sibley in Isleworth; Councillor Caroline Andrews, Councillor Shirley Fisher and Councillor Jon Hardy in Syon; and Tricia Doran, Cheryl-Ann Khan and Martin Murphy in Hounslow South.
Our policy platform is fairly simple - we wish to empower our community. Whilst recognising that the local authority has an obligation to provide for those who cannot speak out for themselves and who need help and assistance we will not use this as an excuse, as the previous Labour administration did, for exercising political control over the rest of the community. We want to see active, vibrant and independent civic societies, associations and amenity groups operating throughout the community, even if sometimes it means them challenging us as elected members. The Community Group does not consider it has anything to fear from an engaged community.
Whilst our Conservative coalition partners supported our Empowerment aspirations throughout the last four years, we feel their primary interest is low tax and that in the event of an all-out Conservative administration the community agenda is likely to be sidelined. Whilst we support the drive for low tax, we in the ICG see it as a means to an end rather than the end itself. Thus it is our view that the best result for our community at the local elections on May 6th would be once again for the ICG to hold the balance of power on an authority that is under No Overall Control.
ICG councillors will continue to put their own constituents and wards first and will fight for any resources that become available. We will not relent in identifying Section 106 and other funding for local projects, cohesion initiatives and general improvements for those we represent.
We are not satisfied that the new administration which assumed office in 2006 and of which we have been part has completely succeeded in changing the culture within the council bureaucracy. We believe the PIP process, whilst very welcome, was primarily cost driven and that the co-operation of chief officers with this project and with general budget setting has led our partners to look away while our own Empowerment agenda has been frustrated and obstructed by elements within the senior management. Some substantial rectification of this situation is likely for us to be an essential precondition of any future coalition agreement.
Lastly (for the time being) we will continue to provide a voice for the community on such vitally important local issues as Mogden. The campaign against the nefarious activities of Thames Water has demonstrated the value of elected members throwing their weight behind a successful organic initiative by residents.
At the time of writing we have less than thirty days to underscore all the valuable work that we have currently done to open up the process of our local government still further. ICG activists will be unrelenting in our efforts to secure four more years in which to implement our objectives.
Sunday, 14 March 2010
On honest campaigning and muesli
I don't, to my knowledge, suffer from dementia nor any other such debilitating condition that might seriously affect my judgement.
It came as a bit of a shock therefore to have discovered this evening that over the past few days I have been eating with cold milk several large helpings of "muesli", complaining quietly to myself about the quality of the product that Caroline had purchased from Tesco, only to realise tonight upon reading the wording on the near-empty packet that it was actually porridge. I promise I am not making this up.
In the absence of any serious medical ailment to explain away my error I can only put it down to the stresses of everyday life. Those stresses will be the same as those that affect most ordinary people - parenthood, making an income - with the added pressure of having to help to organise a local election campaign. Despite the fact that this time around we have a much stronger team than ever before including some extremely talented and dedicated individuals, many of whom now have four years more experience than they did last time we ventured forth, the hosepipe principle in which the more people we have available to do the work the more work there is to do would appear to apply.
Over the past week or so it would appear that some of our opponents have joined the battle. We always knew they would and we are resigned to having them around for a few weeks until polling day arrives, whereupon they will in all likelihood return whence they came into hibernation for another three years and ten months until the next round of hustings arrives.
In Hounslow South New Labour has been distributing a glossy leaflet announcing the candidacy (in so many words) of veteran party activist and former council leader Dave Wetzel, alongside local stalwart Bob Whatley and a young lady with whom the ICG is not familiar. In Isleworth, residents of a small section of the Worton estate have had to make do with a rather grotty card introducing residents to Sue "Pyro" Sampson, Ed Mayne of Chiswick (who surprised the Poppy Organiser from the Isleworth Royal British Legion when ordering a wreath at last year's Remembrance Day Parade by informing him that he was an Isleworth councillor when, being my own father, said Poppy Organiser knew full well he wasn't), and another new face. The previous week Sue had been out and about on the periphery of the Worple estate delivering her message, whatever that may be.
The promises made by New Labour in both glossy and grotty cannot be accused of lacking ambition. Apparently they are going to put 100 new uniformed police officers onto the streets of Hounslow (which is even more impressive when one considers that employing police officers is not even within the remit of the local authority) and cut Council Tax!
In reality of course this is just another example of the dishonesty for which New Labour in Hounslow have become renowned, and of the contempt in which they hold "ordinary" voters and the lack of respect that they have for their intelligence, which in turn explains their almost obsessive aversion to allowing "ordinary" people to participate in the running of residents' associations and community groups.
It also demonstrates their preparedness even at this early stage to renege immediately upon their promises if they were to be elected, bearing in mind that this particular pledge is one that they will know full well cannot be delivered.
During their previous local election campaign, in 2006, they had claimed in their leaflets to have put an end to the Mogden Pong and to have made the 267s the run on time.
Maybe it is the knowledge that I am resigned to having to spend almost the next two months of my life engaged in a battle of sorts with such dishonest, low-grade individuals to ensure that residents are equipped with the information they need to see through them that has brought about such stress as to render me temporarily incapable of differentiating between muesli and porridge?
But New Labour would consider the above paragraph to be a compliment in every aspect, so if it's all the same to readers of this blog I am going to put it down to old age.
It came as a bit of a shock therefore to have discovered this evening that over the past few days I have been eating with cold milk several large helpings of "muesli", complaining quietly to myself about the quality of the product that Caroline had purchased from Tesco, only to realise tonight upon reading the wording on the near-empty packet that it was actually porridge. I promise I am not making this up.
In the absence of any serious medical ailment to explain away my error I can only put it down to the stresses of everyday life. Those stresses will be the same as those that affect most ordinary people - parenthood, making an income - with the added pressure of having to help to organise a local election campaign. Despite the fact that this time around we have a much stronger team than ever before including some extremely talented and dedicated individuals, many of whom now have four years more experience than they did last time we ventured forth, the hosepipe principle in which the more people we have available to do the work the more work there is to do would appear to apply.
Over the past week or so it would appear that some of our opponents have joined the battle. We always knew they would and we are resigned to having them around for a few weeks until polling day arrives, whereupon they will in all likelihood return whence they came into hibernation for another three years and ten months until the next round of hustings arrives.
In Hounslow South New Labour has been distributing a glossy leaflet announcing the candidacy (in so many words) of veteran party activist and former council leader Dave Wetzel, alongside local stalwart Bob Whatley and a young lady with whom the ICG is not familiar. In Isleworth, residents of a small section of the Worton estate have had to make do with a rather grotty card introducing residents to Sue "Pyro" Sampson, Ed Mayne of Chiswick (who surprised the Poppy Organiser from the Isleworth Royal British Legion when ordering a wreath at last year's Remembrance Day Parade by informing him that he was an Isleworth councillor when, being my own father, said Poppy Organiser knew full well he wasn't), and another new face. The previous week Sue had been out and about on the periphery of the Worple estate delivering her message, whatever that may be.
The promises made by New Labour in both glossy and grotty cannot be accused of lacking ambition. Apparently they are going to put 100 new uniformed police officers onto the streets of Hounslow (which is even more impressive when one considers that employing police officers is not even within the remit of the local authority) and cut Council Tax!
In reality of course this is just another example of the dishonesty for which New Labour in Hounslow have become renowned, and of the contempt in which they hold "ordinary" voters and the lack of respect that they have for their intelligence, which in turn explains their almost obsessive aversion to allowing "ordinary" people to participate in the running of residents' associations and community groups.
It also demonstrates their preparedness even at this early stage to renege immediately upon their promises if they were to be elected, bearing in mind that this particular pledge is one that they will know full well cannot be delivered.
During their previous local election campaign, in 2006, they had claimed in their leaflets to have put an end to the Mogden Pong and to have made the 267s the run on time.
Maybe it is the knowledge that I am resigned to having to spend almost the next two months of my life engaged in a battle of sorts with such dishonest, low-grade individuals to ensure that residents are equipped with the information they need to see through them that has brought about such stress as to render me temporarily incapable of differentiating between muesli and porridge?
But New Labour would consider the above paragraph to be a compliment in every aspect, so if it's all the same to readers of this blog I am going to put it down to old age.
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Eight get cold in Isleworth
There were only eight of us at the ICG Social Drink in the Isleworth Working Men's Club yesterday, but my theory about that is that several of the regular attendees got wind of the fact that the heating had failed and everybody was sitting there in their jumpers and coats, shivering.
Some interesting conversations were engaged in about religion, Marxism, Council Tax and Electronic Data Management Systems, amongst other things. Oh, and elections. It's amazing how rapidly they creep up.
I was taking a look at the results from 2006 today, not just in the wards we are involved in but around the borough. It's difficult to know how the likelihood of a general election on the same day will skew things.
Interesting times.
Some interesting conversations were engaged in about religion, Marxism, Council Tax and Electronic Data Management Systems, amongst other things. Oh, and elections. It's amazing how rapidly they creep up.
I was taking a look at the results from 2006 today, not just in the wards we are involved in but around the borough. It's difficult to know how the likelihood of a general election on the same day will skew things.
Interesting times.
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Why we held out for change on Budget night
Council meeting anoraks plus anybody who may have been apprehensive about the outcome of last night's great Council Tax debate, whether through fear of cuts in services or of increases in taxes, will be aware by now that the proposed Budget for 2010/11, incorporating this administration's fourth 0% tax increase in four years, was eventually approved last night.
The reason it was "eventually approved", rather than being approved straight away, was because two members of the Community Group abstained on the first reading. I was one of those two.
I am proud to have served as part of the coalition that has managed the London Borough for Hounslow. I believe we have achieved many good things. I support the low tax agenda, subject to frontline services not being cut, and as I have said before it is to the great credit of the Leader of the Council, Peter Thompson, that he has overseen a team that has made this all possible.
So why did I and one of my colleagues abstain?
To understand our reasons fully one has to have some background knowledge about the way the coalition has developed over probably the last year or so. And when I speak about the development of the coalition I refer not just to the relationship between the two Groups, but also to how the respective partners have been served by the council organisation in general.
That period of time has been for us one long struggle. The first major indication that something was amiss was probably the Mogden expansion application by Thames Water, where officers even at the very highest level of the local authority engaged in unprecedented lobbying of elected members and on the night of the decision, having read reports and heard presentations from which important information was omitted, councillors from the big parties united to approve the application and leave the ICG, and the long-suffering residents of Isleworth and Hounslow South, high and dry.
But there was more, as Frank Carson might have put it. Section 106 money effectively stolen from the residents of Syon ward and relocated not only into another ward but into another Area Committee's domain also became a political battle which saw the ICG isolated as the mutual political interests of the big parties converged. The defiant organisational resistance to attempts by residents to help improve the Electronic Data Management System (EDMS), obstruction to individual initiatives to empower sections of the Voluntary Sector, intervention by those responsible for managing Communications to misrepresent the Mogden situation in a way that showed the ICG Lead Member and by association the whole Group in an unfavourable light and the Chief Executive's unwillingness to deal with our complaints about same in any meaningful way, and further Chief Officer obstruction over Mogden until the Leader eventually intervened all combined to create a situation in which Community Group priorities were quite demonstrably being dealt with in an entirely different manner than were Conservative Group priorities.
Apart from, in some areas, a blind and unhelpful departmental defensiveness on the part of certain Lead Members, the fault for this situation did not lie with our coalition partners. Except - and it is a very big "except" - that it was allowed to continue. Some Chief Officers became increasingly confident, in cases arrogant almost to the point of openly mocking us, while the low-tax bandwagon rolled smoothly through the year with devoted Chief Officer co-operation, and those whose wet dream the 0% Budget is were happy to remain oblivious, and possibly genuinely knew nothing about what was going on around them.
Added to that there was an element of political insensitivity. At the November 2009 Borough Council meeting the Lead Member for Finance forgot the name of the Group he was in coalition with, but was able to declare confidently last night (presumably in response to my plea for an "aspirational" budget), that the coalition's "aspiration" (i.e. not just his own or his Group's) was not to increase the Council Tax. Just that, nothing more.
I have to say it came as quite a shock to realise that, for sixteen years, I had put my family on the breadline and any other ambition I may have had in life on hold, so that some bloke in W4 would not have to endure the intolerable burden of having to pay the finance installments on his Bentley and another 10p each month on his Council Tax bill.
When all that is said however I still did want to support last night's Budget at the first time of asking. The councillor who suggested that I was electioneering could not have been more mistaken. As some Conservative councillors quite rightly argue, it is the relative poor just outside the benefit threshold who suffer disproportionately when their Council Tax bill goes up. The Leader, and the Lead Member for Finance, had drawn up a Budget which had quite skillfully avoided any incursion into frontline services. It did also include, it has to be said, a £300k package for the Voluntary Sector.
However, during my discussions with the Leader during the day, when I asked whether Community Group priorities could be given just that little bit more emphasis, it was clear that somebody - someone behind him - was playing hardball. Whom I don't know. What I did know is that the disrespect and indifference with which we had been treated by much of the corporate management over the past year or so was manifesting itself defiantly again, even as we approached the fourth and possibly most important Budget of the administration.
My pride would not accept that. I e-mailed my colleagues to tell them that as far as I was concerned it was a free vote (although we don't operate a whip, ordinarily we try our best to reach agreement before votes), and that they should vote as their consciences guided them.
A head count and an impromptu straw poll told me that, if two of us abstained, the Budget was going down by 28 votes to 27. That is what subsequently happened. Many of our partners, I believe, understood and sympathised with what we had done and our reasons for having done it. One certainly didn't, telling one of my colleagues (who had voted in support of the Budget) that we were "only a tiny part of the coalition" and that I'd had "no right to say the things (I had) said". Ironically, it was for the benefit of people who think like this that I had said them. Had it been said to me I would have replied that, right now, we would seem to be rather an important part of the coalition!
When I spoke to the Leader during the ensuing break in proceedings I made it clear to him again that all we wanted was a bit of respect and acknowledgement, and that those who had been advising him had let him down badly. He agreed - not only due to the necessity of the situation but also, I believe, as a matter of principle - and we secured another £250k for community projects (an Empowerment provision predictably described by New Labour as "a waste of money"). The meeting sat once again and the slightly amended Budget was approved by 29 votes to 28.
Needless to say I am not clairvoyant and I've absolutely no idea whether the Community Group will be involved in the next administration in any way, shape or form. As a rule of thumb we hope for the best and try to prepare for the worst. There have been mumblings that a coalition might be sought with individual members of my Group but not myself, but whether there is any truth in them or not I believe I know my colleagues better than that. But if we as a Group are involved we will seek to set out our stall more clearly at the beginning - in an honest, proportionate and reasonable way - and ensure that the organisation is structured in such a way as to respond with equal enthusiasm to the priorities of both or all the parties involved. That would avoid such a situation ever arising again.
I'm glad we've agreed a Budget that incorporates both a 0% tax increase and a substantial contribution to community projects and to the Voluntary Sector. All's well that ends well. Right now I guess we'll all be getting down to our respective election campaigns and let us see what comes out in the mix.
The reason it was "eventually approved", rather than being approved straight away, was because two members of the Community Group abstained on the first reading. I was one of those two.
I am proud to have served as part of the coalition that has managed the London Borough for Hounslow. I believe we have achieved many good things. I support the low tax agenda, subject to frontline services not being cut, and as I have said before it is to the great credit of the Leader of the Council, Peter Thompson, that he has overseen a team that has made this all possible.
So why did I and one of my colleagues abstain?
To understand our reasons fully one has to have some background knowledge about the way the coalition has developed over probably the last year or so. And when I speak about the development of the coalition I refer not just to the relationship between the two Groups, but also to how the respective partners have been served by the council organisation in general.
That period of time has been for us one long struggle. The first major indication that something was amiss was probably the Mogden expansion application by Thames Water, where officers even at the very highest level of the local authority engaged in unprecedented lobbying of elected members and on the night of the decision, having read reports and heard presentations from which important information was omitted, councillors from the big parties united to approve the application and leave the ICG, and the long-suffering residents of Isleworth and Hounslow South, high and dry.
But there was more, as Frank Carson might have put it. Section 106 money effectively stolen from the residents of Syon ward and relocated not only into another ward but into another Area Committee's domain also became a political battle which saw the ICG isolated as the mutual political interests of the big parties converged. The defiant organisational resistance to attempts by residents to help improve the Electronic Data Management System (EDMS), obstruction to individual initiatives to empower sections of the Voluntary Sector, intervention by those responsible for managing Communications to misrepresent the Mogden situation in a way that showed the ICG Lead Member and by association the whole Group in an unfavourable light and the Chief Executive's unwillingness to deal with our complaints about same in any meaningful way, and further Chief Officer obstruction over Mogden until the Leader eventually intervened all combined to create a situation in which Community Group priorities were quite demonstrably being dealt with in an entirely different manner than were Conservative Group priorities.
Apart from, in some areas, a blind and unhelpful departmental defensiveness on the part of certain Lead Members, the fault for this situation did not lie with our coalition partners. Except - and it is a very big "except" - that it was allowed to continue. Some Chief Officers became increasingly confident, in cases arrogant almost to the point of openly mocking us, while the low-tax bandwagon rolled smoothly through the year with devoted Chief Officer co-operation, and those whose wet dream the 0% Budget is were happy to remain oblivious, and possibly genuinely knew nothing about what was going on around them.
Added to that there was an element of political insensitivity. At the November 2009 Borough Council meeting the Lead Member for Finance forgot the name of the Group he was in coalition with, but was able to declare confidently last night (presumably in response to my plea for an "aspirational" budget), that the coalition's "aspiration" (i.e. not just his own or his Group's) was not to increase the Council Tax. Just that, nothing more.
I have to say it came as quite a shock to realise that, for sixteen years, I had put my family on the breadline and any other ambition I may have had in life on hold, so that some bloke in W4 would not have to endure the intolerable burden of having to pay the finance installments on his Bentley and another 10p each month on his Council Tax bill.
When all that is said however I still did want to support last night's Budget at the first time of asking. The councillor who suggested that I was electioneering could not have been more mistaken. As some Conservative councillors quite rightly argue, it is the relative poor just outside the benefit threshold who suffer disproportionately when their Council Tax bill goes up. The Leader, and the Lead Member for Finance, had drawn up a Budget which had quite skillfully avoided any incursion into frontline services. It did also include, it has to be said, a £300k package for the Voluntary Sector.
However, during my discussions with the Leader during the day, when I asked whether Community Group priorities could be given just that little bit more emphasis, it was clear that somebody - someone behind him - was playing hardball. Whom I don't know. What I did know is that the disrespect and indifference with which we had been treated by much of the corporate management over the past year or so was manifesting itself defiantly again, even as we approached the fourth and possibly most important Budget of the administration.
My pride would not accept that. I e-mailed my colleagues to tell them that as far as I was concerned it was a free vote (although we don't operate a whip, ordinarily we try our best to reach agreement before votes), and that they should vote as their consciences guided them.
A head count and an impromptu straw poll told me that, if two of us abstained, the Budget was going down by 28 votes to 27. That is what subsequently happened. Many of our partners, I believe, understood and sympathised with what we had done and our reasons for having done it. One certainly didn't, telling one of my colleagues (who had voted in support of the Budget) that we were "only a tiny part of the coalition" and that I'd had "no right to say the things (I had) said". Ironically, it was for the benefit of people who think like this that I had said them. Had it been said to me I would have replied that, right now, we would seem to be rather an important part of the coalition!
When I spoke to the Leader during the ensuing break in proceedings I made it clear to him again that all we wanted was a bit of respect and acknowledgement, and that those who had been advising him had let him down badly. He agreed - not only due to the necessity of the situation but also, I believe, as a matter of principle - and we secured another £250k for community projects (an Empowerment provision predictably described by New Labour as "a waste of money"). The meeting sat once again and the slightly amended Budget was approved by 29 votes to 28.
Needless to say I am not clairvoyant and I've absolutely no idea whether the Community Group will be involved in the next administration in any way, shape or form. As a rule of thumb we hope for the best and try to prepare for the worst. There have been mumblings that a coalition might be sought with individual members of my Group but not myself, but whether there is any truth in them or not I believe I know my colleagues better than that. But if we as a Group are involved we will seek to set out our stall more clearly at the beginning - in an honest, proportionate and reasonable way - and ensure that the organisation is structured in such a way as to respond with equal enthusiasm to the priorities of both or all the parties involved. That would avoid such a situation ever arising again.
I'm glad we've agreed a Budget that incorporates both a 0% tax increase and a substantial contribution to community projects and to the Voluntary Sector. All's well that ends well. Right now I guess we'll all be getting down to our respective election campaigns and let us see what comes out in the mix.
Saturday, 27 February 2010
Approaching the budget for 2010/11
This week the Community Group on the London Borough of Hounslow put out the following statement to various local news media:
"THE Community Group on the London Borough of Hounslow wants to deliver an “aspirational” budget that combines low tax with opportunities for increased engagement with residents.
"This week the Leader of the Council Peter Thompson announced his intention of delivering a fourth consecutive Council Tax freeze for the year 2010/11. The Community Group, which runs the local authority in coalition with the Conservatives, expressed its delight at being able to present another low tax budget but called upon the administration to be 'bold and imaginative' in using available funds to strengthen local democracy and empower communities.
"Community Group Leader Phil Andrews commented: 'The Leader of the Council deserves a lot of credit for spearheading this administration’s successful efforts to produce a zero increase budget under such difficult circumstances, and it is to his credit that he has taken on board concerns about some of the proposals that were floated in December, and which following discussions have now been withdrawn.
“'We are proud to be associated with such an achievement and it is our hope that it will be accompanied by some bold and imaginative measures to direct resources towards empowering our community.
“'We want to see an aspirational budget that does something tangible to demonstrate our commitment to strengthening local democracy rather than just cutting tax. We are still discussing a few options and are likely to support the proposals if we can incorporate some of our objectives into the end product.'”
We mean everything we said in the statement. We have supported 0% budgets for the past three years and are happy to do so again. We recognise that, particularly in times of recession, even a small increase in Council Tax can penalise those on low incomes disproportionately.
But when all is said and done I personally do not find myself getting all excited about tax cuts. Some seem to derive an almost sexual relief from making savings and seeing a lower figure at the foot of a balance sheet. Such people have probably got a lot more money than I have, and it's not difficult to see why.
What I as a community advocate want to see is a budget that uses itself as a good excuse for rolling out the Community Empowerment agenda further. It needn't cost much, or even anything, to do but it sends our constituents - the people who elected us in preference to the politicians in the hope and expectation that we would effect positive change in our communities - the message that we are doing what we promised local people when they entrusted us with their votes. Without this aspect forming part of the budget proposals, I would be inclined to stay at home and watch telly.
The feeling I have is that our case is being heard. After all, at the end of the day those whose interest in the budget proposals begins and ends with a series of digits after a pound sign are unlikely to be fazed by a shopping list which doesn't involve shelling out a lot of money. Everything we bring to the process has a Buy One, Get One Free label affixed to it.
Monday's Group Meeting will be when we finally decide what we are going to do. But I am hoping my community gets a double result on Tuesday night - more say and less tax.
Community Group seeks
"aspirational" budget next week
X"aspirational" budget next week
"THE Community Group on the London Borough of Hounslow wants to deliver an “aspirational” budget that combines low tax with opportunities for increased engagement with residents.
"This week the Leader of the Council Peter Thompson announced his intention of delivering a fourth consecutive Council Tax freeze for the year 2010/11. The Community Group, which runs the local authority in coalition with the Conservatives, expressed its delight at being able to present another low tax budget but called upon the administration to be 'bold and imaginative' in using available funds to strengthen local democracy and empower communities.
"Community Group Leader Phil Andrews commented: 'The Leader of the Council deserves a lot of credit for spearheading this administration’s successful efforts to produce a zero increase budget under such difficult circumstances, and it is to his credit that he has taken on board concerns about some of the proposals that were floated in December, and which following discussions have now been withdrawn.
“'We are proud to be associated with such an achievement and it is our hope that it will be accompanied by some bold and imaginative measures to direct resources towards empowering our community.
“'We want to see an aspirational budget that does something tangible to demonstrate our commitment to strengthening local democracy rather than just cutting tax. We are still discussing a few options and are likely to support the proposals if we can incorporate some of our objectives into the end product.'”
We mean everything we said in the statement. We have supported 0% budgets for the past three years and are happy to do so again. We recognise that, particularly in times of recession, even a small increase in Council Tax can penalise those on low incomes disproportionately.
But when all is said and done I personally do not find myself getting all excited about tax cuts. Some seem to derive an almost sexual relief from making savings and seeing a lower figure at the foot of a balance sheet. Such people have probably got a lot more money than I have, and it's not difficult to see why.
What I as a community advocate want to see is a budget that uses itself as a good excuse for rolling out the Community Empowerment agenda further. It needn't cost much, or even anything, to do but it sends our constituents - the people who elected us in preference to the politicians in the hope and expectation that we would effect positive change in our communities - the message that we are doing what we promised local people when they entrusted us with their votes. Without this aspect forming part of the budget proposals, I would be inclined to stay at home and watch telly.
The feeling I have is that our case is being heard. After all, at the end of the day those whose interest in the budget proposals begins and ends with a series of digits after a pound sign are unlikely to be fazed by a shopping list which doesn't involve shelling out a lot of money. Everything we bring to the process has a Buy One, Get One Free label affixed to it.
Monday's Group Meeting will be when we finally decide what we are going to do. But I am hoping my community gets a double result on Tuesday night - more say and less tax.
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Engaging with locals is what it's all about
Yesterday it was my turn to cover our monthly councillors' surgery at Isleworth Library, and I think this month the attendance set a record for this particular venue.
Housing is always a big issue, and probably the most depressing as there is often an expectation, especially with me being Lead Member for Housing, that I can help applicants up the waiting list. All I can do in actual fact is to ensure that their applications have been handled correctly and, if they haven't, to rectify the situation. As somebody who is myself stuck hopelessly down the list in the "one day, some day" category (no dodgy "one extra bedroom" arrangements for me, but I digress) I know better than most that like all local authorities in this part of the world we can only stem the flow. The housing shortage is chronic and the only long-term solution must rest with some really bold strategic thinking on the part of our national government, now and in the future.
Service charges for tenants remain a concern. Despite my insistence at the time when they were introduced that they needed to be explained properly, thoroughly and repeatedly to our tenants along with their rights of appeal I don't believe we have fully grasped the spirit of my request, and this is an issue I intend to have addressed as a matter of great urgency.
One guy came along to complain about immigrants, despite him being an East African Asian. Whilst I couldn't empathise with his prejudices, it was difficult not to have some respect for the fact that he had worked all his life, paid his taxes and never claimed from the State. It occurred to me that perhaps he too was entitled to a little help in his advancing years, and I explained a few options which might be available to him.
Another gentleman took the trouble to come to see me to thank me for the fact that Council Tax had been frozen for the third year running. This was in some respects unusual - many people appreciate the efforts we are making to ensure that the burden of taxation is kept to an absolute minimum but in my experience it is not something that people tend to be particularly vocal about, possibly for fear that they might come across as being selfish or greedy.
There were some very valid concerns expressed about some overgrowing vegetation, owned unfortunately by our old friends at Thames Water whose dismissive attitude towards their neighbours is the stuff of legend, and a complaint about somebody who was allegedly operating an instrusive business operation from a property in a quiet, leafy residential street.
Some not insurmountable problems concerning removal of household waste were brought to my attention, while another resident had some issues with Hounslow Homes allegedly not honouring appointments. An alleyway to the rear of some houses on a local estate had apparently not been cleared, according to yet another resident. I was pleased to be able to inform him that I was already on the case, having discussed it at some length with the truly excellent Hounslow Homes team based at the Langdale Centre on Ivybridge.
Inevitably though the majority of the complaints related to the shameful decision by Hounslow Council's Sustainable Development Committee to approve an application by Thames Water to expand its capacity at Mogden by over 50% in defiance of concerns expressed by thousands of residents through petitions, legal action and well-documented popular protest. As has already been pointed out on this blog, this decision was taken following a claim by the applicant that the regulator OFWAT would not permit the covering of the storm tanks, a claim which despite being completely untrue was not challenged by officers whose job it was to advise the Committee. Residents will be able to judge the extent to which this part of the local authority's operation is truly "member-led" by the action that follows, or does not follow, this self-evident failure on the part of officers of the council whose duty it was to ensure that those advising the Committee were properly briefed. Whilst most of my visitors understood that we as ward councillors had always supported them and will continue to do so, it was quite hurtful to have had one finger pointed at my face along with a suggestion of betrayal.
Amid all the private meetings, presentations and formal decision-taking, the councillors' surgery provides a sobering reminder of why one was elected to the council in the first place. And councillors of any political hue or of none ignore the aspirations of those who put them where they are at their absolute peril.
Housing is always a big issue, and probably the most depressing as there is often an expectation, especially with me being Lead Member for Housing, that I can help applicants up the waiting list. All I can do in actual fact is to ensure that their applications have been handled correctly and, if they haven't, to rectify the situation. As somebody who is myself stuck hopelessly down the list in the "one day, some day" category (no dodgy "one extra bedroom" arrangements for me, but I digress) I know better than most that like all local authorities in this part of the world we can only stem the flow. The housing shortage is chronic and the only long-term solution must rest with some really bold strategic thinking on the part of our national government, now and in the future.
Service charges for tenants remain a concern. Despite my insistence at the time when they were introduced that they needed to be explained properly, thoroughly and repeatedly to our tenants along with their rights of appeal I don't believe we have fully grasped the spirit of my request, and this is an issue I intend to have addressed as a matter of great urgency.
One guy came along to complain about immigrants, despite him being an East African Asian. Whilst I couldn't empathise with his prejudices, it was difficult not to have some respect for the fact that he had worked all his life, paid his taxes and never claimed from the State. It occurred to me that perhaps he too was entitled to a little help in his advancing years, and I explained a few options which might be available to him.
Another gentleman took the trouble to come to see me to thank me for the fact that Council Tax had been frozen for the third year running. This was in some respects unusual - many people appreciate the efforts we are making to ensure that the burden of taxation is kept to an absolute minimum but in my experience it is not something that people tend to be particularly vocal about, possibly for fear that they might come across as being selfish or greedy.
There were some very valid concerns expressed about some overgrowing vegetation, owned unfortunately by our old friends at Thames Water whose dismissive attitude towards their neighbours is the stuff of legend, and a complaint about somebody who was allegedly operating an instrusive business operation from a property in a quiet, leafy residential street.
Some not insurmountable problems concerning removal of household waste were brought to my attention, while another resident had some issues with Hounslow Homes allegedly not honouring appointments. An alleyway to the rear of some houses on a local estate had apparently not been cleared, according to yet another resident. I was pleased to be able to inform him that I was already on the case, having discussed it at some length with the truly excellent Hounslow Homes team based at the Langdale Centre on Ivybridge.
Inevitably though the majority of the complaints related to the shameful decision by Hounslow Council's Sustainable Development Committee to approve an application by Thames Water to expand its capacity at Mogden by over 50% in defiance of concerns expressed by thousands of residents through petitions, legal action and well-documented popular protest. As has already been pointed out on this blog, this decision was taken following a claim by the applicant that the regulator OFWAT would not permit the covering of the storm tanks, a claim which despite being completely untrue was not challenged by officers whose job it was to advise the Committee. Residents will be able to judge the extent to which this part of the local authority's operation is truly "member-led" by the action that follows, or does not follow, this self-evident failure on the part of officers of the council whose duty it was to ensure that those advising the Committee were properly briefed. Whilst most of my visitors understood that we as ward councillors had always supported them and will continue to do so, it was quite hurtful to have had one finger pointed at my face along with a suggestion of betrayal.
Amid all the private meetings, presentations and formal decision-taking, the councillors' surgery provides a sobering reminder of why one was elected to the council in the first place. And councillors of any political hue or of none ignore the aspirations of those who put them where they are at their absolute peril.
Saturday, 26 July 2008
New Labour - an idea whose time has passed
I apologise in advance for another post on that subject, but an A3 leaflet which was doing the rounds on Isleworth's Worton estate earlier in the week finally convinced me that it is game over for the abomination that is New Labour.On those rare occasions when New Labour in Hounslow gives any impression of being interested in knowing why it has been so thoroughly wiped out in its former stronghold in Isleworth, the usual practice is to suggest that the ICG is some form of local, right-wing political party - either of a meekly Conservative bent or representing something altogether more sinister, depending upon the audience to whom the suggestion is being addressed.
I have long been of the view that there are essentially two reasons for this wilful misapprehension of what has been happening in and around Isleworth, perhaps only one of which is after all pernicious.
The first, of course, is simply about blatant smearmongering. At the 2006 local elections Hounslow Labour's strategy seemed to revolve around committing almost its entire political machine to the cause of returning Isleworth to where it "belonged", with a campaign based wholly on the failed tactics of 2002 involving the terrorisation of minorities and other vulnerable people. Its tragic miscalculation of ICG strength and its ignorance of political realities in Isleworth led to the Party bogging itself down in the Russian winter of a hopeless cause while we merrily cleaned up in Syon, and even helped engineer the downfall of a leading Party apparatchik in Brentford.
The second reason for New Labour's determination to attribute a political motive to the ICG's operation, I believe, is more to do with simple reassurance. If New Labour bigwigs are able to convince themselves that their rejection by the community of Isleworth has some kind of ideological foundation, it helps absolve them of any blame for their own predicament. And, of course, of the need for any serious introspection of a kind which might reveal nasties of a kind which they would prefer to remain unrevealed.
Whichever of the two motivations drives New Labour in its dealings with the ICG today what is clearly apparent is a lack of scruple, combined with an equal lack of any real kind of programme beyond the pursuit , or retention, of political office. Nowhere is this more evident than in the aforementioned leaflet (above right), which leads with the interesting announcement: "Ann Keen says Cut the Council Tax".
The article goes on to tell us: "...the level of Council Tax is controlled by Hounslow Council and so could, and should, be cut to help at this difficult time...unfortunately the Conservatives who run Hounslow Council could only freeze the Council Tax this year...
"Ann's suggestion has been backed by Labour councillors in Hounslow who argue if it's possible to freeze it then surely it must be possible to cut the council tax locally...
"Hard pressed local families have enough to deal with without more taxes on top - unlike the Tories and Lib Dems we think the local council tax should be cut."
There is little point in dwelling for too long upon the sheer gall of the message conveyed by New Labour in these few short words. It is very widely known indeed that New Labour in Hounslow has for two years outspokenly opposed the policy of the current administration of keeping Council Tax low, and that it dares to believe that it could get away with now trying to suggest the exact opposite serves only to reveal the utter contempt in which Mrs. Keen and her followers hold their own voters.
Believe it or not, what overcame me when I read the headline was actually a genuine sense of sympathy and embarrassment for all those New Labour apologists and acolytes, including one or two who have technically left the Party itself, who had invested so much time and effort in writing letters to the local press, posting comments on internet forums and using every other available means to argue the case for a higher Council Tax in order to protect what they would have us believe were services for the vulnerable (but often in reality, of course, jobs for cronies). Greater love hath no woman than this; that a woman lay down her friends for her life - as John the Apostle might have said had he encountered the appalling Mrs. Keen.
Locally, as nationally, it is evident that New Labour has lost its way. As it has done so it has become progressively (if that is the right word!) more dishonest, more opportunistic, and less motivated by any kind of principle. Rather than being a means towards achieving an end, the acquisition of political office by any means possible has become the end in itself.
And yet, ironically, I believe not only that there is a need for a Labour Party in our local politics, but also that a Labour Party rooted in honesty, integrity and sound principles would in the fullness of time actually turn the tide around once again. Alas current Party wisdom seems to have it that the way forward for an organisation which finds itself increasingly rejected for its cynicism, its dishonesty and its nastiness is to become more cynical, less honest and nastier.
For the forseeable future, it would seem, political life for the ICG must go on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)