How "Green" is Blue Labour?

It was Isleworth Labour councillor Ed Mayne who first introduced me to the concept of Blue Labour, in a conversation which took place between us shortly after he had been elected for the first time in 2010.

I had never heard of Blue Labour before. When I did I confess I baulked a little, because I kind of assumed that the “blue” aspect referred to a peculiarly rightist tendency within an organisation which had already moved too far to the right in my humble opinion. I envisaged a kind of ultra-Blairite movement within a movement, maybe something along the lines of the Progress grouping.

But it appeared that Blue Labour, oddly named as it was in my view, was something entirely different. Its emphasis was on fusing together “a progressive commitment to greater economic equality with a more 'conservative' disposition emphasising personal loyalty, family, community and locality”. The use of the term “conservative” is in this sense, of course, descriptive as opposed to organisational.

COMMUNITY AND LOCALITY

So it would appear that Ed had perceived my possible interest to lie with the “community and locality” aspect of Blue Labour’s outlook, as opposed to its “conservatism”. Which was fair enough, bearing in mind my deep-rooted commitment to a politics which sprang upwards from the grass roots as opposed to one that was imposed from on high.

The term “Blue Labour” was first coined in 2009 by a Labour life peer and academic by the name of Maurice Glasman, a senior lecturer in Political Theory at the Metropolitan University in London. Amongst its adherents was none other than John Cruddas, the hero of the successful struggle against the BNP in Barking and Dagenham and a man certainly associated with the left of the party rather than with any Blairite strand of thought.

It seemed to me, and still does seem, an odd choice of terminology for an idea which appears to transcend the traditional left-right divisions which engage the party at various times. Rather than taking either part in this historic debate, it instead positions itself as a champion (by Labour Party standards) of community co-operation and working class activism as opposed to the draconian “We Know Best!” mindset of the Labour Party with which I am much more familiar.

Because of its emphasis on family and locality many on the authoritarian left, as well as on the more dominant right, see Blue Labour as an attempt to shift the party in a more conservative direction on issues such as immigration. But Cruddas in particular has been clear in his thoughts on this subject, that whilst any kind of racist or xenophobic thought is rightly opposed it is legitimate to be concerned about the effects of rapid, unforetold immigration on such things as social cohesion and pay and living standards.

COMMUNITY-FRIENDLY

Blue Labour does not, as I see it, move the debate in a more leftwards or rightwards direction, but in a more community-friendly direction, to a place where the electorate whose votes are begged at five-yearly intervals are trusted during the intervening periods to hold opinions that may actually be worth listening to. It is not a left-right divide, in other words, but a Red-Green divide, Green being traditionally the colour of organic democracy alongside its other association with environmental politics.

It is no coincidence that environmentalist organisations such as the Green Party tend overwhelmingly towards a sympathetic view of localist democratic institutions, alongside small industry and ideally self-sufficiency. These are the aspirations which are most threatened by the relentless onward march of the big corporations – by the capitalism either of Big Folding Money or of the State.

I still fail to understand why such a radical tendency within the Labour Party is labelled “blue”, but whatever it chooses to call itself it seems to be one that is gaining currency.

Mary Macleod Takes Up Mogden Complaints

Residents suffering the effects of the ongoing odour problem at Thames Water's Mogden Sewage Treatment Works have been given some hope of respite following the intervention of Brentford & Isleworth Conservative MP Mary Macleod.

Mary has already raised the matter in the House of Commons and has met with the Environment Minister alongside members of the community-led Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG). She has also established a line of contact with the Environment Department at the London Borough of Hounslow, where planning permission was granted to Thames to expand the plant when it was patently obvious to all but a handful of dopey politicians that Thames had lied about its capacity to minimise odour once the proposed works had been completed.

It is worth noting here that Ed Mayne, one of the three Labour ward councillors for Isleworth, has also written to Thames in the strongest possible terms calling for action over the smell.

Campaigning residents are hopeful that these latest high-profile interventions will impress upon the Mogden management at last that the present situation in which odour is simply allowed to escape at will and impinge upon the quality of life of tens of thousands of neighbouring residents is unsustainable.

Confused.com

I've not long returned from a meeting of the Isleworth Public Hall Users' Group and it appears the London Borough of Hounslow is determined to wash its hands of the property - a day after Labour councillors in Isleworth circulated a leaflet claiming to have "saved" it.

I know these politicians are supposed to be clever, but just how is it possible for the same people to sell off a facility and to save it from being sold off all at the same time?

The Grove Park CPZ Debate - the Anguish of a Disenfranchised Community

It seems our Isleworth ward councillor Ed Mayne continues to be the cause of much angst over in Chiswick, London W4.

Proposals to introduce a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in two streets close to the grounds of Chiswick House are being resisted by a clear majority of residents living in the Grove Park area. Although the Zone is to be limited in its scope those living in surrounding streets fear, with good reason, that the parking thereby displaced into their own neighbourhood will lead in the course of time to calls for it to be extended. This is, after all, what almost invariably happens with Controlled Parking Zones, and it is how schemes which may be cost-neutral to begin with morph into substantial money-spinners for the local authority.

Economically and politically, Chiswick is the ideal milch cow for the London Borough of Hounslow. As well as generally being the borough's most affluent area, it dutifully returns Conservative councillors at every local election, an outcome routinely expected by the Tories and accepted by Labour. For the powers that be there is no point in trying to alter the electoral status quo, and Labour tends to work around Chiswick rather than spending any time trying to make serious inroads into its politics.

On the issue of the CPZ, as one would expect the Tories would appear to be moderately supportive of the larger number whilst remaining mindful that many of those residents of the two streets who are in favour of the proposals are Conservative voters too. Any suggestion that the protest should be escalated has been met with nervous disinterest. Where they have been relatively vocal is in criticising the undemocratic and authoritarian methods by which the Labour Council would seem to be steamrollering the proposals through.

This whole continuing episode is probably the best example we have seen so far of how the disasterous electoral strategy pursued by the Tories at the local elections of 2010, which led to Labour regaining control of the borough, has impacted upon their own constituents. The people of Chiswick are now completely powerless and their councillors can only squeal impotently from the sidelines as the Labour machine tramples all over them and laughs in its wake.

Of course the Tories remain in denial about the role they played in bringing about this sorry state of affairs. Sometimes they even have the nerve to offer tactical advice, delivered one presumes with a straight face, to the campaigning residents. They are helped, one must record, by a profoundly unrevolutionary spirit which self-evidently prevails amongst the citizenry of Chiswick, which is a real shame as potentially they are in many respects better organised and better equipped for really effective community action than residents anywhere else in the borough, with a hugely vibrant local internet community and many active residents' groups.

It remains to be seen whether Chiswick residents will develop their own innovative strategies for resisting the relentless encroachments of the local authority or whether they will continue to place their faith in the self-neutered politicians whose vociferous fence-sitting can surely not remain unchallenged and unquestioned indefinitely by this vigilant but sometimes irritatingly genteel community?

More on this anon.

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.

I Won't Say I Told You So

That's how the song goes anyway.

It could, of course, have been written by the ICG for those mugs who voted in support of an application by Thames Water to expand its stinky Mogden operation back in 2009 on the grounds that (a) it would "reduce smell" and that (b) the London Borough of Hounslow would be able to exercise "more control" over the selfish, relentlessly profit-driven activities of the water utlity through the watered-down and thoroughly useless Section 106 agreement that Thames condescended to sign as part of the approval process.

The ICG told the sorry shower that comprised the Sustainable Development Committee that the grounds were flawed on two counts. Namely (a) it wouldn't reduce the smell but would increase it, and (b) the London Borough of Hounslow has never had any intention of exercising any kind of control or restraint whatsoever over Thames Water, which imposes its odours on the surrounding community with absolute impunity.

Guess what happened?

The following is an excerpt from a letter written by the resident-led Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG) to Isleworth councillor Ed Mayne on June 10th:

"Residents are thus astounded to learn that, without any consultation with MRAG or community groups, the Council elected of its own volition, to remove the out of hours call centre for victims to ring so that Environment Officers can take 24/7 H2S readings and thus build a case to enforce Abatement Notices. Residents were led to believe that this call centre and the associated costs for Council Officers to investigate complaints is funded 100% by Thames Water as a pre-condition of the S106 agreement and it was agreed that this would remain in place until 2013 when the upgrade of Mogden is completed. Why then, and on whose authority was this vital function removed just before the summer months when odour escaping the Mogden premises is at its most severe?

"You will also be aware that residents requested, and were granted GBP 150,000, within the S106 agreement to enhance and beautify the environment around Mogden in residential areas most affected by Mogden's mismanagement and negligence over the last 14 years. We have repeatedly requested information on when consultation with residents will commence in order to define how the £150K will be spent, but we have received no response."

So there you have it, so supportive is the Head of Environment at LBH of the residents who pay his not unsubstantial salary that he has withdrawn an important facility that was provided as a condition of acceptance for the expansion project at no cost at all to the borough!

And what have the elected members, who are supposed to be running the council, done about it?

Well, Councillor Mayne has offered to facilitate a meeting between residents and the new Lead Member for Environment, Councillor Colin Ellar, and this offer is in the process of being responded to.

We can only hope that Councillor Ellar and his administration will take the necessary measures that we would have taken had our coalition partners backed us post-2009 to sort out the utter disgrace that is Hounslow's Environment department for once and for all.

Another Isleworth Councillor on the LBH Executive

At the Annual Meeting of Borough Council on Tuesday (it's to all intents and purposes a kind of AGM but doesn't appear to have an official title) another Isleworth councillor was promoted to the Council Executive.

Councillor Sue Sampson is now the Council's Lead Member for Performance and Customer Care, joining fellow Isleworth member Ed Mayne who remains Lead Member for Community Safety and Regulatory Services (the former half of that portfolio having been held by yours truly between 2006 and 2009).

Meanwhile Syon councillor Steve Curran holds what appears to be a rather large portfolio as Lead Member for Education, Housing and Human Resources and his ward colleague Theo Dennison has the influential task of chairing the Sustainable Development Committee (with Councillor Curran as his Vice Chair).

It is pleasing to see our own local representatives having such an input and playing such an important role. I am particularly pleased for Sue as I feel she is suited by temperament for the post for which she has been chosen, and I say this notwithstanding some of the disagreements we've had over the negative electioneering methods with which she has been associated in the past, a thing which to be fair was to some extent a cultural trait inherited from some of her predecessors.

I am sure she will make a success of her new appointment and I wish her all the very best.

The full list of appointments can be viewed at the London Borough of Hounslow website.

Where Is Our Money?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch this space.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


March to Save St. John's Community Centre

Saturday, 19th November 2011

Meet outside the Centre, 10.30 am

One Down, Three To Go

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comfortable in Opposition

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

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

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

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

Despite All, Our Community Is Stronger Than Ever

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isleworth residents brave the cold

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

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

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

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

United in celebrating a wonderful community effort

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The dark soul in our midst that cannot move on

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

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

The main thrust of the attack was as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isleworth councillor meets US anti-graffiti campaigner

What a splendid initiative by Isleworth councillor Ed Mayne (left), taking advantage of a private visit to New York to meet up with a well-known US anti-graffiti campaigner to pick up some advice on fighting crime at no cost at all to the Hounslow taxpayer.

Councillor Mayne, who is Lead Member for Community Safety (a post I held between 2006 and 2009), met with Council Member Peter F. Vallone Junior (!) during his trip to the States and was also able to discuss issues surrounding possession of firearms and relationship between civic leaders and police.

Speaking to the Hounslow Chronicle (click here for full story), Cllr. Mayne commented: "It was enlightening to meet such a high profile councillor who was happy to engage and share ideas. Councillor Vallone has been a major part of New York's drive for public safety and decreased levels of crime. It was exciting to have him agree with many of the ideas I was proposing and share some of the ways he has made his city significantly safer for residents".

Let's hope that some of the lessons learned by Cllr. Mayne during his visit can be put to good use for the benefit of Hounslow residents.

Photograph reproduced with acknowledgements to the Hounslow Chronicle.

Keeping on the scent at Mogden

Last night (Wednesday) I spent a useful couple of hours at Mogden Sewage Works attending the quarterly(ish) meeting of the Mogden Residents' Liaison Committee (MRLC), an ad hoc body set up by Thames Water as a means of maintaining a regular dialogue with councillors and officers from both Hounslow and Richmond and with local residents, the majority of whom are organised around the Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG).

I attended in my capacity as an MRAG official.

Thames as always provided an update of what they claim to have been doing to help alleviate the ongoing problems of odour and mosquito blight that their operation inflicts upon the surrounding community.

There seems to be a widespread if not unanimous agreement that liaison between the water giant and residents' representatives seems to be being conducted in a more cordial atmosphere than has hitherto been the case, which of course is a very good thing, but Thames do in my view remain slippery at times and their dealings still do need to be monitored at close quarters.

The duty to involve residents in one particularly important project was considered by Thames to have been discharged by its willingness to brief the Environment Department at the London Borough of Hounslow. But despite the expertise and professionalism of the Environmental Health officers on the frontline Thames managers must be aware of the almost pathological unco-operativeness that was demonstrated by chief officers towards councillors involved with Mogden under the previous administration and which, I imagine, will be continued under this one. If Thames really does want to demonstrate goodwill towards its neighbours it will involve them at source rather than bypassing them in this manner.

In fairness I did pick up some genuinely positive vibes from the Thames management. Some questions submitted by e-mail from MRAG's Steve Taylor, who was unable to make the meeting, were read out and addressed by Thames, interestingly to the annoyance of a Hounslow Conservative councillor who protested loudly and angrily.

After the meeting I took the brief opportunity available to me to speak to Councillor Ed Mayne, one of the new elected members for Isleworth ward. I asked him how he was getting along in his Executive post as Lead Member for Community Safety, a post I myself held for the first three years of the previous administration. The officer team that works in and around Community Safety in Hounslow is truly fantastic and I told Ed that he was privileged to have been given such an exciting role. I am sure he will build well upon the fine work that I hope I did between 2006 and 2009, and the excellent work that I know Paul Fisher did after that.

I believe the four MRAG delegates did themselves and our community proud with their polite but relentless questioning at the meeting, sometimes on matters which were highly technical and requiring of considerable attention to detail. They are possibly the greatest local example of all of why, whilst councillors and officers play an important role, community is and always will be king.

New Isleworth and Syon councillors "at the top table"

If I have read this article correctly it would appear that new Labour councillors Theo Dennison and Ed Mayne, who represent Syon and Isleworth wards respectively, have been appointed to serve on the London Borough of Hounslow's new Executive.

Whilst I criticised the last Labour administration for nominating first-time councillors with no experience to the local authority's most senior committee, responsible as it is for most of its decision making, the selection of two local members will at least hopefully ensure that our wards are not forgotten. I believe both of them have what it takes to stand up to their colleagues where necessary and to ensure that Syon and Isleworth receive their fair share of services and resources. I was particularly impressed by Ed's intelligence, humility and enthusiasm when I chatted with him at the election count last week. He is a decent young man and deserves the chance that he has been given.

It is also good to see that Councillor Jagdish Sharma has been given the opportunity to lead the Labour Group and the Council after having been in a position of responsibility for such a very long time. With the re-election of John Chatt and Colin Ellar many feared there would be an unseemly scramble for the top job, which doesn't appear to have materialised.

In the Tory camp Councillor Peter Thompson has "retired from frontline politics" and has stood down as Leader of the Conservative Group. I like to believe I enjoyed a good relationship with Peter based both on personal chemistry and mutual respect and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his support during the last administration and for the frank and honest discussions and also one or two laughs that we had along the way. He is replaced by Councillor Mark Bowen, who was sadly unsuccessful in his efforts to topple Alan Keen in Feltham & Heston at the general election and whom I consider a good friend.

If I haven't found myself a proper job by then I might look in from time to time when all the new and not so new players are exchanging banter across the floor of the Council Chamber.

"It's ironic that the outcome of a local election should be determined by a group of voters with no interest in local elections"

That was my soundbite when I sent off a press statement earlier trying to explain how the ICG came to lose all six of its council seats in Isleworth and Syon wards at last week's local elections.

It wasn't, in my view, an unreasonable thing to say. In 2006 I had topped the poll in Isleworth with 1240 votes, this year in the same ward 1741 votes was not enough to get me onto the scorescheet. The general election increased the turnout in Isleworth from 37% to over 62%, and in Syon from 36% to over 58%. Obviously an increase in turnout is good for democracy inasfar as it goes, but if the cause of the extra numbers is that the additional voters are in attendance for a reason other than to vote in a local election it does mean that the local election result is essentially being decided by those who don't really give much of a toss about local community business. That most of those fitting this description would appear to have been Labour voters could be argued to vindicate the ICG's whole raison d'etre.

No matter, we have six new Labour councillors on the manor - Mindu Bains, Ed Mayne and Sue Sampson in Isleworth and Steve Curran, Theo Dennison and Jason Ellar in Syon, and I wish them every success in their new roles over the next four years. They are all new councillors which hopefully means they will bring fresh enthusiasm to the job, and in the case of two of them at least they bring extreme youth as well. Jason is, I believe, the youngest councillor ever to be elected to the London Borough of Hounslow, and I'm just too kind to ask how he intends to juggle his casework with his homework, or whether he'll have to be home from meetings by nine o'clock!

All joking aside, I am naturally being asked where the ICG intends to go from here, and whether we'll be looking to try to recapture the seats in 2014. The simple truth is that I don't know, and much is likely to depend on how the new councillors engage with the population that we as a local community group still serve and the approach the new administration in general takes to the whole area of Community Empowerment. If they take advantage of our contacts, our insight and the relationship that we enjoy with residents active in the community to try to create their own bond of a kind that is beneficial to the community they will have our support and assistance. If, on the other hand, their approach will be to treat local residents and their organisations as conquered serfs they will find in us a formidable adversary.

The is little doubt in my mind that, but for the extraordinary conditions created by the holding of the general election on the same day as the local elections, we would have comfortably held all our seats in both Syon and Isleworth. Good sitting councillors of the caliber of John Connelly, Peter Hills and Linda Nakamura were absolutely annihilated in their respective wards, coming in fourth behind the three major parties, each of them coincidentally taking about 14% of the poll. Even the excellent Andrew Dakers, standing for the Liberal Democrats in Brentford as well as representing his party in the parliamentary contest, was beaten down into third place.

The ICG, by contrast, were still knocking at the door in defiance of the artificial turnout, and of all logic. We came second in both Syon and Isleworth, in the latter failing to hold a seat by just 78 votes. In Isleworth we took over 29% of the vote, in Syon nearly 25% in spite of the unhelpful and pointless intervention of a full slate of Green Party candidates and one from UKIP. Our percentage of the vote in Hounslow South, where we have never held a seat, was roughly equal to those of the defeated independent councillors in Hounslow Heath, Bedfont and Hanworth.

The ICG's Committee will be getting together shortly to assess the situation. I cannot second guess the outcome of that meeting, but the mood is not one of defeat but of acceptance of the freak conditions which fired this eccentric result, coupled with a cool determination to defend everything we have built in our community, to ride the storm if a storm is to be, and to mobilise residents to resist any attempt to dismantle what they have built should such an attempt be forthcoming. Colleagues also however seem to have a genuine desire to give the new regime a chance before jumping to any conclusions and, if needs be, to redeploy the organisation into a supporting role outside of the electoral arena.

Meanwhile it feels odd not being an elected member after twelve years of continued service. I was going to go to the office today to do some constituency work, then realised that I no longer have any constituents nor for that matter an office! I'll get used to it, and four years will pass like it is no time at all.

It has been suggested elsewhere that the ICG "paid the price" for having entered into coalition with the Conservatives. The election results don't support this theory. Neither John Connelly nor Andrew Dakers had ever been in coalition with the Tories, whilst Peter Hills and Linda Nakamura severed their connection some time ago. Yet all of them were defeated more heavily than we were.

Do I have any regrets about the coalition? Well, I don't regret entering into it. Having been elected to office to make a difference I feel we had a duty to place ourselves into a position that enabled us to do that. My one regret is that, once it had become obvious to us that chief officers were prioritising Conservative objectives over ours, we didn't - I didn't - do enough to rectify the situation. Vague promises that our complaints would be "looked into" as they stalled for time (as we knew they were doing) stretched things out until they were effectively timed out and we comforted ourselves with the knowledge that we would deal with it all after the election as a condition of any new coalition agreement. Which would have been fine had we had the opportunity.

Lots of questions will be asked, and answered, over the weeks and months ahead. As long as we remain solid, as we intend to, the long-term future of our community will remain entirely in its own hands.

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.