That Election Result - One Month On

“What do you think you’ll do now?” asked Ruth Cadbury, long-time Brentford Labour councillor and Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Brentford and Isleworth, at the local election count last month.

“That’s easy,” I replied. “I’m going for a beer”.

It would be an overstatement to say I’d sidestepped the question. As far as I was concerned a well-earned drink once the formal business of the day was finally done was as long ahead as I could be bothered to contemplate at that particular moment in time.

The ICG had just fought what had without doubt been its hardest, most high-intensity election campaign in its twenty-year history. More literature had gone out, more doors had been knocked, and more residents spoken to on the doorsteps than in 2002, 2006 or 2010. The outcome of it all had been a substantial defeat. We had held second place in both Syon and Isleworth, indeed widening the gap between ourselves and the third-placed Tories from the previous contest in 2010, to the obvious surprise and disappointment of the victorious Labour teams, but we were still a very long way behind Labour in both.

LABOUR GAMEPLAN

This, according to the script which had been written in earnest by Labour strategists in the immediate aftermath of 2010, was the contest following which the ICG would finally chuck in the towel and collectively take up fishing. That’s not going to happen, so in that much at least the Labour gameplan had failed to come to fruition notwithstanding the party’s decisive win at the polls.

But there was no hiding from the scoreline – the ICG’s vote had been pinned back to 1998 levels whilst Labour had chalked up tallies of 1500 to 2000 and beyond in every ward outside of Chiswick. The Tories were down to eleven seats (which came almost as a relief to them after persistent whispers of a total wipeout in Osterley and Spring Grove) and the spectacularly mismanaged UKIP adventure had predictably ended in tears.

As always many things were said on all sides during the course of the campaign, and one comment on a local Internet forum from a perennial Labour Party mouthpiece to the effect that “voters aren’t buying into ICG ideology” repeated on me in the light of the result. The lady in question, whilst no longer an activist nor even technically a party member, is nevertheless somebody who wields influence with Labour in Isleworth and who would have been relaying feedback from the stump rather than speculating.

Nevertheless I believe she is wrong. Or wrong at least if the point she was trying to make was that voters who had formerly supported the ICG are now consciously rebelling against attempts to involve them in decision-making and preferring instead the lazy option of deliberately electing politicians who will make decisions on their behalf based upon their own agendas rather than having consideration for the wishes of the wider public. The idea that electors who just a few years before had marched against library closures and embraced litigation against Thames Water over Mogden have suddenly decided to put their placards down and to collectively present their backsides to be kicked makes absolutely no sense at all.

In support of my view I would cite Labour’s own election material, excellent as it was in its layout and presentation, in which the party’s “community” credentials were given pride of place. From (definitely false) claims that Isleworth’s Labour councillors had fought to save Isleworth Public Hall for the community to (probably false) promises that no libraries or community centres will be closed during this administration, Labour outgunned the ICG not by trumping our ideology with its own, but by persuading a good many of our erstwhile voters that it now shared our primary concerns and could at last be trusted with the (our) family silver.

SUPERIOR

That Labour’s campaigning techniques are now immensely superior to those it had adopted during earlier contests was also a major factor. It is hard to credit that in 2006, when we won all six seats across Isleworth and Syon wards, Labour did not put out a solitary leaflet in the latter, far less knock on a single door. Instead its “campaign” during that year was apparently based entirely upon an assumption that the party would win simply because the locals had a duty to give it their support. Or that in those days ours were the only candidates who paid particular attention to wooing postal voters.

Today we find ourselves up against campaigns in which canvassing data provided by ward activists is processed and responded to by a central, computerised and often salaried party machine, in which individual letters tailored as “responses” to individual concerns can be mailed to individual voters without any extra effort having to be expended by the local teams, which themselves are fortified by squads of activists drafted in from other areas. Tens of thousands of voters throughout the borough were known to have been contacted by telephone canvassers, and none of this takes into account the additional ballast of Labour election material coming through the letterboxes in support of the party’s European election efforts, which would have had some kind of positive spin-off for the local teams however unintended.

But then again all the same things can be said about the Conservatives, who had some very impressive candidates in the field (Fadi Farhat in Isleworth and Ron Mushiso in Syon spring immediately to mind) as well as some less inspiring ones . They too (absurdly) channeled most of their efforts into wards such as Isleworth and Syon, leaving themselves more vulnerable than they needed to have done in marginal areas such as Hounslow South (which they lost) and Osterley & Spring Grove (where they dropped a seat). They too contacted thousands of voters by telephone, and drafted in outside help on the stump, not least from their sitting Member of Parliament. They too produced a dazzling portfolio of glossy, money-no-object leaflets. Even so they once again came in in third place in both wards, just proving the old adage that one cannot make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.

CONVERGENCE

Labour’s victory in the ICG’s target wards, thus, was not down primarily in my opinion to the vastly superior resources that it was able to call upon, although that undoubtedly was a big factor, but to the (for us) unhappy convergence of an unpopular Tory-led government with a feeling amongst residents that the time had come to trust a local Labour Party which at last was proclaiming the virtues of community engagement, even if (as some old cynics believe) it did so with fingers firmly crossed.

It is worth relating that having spent several months on the doorsteps speaking, and listening, to many thousands of local voters, I didn’t encounter any hostility whatsoever towards the ICG – other than, of course, from one or two who had been hostile to us to begin with, whom I had called upon partly in the forlorn hope that they might have had a change of heart and partly out of devilment. Nobody had “turned” on us per se. But what I did to be honest witness, and almost exclusively from those whose “traditional” sympathies had been with Labour before they had turned to the ICG in the first place, was a tangible dilution of their enthusiasm towards us. Many who had told us in previous contests that they would “definitely” be voting for us were telling us this time that we could “probably” count on them (which as any experienced canvasser will confirm translates into “probably not”).

In the event it was our trusted core support – those who have become almost “traditional ICG supporters” now that our participation has extended over several contests – who stuck with us. In a conversation with a Labour councillor recently I joked that I could almost name the people who voted for us this time around – an exaggeration, but not a ludicrous one. This was particularly so in those areas where one would expect the Tories to perform relatively well. In the owner-occupied areas of Isleworth ward, off the Worple Road and around Old Isleworth (ironically the areas targeted by the “UKIP” candidates, presumably at Labour’s suggestion) we outperformed Labour, whilst the Tories received proportionately fewer votes, considerably fewer, than they did on Ivybridge. It would appear that the votes we had previously taken from the Conservatives remained with us, whilst those we had taken from Labour on the whole drifted back. This is worth bearing in mind because it means that, for the short term at least, Labour clearly now has a psephological as well as an ideological interest in us continuing to take part in elections.

WHERE TO FROM HERE?

Which brings me nicely to the question of where the ICG goes from here because it is clear that, more than ever before, any decision on our part to abandon the electoral path (a logical decision on account of the growing disparity in resources between community-based candidates and national political parties) is unlikely to meet with the approval of our erstwhile Labour opponents. It was, in my view, our biggest mistake of the 2010-2014 period that our decision as to whether or not to stand this time around was permitted to hang so much on us receiving that approval. We should never again, in my opinion, allow our critics to set the agenda for us in such a way – our strategy henceforth must be determined solely by what suits us and our community best.

Labour’s victory, both in our target wards and across the borough, was massive, but perhaps ironically the local party is now inevitably a prisoner of its own success. With an “official” Conservative opposition which is not only small in number but also weak, demoralised and stale (the “newest” amongst them – Sam Hearn – having been first elected to the Council at a by-election in 2008) the temptation for local Labour to revive its proud tradition of factional infighting will be tremendous. Amid all this, those Isleworth and Syon voters who “returned” to Labour from the ICG on account of its commitments to community-building are unlikely to respond favourably to any reversion to the bad old ways. Having made the commitment, Labour is now obligated to deliver.

Will it do so? The signals, as is so often the case, are mixed and in some respects conflicting. Our aforementioned Labour forum correspondent has delivered herself of the interesting view that with the Conservatives in such utter disarray, Labour’s likely “opposition” will for the purposes of this administration be the ICG and the G15+ group of residents’ associations. Flattered though I was, being an active member of both, it ill portends that a political administration charged with the task of governing in the best interests of a whole community should instinctively consider organised groups of residents to be its opposition.

But can the views of one party spokesperson be accepted as those of an entire organisation? Particularly one that has historically been so fractious and factional?

Appointments to the new Cabinet may offer us some clue. The new Leader of the Council is Syon’s Steve Curran, who as an officer of the Griffin Park Residents’ Association a decade or so ago impressed me a great deal but who since, having been transformed from poacher into gamekeeper in his role as a senior councillor, has worried me in equal measure. On his watch Councillor Curran has overseen the demise of HFTRA (the Hounslow Federation of Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations) and the attempted marginalisation of G15+, but as Leader he may have fresh ideas (at the election count he assured me that he was in favour of a “HFTRA Mark 2” to give the tenants back their voice – I told him we would see soon enough whether this was so).

Perhaps more enlightening – or alternatively perhaps not – are the appointments of the community-minded Syon Councillor Theo Dennison as Lead Member for “Citizen Engagement”, and of Isleworth’s Sue Sampson for “Communities”, a role which includes as a subheader “Community Engagement”. There are all manner of permutations to be read into this one. Do they represent two factions, each appointed to a near-identical role by two different power blocs within the Labour Group? Has the Leader appointed both in the hope that they will counter-balance, maybe even neutralise, one another? Or are they to be two distinct roles in spite of the apparent similarities? It is known that Sue fought hard within the Labour Group to have this particular job appended to her portfolio – is it, for her, just about having the capacity to pour funding into pro-Labour community projects on her own patch (before anybody mentions it I have never suggested that Labour in Isleworth is anti-community per se, just that it has historically been highly selective about which community projects it embraces and which it opposes, invariably depending upon where said projects are perceived to stand politically)?

CHANCE ENCOUNTER

I have made it my business to try to find out more about where the administration is likely to be heading with all this. I have already had the benefit of long discussions with two prominent local Labour Party members, one following a chance encounter and the other by appointment. I am optimistic that at least some elements within the new administration, particularly much of the new intake, are serious about wanting to take a new and more enlightened approach to community engagement and I think that they at least should be supported by those of us within the community whose causes are likely to benefit from any success they might enjoy.

I also think we should be prepared, both as a community and (for the ICG) as an organisation, to be open-minded about whether local Labour as a whole is prepared, and indeed structured, to deliver on its promises. Those who are keen to may need our support or even our help in their struggles with those who are perhaps less so. It is my hope that, in such an event, the ICG’s support or help will be readily forthcoming.

Above all we need to remember why it is that we have fought elections in the first place – not through force of habit or because we as individuals desire to be councillors but because we want to realise specific objectives for our community. If those objectives can be realised in spite of our electoral defeat then there can be no valid argument for not recognising the fact and no justification for regarding the political powers that be as our adversaries any longer. No reason to fight against them.

There is an awful lot that we can achieve whilst free of the organisational straitjacket that being committed to fighting elections has consigned us to. It is a fresh new approach which I sincerely believe has, for us, come of age.

Watch this Space

Well it's been over two months, but there is a good reason for that. The ICG will be contesting seven seats - three each in Syon and Isleworth and one in Brentford - at the local elections on May 22nd and the logistical work involved in making all that happen is horrendous for a small group such as ours without the backing of a sleek national organisation that candidates representing the big parties can depend upon.

Caroline Andrews, Shirley Fisher and Ian Speed standing in Syon. Phil Andrews, Patricia Doran and Paul Fisher are our candidates in Isleworth. And our lone candidate in Brentford ward, where we are standing for the first time, is Dave Cox (pictured), formerly the Chair of the now-defunct Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations (HFTRA), which provided a voice for 24,000 tenants and leaseholders in local authority dwellings throughout the borough before being killed off in a council-sponsored coup.

For the next few weeks this blog will be used to update its readers on the progress of the campaign, and to focus on some of the issues deriving from it. To begin this process we will have a real blockbuster going up later, either this evening or tomorrow. So as they say, watch this space.

On Turkeys and Tents

Just as I predicted, it would appear the Lead Member and his administration at LBH have instigated a coup against the leadership of the Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations (HFTRA). When the next meeting takes place they will be replaced with a compliant leadership comprised exclusively of turkeys eagerly looking forward to the coming of the Christmas season, and HFTRA will be safely back where it was when I was Lead Member - in the pockets of the local Labour Party. However with the current HFTRA leadership having vacated the tent, I do hope the Lead Member and his new "tenant leaders" have remembered to pack their umbrella.

New HFTRA Website Explains Current Crisis

A new website launched by the Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations (HFTRA) gives an essential insight into the crisis in its current relationship with the London Borough of Hounslow, which has led to its funding being withdrawn and a refusal by the Council's Lead Member to meet to discuss the implications for the borough's 16,000 local authority tenancies and 8,000 leaseholds and for community involvement in Hounslow.

I will have more to say on this important issue very soon, but in the meantime please do visit the new site at www.hftra2013.org.

HFTRA's Response to Hounslow Council's £12,000+ Propaganda Mailout

As I explained in my previous article Hounslow Labour's All-Out Assault on Community the London Borough of Hounslow has withheld funding from the Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations (HFTRA), effectively preventing it from operating.

In the meantime the Lead Member for Housing and Lots of Other Things spared no (public) expense in circulating his version of events to the borough's 24,000 tenants and leaseholders by means of an unnecessarily expensive postal mailout.

Obviously without the benefit of funding HFTRA does not have the means to respond in kind. However I have reproduced below its reply to the Lead Member's allegations, send to elected members and various news media:



Dear Councillor,

Subject: Hounslow Federation of Tenants’ and Residents’ Association Partnership with London Borough of Hounslow Council

We are writing to you all to appraise you of our serious concerns at decisions that have been made by LBH to withhold grant aid and service support to HFTRA. The rationale and grounds for such decision we are not party too. We are aware of our need to both revisit and develop policies for HFTRA and we are dealing with such matters with the assistance of NFTRA, Community Matters, Council for Voluntary Action, external community development and legal advisers offering pro bono services.

In order to move forward we seek your support to maintain the” status quo” of our organisation in continued grant aid and service support partnership with LBH. This will ensure stability of your primary networking community sector organisation whilst meaningful discussions between LBH and HFTRA take place.

1. HFTRA has had discussions with Cllr Curran in regards to his concerns with our weakness in Financial Management recording. At no time has the London Borough of Hounslow expressed concern of any impropriety. We have agreed the need to have a clear Financial Management Policy and to move from traditional and outmoded Book-keeping to computer programmes appropriate and simple to operate, designed for small lay managed organisations. We looked at the Sage package, but we considered the less onerous package of “Quickbooks” to be best suited.

2. We seek to appraise you of what we understand are issues that it is suggested are included in a decision to withhold grant aid and services. There has never been an opportunity to jointly look at, and address such issues. It seems that LBH require us to become a registered charity particularly so that we are in a better position to bring in grant aid from grant giving charity trusts.

2.1 We were told that a grant would be dependent on our becoming a registered charity.

2.2 We are, as many thousands of local groups, a “voluntary not for profit organisation” but are open to consideration of becoming a charity. However HFTRA is concerned that this could lead to a permanent withdrawal of grant funding by LBH in the future.

2.3 We do consider it to be both wrong and misguided for a local authority to force any organisation to become a registered charity, such major change in structure, management and status bringing with it many onerous duties on lay volunteer trustee managers in the community.

2.4 HFTRA would seek specialist advice from professionals who are knowledgeable on the advantages and disadvantages of becoming a registered charity. They would be very aware of the Charities Act of the 1990’s and the Charities Act 2006. They would know that the simplicity requirements of becoming a registered charity have radically changed.

2.5 As to increasing our ability to bringing in grants because of charity status, everyone needs to be mindful of the financial impact on all sectors of our economy in the devastating Banking and Financial Services led recession. In reports from the Charity Commission the following analysis identifies a general lack of understanding of the impact on charities and charity trust grants:

2.5.1 There has been a major downturn in the annual £2billion in grant trust made by some 7,500 Grant Making Charity Trusts in England and Wales.

2.5.2 Charity Commission surveys show that 59% of charities report having been affected by serious drops in income from absence and growing competition for Charity Trust Grant aid.

2.5.3 It is evidenced that small Community sector lay volunteer managed Charities most often do not have either the resources or skills of the highly sophisticated and complex requirements in applying for grant aid. Grants available are now most often small and certainly not available for core expenditure requirements.

2.5.4 There are grants available to “not for profit organisations” and HFTRA seek the assistance in continued identification of such resources and training support in progressing such applications.

3. It seems that the fact HFTRA is not a registered charity is not in line with a requirement that any grant aid would be contingent on HFTRA becoming a charity. We know nothing of such a LBH policy.

4. It seems to be suggested that as an organisation we have no right to allow other organisations to use the Alf Chandler Centre. Surely, as a community development networking organisation, support to other local primarily voluntary managed community sector is our duty and entirely supportive of respective government policies and LBH Council. We have often been congratulated by LBH for our work.

5. It seems to be suggested that we are in breach of LBH requirements for use of the premises. We would argue that at best we have a common law unwritten Occupation License thus we do not understand how we can be in breach of an unwritten article nor do we understand why after all of our years of service provision as a networking organisation this matter should be raised in this way.

6. It seems to be suggested that our constitution makes no provision for the management of community premises. We are advised that whilst the constitution currently does not have a written objective on Community Premises Management, silence on the matter does not inhibit us legally nor constitutionally from managing community premises.

7. Whilst HFTRA has no formal lease on The Alf Chandler Centre nor a written “Occupation License” nor a written “Community premises Management Agreement” HFTRA management are concerned that this organisation has recently been treated as if invisible and certainly with disrespect. We were not informed or consulted with in regard to the visit to the site from LBH surveyors, you must understand that this has caused some concern, being left outside agendas for the possible re-development of the premises.

HFTRA is aware of the need to return to and develop its “Mission Statement”, Governing Instrument, Policies, management and Training. What we do not understand is why LBH has stepped outside a consultative and partnership approach and decided to remove grant aid and service support to what has been a good partner and previously well respected for its work.

We are sorry for the length of this communication but felt it essential to draw many issues directly to the attention of our Councillors. HFTRA is a strategic “cog” in community development and networking with community sector organisations rather than individual members of the public, the latter being the responsibility of all respective organisations we serve in the network.

We ask all Councillors to consider the matters we have drawn to your attention individually. Whilst HFTRA attempt to achieve wider financial support in advancement of “sustainability”, the removal of the core grant by LBH will herald the demise of the organisation and its services. We ask you to support our request for the “status Quo” in LBH Grant Aid and support services, and a return to a consultative process between partners.

Yours sincerely,

David Cox

HFTRA Chair

Hounslow Labour's All-Out Assault on Community

"In for a penny, in for a pound," goes the old saying. The concept is that if one has decided to commit to a particular outcome in any given situation then one should focus entirely and unrelentingly upon that outcome and not dither along the way.

Hounslow's ruling Labour Group would appear to be embracing this concept with gusto as we approach the local elections of 2014. Not unreasonably confident of a rout in its traditional quarrel with the Tories, Labour has quite clearly decided that the time is right to try to face down what it considers to be its real enemies - the organised community and residents' groups around the borough amongst which the Independent Community Group (ICG) almost certainly enjoys pride of place at the very summit of the hate list.

I have related elsewhere how Hounslow Council's Planning Committee, now safely returned in one piece to the Stone Age under the stewardship of Councillor Ruth Cadbury, eagerly endorsed the decision of the former Lead Member (Councillor Ruth Cadbury) to reject a series of amendments to the statutory Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which had been drawn up by residents under the auspices of the expanding Group of 15+ and which would have given the SCI real meaning. The amendments had previously been adopted by the Planning Committee when it operated under the leadership of the unusually forward-thinking Labour councillor Theo Dennison.

Following on from this decision we have news that the current Lead Member for Planning, Regeneration, Housing, Celebrity Come Dancing and Virtually Everything Else is seeking to put an end to all formal contact between officers of the Council and G15+ and to replace it with a "forum", chaired by and with terms of reference drawn up by the local authority as opposed to the residents themselves as is presently the case. In other words a classic manifestation of the old "control or destroy" approach that has informed local Labour's relationship with community groups for at least a quarter of a century.

Meanwhile here in Isleworth the message we in the ICG are picking up amounts, essentially, to the old football supporters' invocation to "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough". In particular the threat to Isleworth Public Hall has begun once again to loom large, with sham consultations announced to coincide with the busy holiday period and timed to conclude after a decision has already been taken.

Council turns its guns on tenants

One area in which the gauntlet really has been thrown down is in respect of the 24,000 rented and leasehold properties which are owned by the local authority and managed by Hounslow Homes. Here the various resident groups come together under the umbrella of the Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations (HFTRA), which has historically received and is entitled to expect funding from within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) - the account to which rents and leaseholder charges are paid.

It was recently announced by the seemingly all-powerful Lead Member that funding to HFTRA had been withdrawn under what would appear, at least from the outside, to be highly dubious circumstances. A proposed meeting between HFTRA and the Lead Member to discuss the matter was cancelled by the latter as a punishment for HFTRA having the audacity to speak to the local press, although this publicity-shyness did not prevent the Lead Member from exploiting his advantage of office by widely circulating a £12,000+ propaganda mailout attacking HFTRA at the expense of the very tenants it represents.

Battle lines

Shocked and angered though we as a community may be we should at least be grateful that this most authoritarian of Labour administrations is setting out its stall in a more or less honest fashion, leaving absolutely no room for doubt as to where it stands on the question of community empowerment and in so doing clearly defining the battle lines for the forthcoming local elections in those areas in which the community is sufficiently well-organised to be able to make a challenge.

Activists should not fear a "trap" as such, this is simply about Labour trying to deal with its potentially more dangerous enemies in the organised community at a time when its conventional adversaries are at their weakest.

From their perspective it makes sense, but that does not mean it is a challenge we should walk away from. A handful of community, other independent and small party councillors, even operating in opposition to a large Labour majority administration, would set us up nicely for the much more favourable situation that 2018 is likely to present.

Modest meeting, big plans

Tonight the Green Room at Hounslow's Treaty Centre was filled to the rafters as I explained to my audience the mechanics of Project Empower.

Now a confession - that is not quite the achievement that it might at first have sounded. The Green Room is a small committee room on the periphery of the much larger Paul Robeson Theatre, and there were enough seats - and food - to provide for the thirty or so people in attendance.

Nevertheless, it was a slightly larger attendance than we'd anticipated from this first of three "satellite" meetings which had been arranged to compliment the launch of the Project at last weekend's HFTRA Conference and, more importantly still, those assembled were uniformly enthusiastic about the Project and what it is already being understood to symbolise.

Some great ideas were forthcoming, not least from a large contingent of tenants from Heston, and a real sense of purpose pervaded the short meeting as it broke up into discussions between small groups of residents and officers who, along with myself, were engaging with the residents at close quarters.

This is the environment in which I feel most at home, meeting new people and interacting with the community which it is my privilege to represent. With the greatest of respect both to senior officers of the council and to my Executive colleagues, meetings such as this are, to me, worth a hundred sittings of the Executive or one-to-ones in a remote office discussing the latest Report. This is what it is truly about.

What I also picked up was the real warmth and passion with which officers, in this case from Hounslow Homes, were embracing this work. I know that at least some of the people involved not very long ago were less enthusiastic about my management of the portfolio area. I don't think I'm being naive when I say I sensed something very, very different this evening as Project Empower was being rolled out before another group of residents.

Tomorrow is Annual Borough Council and as always, if the voting goes right, there is likely to be a slight shuffling of the pack. It provides a stark reminder of the speed with which a term of office comes and goes and, this being the last such meeting before the next local elections, heralds an urgency about work still to be done.

Empowerment or mere service?

Being mindful of the fact that I am a notorious repeater of myself, I spent part of my weekend reflecting on what I should report about this year's HFTRA (Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations) Conference that I didn't say last year. Only then did it occur to me that this blog is now actually over a year old! Doesn't time fly?

Well, this year I had the pleasure of both opening the Conference and giving the closing speech. Following hot on the heels of my introduction was a workshop, attended by all delegates, at which a Panel of senior Hounslow Homes officers took questions on the subject of Service Charges.

And many questions there were too. Some of them could easily have been predicted, whilst others called for quick thinking on the part of the Panel.

I think most if not all officers accept my view that the implementation of the second tranche of Service Charges this year could have better handled. I believe strongly that residents have a right to know why they are being asked to pay for a service, even if they don't agree that they should be paying it. And if a charge is patently unfair - as is the charge for communal electricity, even though we can do nothing about it - then the easiest and most honest thing is simply to say so.

It is because we didn't do this from the outset that we received a large volume of enquiries when the bills first went out, most of them from tenants demanding to know why they should pay for street columns on estates managed by Hounslow Homes, when they also pay for street lighting throughout the borough through their Council Tax. Or why they are paying for grounds maintenance when they cut their own grass. Or for Neighbourhood Wardens whose services they have thus far never needed.

Other than for the aforementioned injustice - forced upon us by government policy - of the charge for street lighting, there are reasonable explanations for all of the other charges. If one considers that all residents of the borough pay - through their Council Tax - for the upkeep of parks and open spaces irrespective of whether they use them, for the police service irrespective of whether they have been victims of crime, or for cemeteries irrespective of whether they wish to be cremated, charges for the maintenance of grassed verges on an estate whether or not they are immediately outside one's home do not seem so unreasonable after all. But if we do not explain it, we cannot expect tenants to understand it. Let alone accept it.

The good news is that this truism now seems to be accepted by all, and the Panel responded skillfully to the questions with humility and authority in equal measure. Most importantly of all, they acknowledged old mistakes and pledged to make good.

At the closing end of what turned out to be a very useful and enjoyable day, I was called upon once again to pick up the (very temperamental) microphone, this time to explain the rationale behind Project Empower, the name now given to the scheme, backed by Borough Council in January in the face of depressingly predictable opposition, to release £4 million of HRA (Housing Revenue Account) funds for service improvements to be identified by tenants.

The response from the floor to this talk provided for an interesting socio-analytical study. From those whom I've come to know as firm advocates of tenant participation there was tangible enthusiasm. Particularly supportive of my empowerment initiatives, for which I'm truly very grateful but the reasons for which I've yet to fully appreciate, have been the rapidly growing number of Somali ladies (it's nearly always ladies for some reason) who now attend HFTRA activites. Conversely, the questioning from those whom I've learned to associate with the "old guard" focused entirely on service issues and then with a primarily economic emphasis, much of it as it happened completely unrelated to the theme of the speech that I'd made.

Herein lies the essential difference between the two mindsets that have been doing battle in the field of community activity since the ICG arrived at the heart of local politics. For some the passion for involvement, engagement, participation - for others the dreary belief that all residents want in life is to be provided by their political masters with good service, in exchange for which comes their silence and acquiescence. Whilst the latter is a view that I and some of my colleagues tend to associate mostly with New Labour, I don't think any of us are oblivious to the fact that our ideology, if that is the correct term to use, is considered an eccentric enthusiasm by many on all sides of the traditional political divide. That for which our opponents despise us, many of our allies merely tolerate us. We know that.

Nonetheless when I think back to the battles of 2006 I am proud that we have placed tenant engagement into the forefront of everything we do, and I look forward to the coming year with excitement and some impatience when considering the work still to be done before we next go the polls.

On St. George's Day and Every Day, Together is Better!

I have not long returned home from one of the most successful, innovative and ambitious events that I have yet attended in my capacity as Lead Member for Housing & Community Safety.

For me personally, the Better Together event jointly organised by Hounslow Homes and the Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations (HFTRA) did not get off to a particularly good start. Despite me being Lead Member not only did I have no input into the organisation of the event, but somebody also forgot to invite me. It transpired, I have to add, that this had been a genuine oversight and as it turned out every councillor had been sent a last-minute "reminder" of an event which they knew nothing about, but I would not be human if memories of the Bad Old Days in which excluding ICG councillors was turned almost into an art form did not come flickering back at least momentarily.

But any lingering doubts were quickly dispelled as soon as I walked into the Paul Robeson Theatre in Hounslow Treaty Centre, where a hugely impressive crowd that included my friends and colleagues Councillors Jon Hardy and Paul Fisher was already gathering.

The afternoon event had been masterminded jointly by the Tenant Participation Officers at Hounslow Homes and by HFTRA (chaired by Julie Brooker, pictured above). Its purpose was to bolster participation in the lives of our communities by hard-to-reach groups who, for whatever reason, often find themselves left out of the business of the established tenants' and residents' associations on our estates.

It has to be said that in almost every instance the exclusion of these hard-to-reach groups, in particular newly-arrived communities, is entirely unintentional. People new to our estates, to Hounslow and to the country may understandably feel overawed and a little reticent about joining their local tenants' group, which usually tends to comprise a relatively small number of people who know and have been working with each other for many years. For their part those established groups may desire to reach out and embrace those who are new to their communities, but are unfamiliar with the cultures concerned and sometimes do not know how. If this stalemate is not broken, the association soon becomes unrepresentative of the people it serves and seriously negative implications for Community Cohesion begin to develop.

So the purpose of Better Together was to try to break through those barriers by bringing established tenants' leaders and representatives from hard-to-reach communities together, to introduce one to the other, and to celebrate - appropriately, on St. George's Day - our common citizenship and those things that unite us as tenants and indeed as human beings (please click here for some earlier thoughts of mine on this particular concept).

As Lead Member I have long argued that a powerful tenants' movement on our estates and in our communities is singularly the best vehicle there is for improving Community Cohesion. People and groups of people who are unfamiliar with each other and possibly even a little fearful suddenly discover that the problems which concern them in their everyday lives are the same problems which concern their new neighbours. When residents are brought together to discuss these problems, barriers just disintegrate before everybody's eyes.

By some this message was never completely grasped. To others it represented a threat, because it meant that improved Community Cohesion came about only by virtue of an empowered tenants' movement, which has a propensity to ask awkward questions and to make demands that are sometimes incompatible with the path of least resistance and a quiet life, and always incompatible with the control agenda favoured by some.

What inspired, enthused and excited me about Better Together wasn't just the massive turnout (250-300 people), the excellent food or the wonderful dancing. It was the fact that here was a really radical initiative to empower tenants by aggressively promoting cohesion that had been organised by Hounslow Homes and HFTRA, not only without any pressure from me but even without my knowledge! It wasn't simply like receiving a surprise birthday present, it was the pair of socks that I'd always wanted.

I cannot describe my feeling of sheer satisfaction at having witnessed such an event being driven by Hounslow Homes and HFTRA, two groups of people who had fought me tenaciously thoughout every minute of the Hounslow Homes Management Review in 2006 as I ploughed on stubbornly with my plans to improve and democratise the process of Tenant Participation in our borough. Back then some harsh words were spoken. I hope and believe that much of the innocent mistrust that had inspired the opposition to me back then has since melted away, but in the overall scheme of things that is not really that important. What is most important that even those who would still probably like to see the back of me next year are now singing from the same democratic hymnsheet. I feel I can declare with supreme confidence at long last that it is now official - working together really is better!

Confronting problems, embracing opportunities

I may have encountered pockets of resistance along the way as I've sought new means through which to empower tenants on our estates, but tonight when the Rainbow Project Panel was deliberating there was nothing but enthusiasm from all quarters when the Round 2 Expression of Interest Assessments took place at the Civic Centre this evening.

The Chair and Chief Executive of Hounslow Homes, the Chair of the Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations (HFTRA), LBH's innovative Principal Community Development & Area Initiatives Officer Kate Tomkinson and myself spent two highly productive hours sifting through a new round of applications from several of the borough's active tenant groups, contemplating funding applications for landscaping, play areas, improvements to community buildings, community cohesion initiatives and educational projects for both adults and children.

The magic of the Rainbow Project is that it provides a mechanism for identifying not only where funding is needed, but also where there are particular issues which may potentially be resolved through other means. For instance a request for CCTV cameras, although not always practical due to ongoing maintenance costs, flags up crime concerns and possible hotspots for anti-social behaviour which might possibly be addressed through other channels. Follow-up work is the rule rather than the exception, few applications are rejected out of hand.

Earlier today an equally productive meeting was held between Isleworth ward councillors, representatives from The Isleworth Society (TIS), Hounslow Homes officers, local authority planning and street management officers, and the council's Head of Customer Services Robert Della-Sala. Several issues of importance to us as a local community were discussed, and it was truly useful for every party to have the opportunity to see the issues at hand from the point of view of others. Although as a council we can sometimes be defensive and opt instinctively for the path of least resistance, what emerged from the meeting was a proposal to come together on a quarterly basis and monitor progress, a completely new opportunity for civic leaders in Isleworth who before today had only the sometimes frustrating option of complaining to or through councillors and engaging in endless and often fruitless exchanges of e-mails.

Once again engagement is demonstrated to be the way forward. I am looking forward to our fourth year as part of the governing administration at Hounslow and to the opportunities yet untapped that it promises to bring.

Community Empowerment - a National Conversation

On Wednesday I attended an event at the RFU Stadium in Twickenham in the company of Eileen Gladwell from Tenant Participation at Hounslow Homes, and Julie Brooker, Chair of the Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Leaseholders Associations (HFTRA).

The event had been organised by the government-owned Tenant Services Authority (TSA), and was part of a roadshow organised by same under the title The National Conversation.

This particular conversation, it would seem, is about raising standards of service for tenants, be they with a local authority, an ALMO, a co-op or a housing association. So far so good, but what is particularly appealing about the project is that the TSA appears to recognise that delivering service improvements must necessarily run alongside a far more deep and meaningful engagement with tenants than is currently the case in most areas.

To this end the two-hour session concentrated largely on discussing what community engagement and participation actually mean.

Many of those present were themselves representatives of tenants' organisations, and I have to say that what really struck me was what little understanding many of these people actually had of the core principle of tenant participation. I formed the view that whilst many of them had achieved a good working relationship with their own landlords, the extent of the relationship that many of them retained with the very people they were supposed to be representing was often questionable.

It is too easy to conclude that a landlord has a good understanding of the needs of its tenant base because it enjoys a good relationship with a handful of individuals who have climbed to the top of the tree (itself often planted by the landlord) of the local tenants' movement. But in this modern day and age, there are a raft of alternative mechanisms available through which closer contact can be maintained by the landlord with the tenants themselves, whilst retaining the traditional structures through which the tenants' elected representatives can negotiate with them. We need to be thinking intelligently about complimenting, not replacing, existing channels of engagement.

Am I suspicious that such a forward-looking initiative could have emanated from a New Labour government? Of course I am. But let us accept this apparently excellent initiative at face value until it proves to be otherwise.

A month of meetings

One of the thus far unblogged about features of the month just passed was the number of very fundamentally different meetings I was called upon to attend.

Meetings are both boon and bane when it comes to getting things done. Without meetings decisions don’t get taken, policies don’t implemented. But the more meetings that one is required to attend, the less one actually gets done in the field.

Probably the most significant meeting, if you call it that, that I was called upon to attend in January had nothing to do with council business. It was a weekend spent in Nottingham as part of my Congregational Federation foundation course. Caroline is also taking the same course, which meant the twins were forced to endure the 260-mile round trip with us, much to their obvious chagrin. One saving grace was that the accommodation at the Congregational Federation headquarters, in which we would normally have stayed, was occupied by students, so we and the others on the course were billeted at the Ibis Hotel, which of course is much more practical for a family group. A very productive and fulfilling weekend in which many new faces were seen and new friends met was rounded off splendidly by a group viewing of Match Of The Day in the small hotel bar.

Many of January’s meetings inevitably featured the Housing Revenue Account budget, with both the government-induced rent hike and the controversy surrounding my recommendation, passed by Borough Council, to use housing reserve funds to help facilitate tenant empowerment on our estates. Meetings with LBH Housing officers, finance bigwigs, Hounslow Homes and HFTRA, as well as with our coalition partners in the Conservative Group, presented me with the opportunity to explain the rationale for embarking upon such a radical venture.

Much was talked about at meetings in the local community too. A consultation exercise over plans to dramatically improve Isleworth Recreation Centre and Isleworth Library by bringing them together into a modern leisure hub were enthusiastically received, despite some initial, and in my view unnecessary teething problems in the consultation process. Meanwhile residents of Old Isleworth heard of the slow but continuing progress being made on the introduction of traffic reduction measures down by the river, and much liaising with residents continued to take place in connection with the proposed footpath along the bank of the Thames in the grounds currently occupied by Nazareth House.

At the Annual General Meeting of the ICG members showed great determination to step up our communication with those we serve, and to raise funds and expand membership still further in this most crucial year. And the point was agreed by everybody present that the most important meeting that any ICG activist will ever participate in takes place on the doorstep.

LBH gives £4m back to tenants

It doesn't feel like three weeks since I last posted on this humble little blog. Often when there is so much to do and so little time in which to do it one is faced with a stark choice - do I spend my time doing it or writing about doing it?

Anyway last night, at Borough Council, I did it. In the face of every conceivable obstacle known to man I honoured my promise to deliver £4m (that's £4,000,000) from the Housing Revenue Account (tenants' money) back to tenants, to do with as the tenants would want done with it.

In the first instance prudent officers variously suggested to me that £4m was too much money to be spending at a time of economic uncertainty, or too much money for one Lead Member (particularly, dare I say, a Community Group Lead Member) to be overseeing.

Then the Management Board at Hounslow Homes voted to ask me to reduce the proposed spend to £2m, and to place the responsibility for its allocation into the hands of the Board itself rather than allow tenants to set the priorities.

On Sunday an e-mail arrived from the Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations (HFTRA), bizarrely arguing that giving tenants £4m to spend would in some way be to their detriment and urging councillors to reject the proposal. A short meeting with two HFTRA officers the following day allowed me to correct some fairly basic misconceptions (they had not been adequately consulted - lesson to be learned) and the Federation's objections were withdrawn.

On Monday night I had to run the proposals past our coalition colleagues in the Conservative Group who, not unreasonably, were very concerned about the other, less optimistic aspect of the HRA Budget Report that I was required to deliver to Borough Council - an increase in rent charges of up to 6.95%, forced upon us by the totally unfair and unreasonable housing subsidy system operated by the government. The system is highly complex and some were quicker than others to grasp that our hands really were tied in the setting of rent levels. Again not unreasonably in consideration of the ALMO's history, there was some suspicion that we were being "stitched-up" politically, and I have to confess that at the time I was a tad disappointed by the inference from one or two sources that I might not be equal to, or even aware of, such a challenge. However when I and my colleagues left the meeting the Conservative Group voted to support my recommendations in their entirety, albeit with some concerns that it will be my absolute pleasure to address, so I must have said something right.

Fast forward to a few hours before Borough Council, and a telephone call alerted me to some behind-the-scenes conversations amongst senior officers that could have torpedoed the Report still. I was able to speak to the Leader and another potential hurdle was negotiated successfully.

When the meeting was finally upon us I was unsurprised to learn that the Labour Group had submitted an Amendment accepting the rent increase but calling for the £4m spend to be placed in the hands of the Hounslow Homes Board and not the tenants. The Amendment was proposed by Councillor Matt Harmer, whom I like and for whom I have a lot of respect but who is still after all "one of the gang", and seconded by Councillor Elizabeth Hughes, who if my perception of body language serves me correctly dislikes me with a vengeance and whose main saving grace is that she isn't ex-councillor David Hughes.

I introduced the Report, declaring that the £4m project was an exercise in community empowerment, giving tenants a real say in how what is after all their own money is spent and in so doing honouring the Community Group's commitment to total democracy without which our presence on the council itself would have no meaning. I delivered the Report standing up in order to emphasise its importance. Points made but over-reliance on notes. As I sat down I awarded myself seven out of ten for delivery.

Then came the New Labour Amendment, Matt was very agreeable. As I acknowledged later in my summing-up, Matt is a very agreeable bloke. Indeed in the spirit of agreement, I will even plug his blog, and invite him to do the same for me in return (watch this space...for a very long time)!

His argument was simple - the Hounslow Homes Board had been elected (or in some cases selected by people who had been elected) and so had a mandate to spend tenants' money. I smiled patiently. I had been elected too. My mandate was to empower tenants, and that was what I was doing.

Then came Elizabeth. Elizabeth was worried that £4m was too much to take out of the HRA reserves at a time of economic uncertainty (rewind a few paragraphs if you feel you've read that before). Which was why she was proposing to give the Board £4m to spend from the HRA reserves rather than giving the same amount to the tenants. Elizabeth had given the game away.

There was more. Councillor Raj Bath, a Labour member of the Hounslow Homes Board (under the present administration council seats on the Board are allocated proportionately amongst the parties, under the previous administration they were all given to Labour - in many cases to ex-councillors whom the electorate had erroneously rejected), regretted the lack of "trust" allegedly placed in the Board by my recommendations and suggested that I (the Lead Member for Housing) was "interfering" in Housing matters.

His fellow Board Member Councillor John Cooper protested that Hounslow Homes had always worked closely with tenants (note to readers from Ivybridge - please don't stone the messenger, I'm only reporting what he said), ignoring the fact that it would continue to do so as part of the £4m project, and that the only difference was that the project would be tenant-led.

These were the points I addressed as I summed up. My closing remarks were cut short when the Chief Executive indicated to the Mayor within a nanosecond that I had had my statutory five minutes (please remind me to ask Councillor Ruth Cadbury what her secret is). Nonetheless the point was made, as was local history when Borough Council voted to approve the project (having already rejected the New Labour Amendment).

Lots of things, some of them regrettable, are said during the course of political debate, but one essential point needs to be made in the light of the comments that issued forth from the New Labour benches, and that is this. The handing over of £4m of tenants' money to tenants is not a punishment inflicted upon Hounslow Homes, neither is it in any way an expression of No Confidence in the Board. As Raj Bath rightly said last night I enjoy a good, friendly relationship with most if not all Board members. Even those who still use those Board meetings I attend as a platform from which to aim political barbs usually end up having a chat and a laugh with me after the meeting. To view the £4m project as a slight upon the integrity, expertise or capability of the Hounslow Homes Board is to miss the point entirely.

Empowering residents is my business. Empowering residents is the Community Group's business. Empowering residents is the Community Group's raison d'etre. It is what we do.

New Labour by instinct strives to keep power, training and knowledge as the preserve of a select few. Just as it did during the Hounslow Homes Management Review in 2006, it demonstrated last night that it still considers the Hounslow Homes Board to be operating within its sphere of influence. Whether the Board sees things the same way is a matter for conjecture, but in some respects that is irrelevant. What New Labour was doing was protecting what it perceives to be its empire. That its empire-building antics have resulted in it losing control of the local authority itself in no way deters the mentality from presenting itself at every necessary opportunity. New Labour is as New Labour does. It is the Nature of the Beast.

The biggest threat to the New Labour mindset comes not from any rival political party, but from those it needs to retain in a state of perpetual dependency in order to justify its own continued existence. That is why most of its members and followers will freely admit to detesting the ICG far more virulently than they detest their supposed ideological opposites in the political field.

Last night the Stone Table cracked just a little bit more. I make no apology for doing everything I can to reverse some of the injustices of the past, and hereby serve notice that there is plenty more to come.

Under the Rainbow

The bidding phase of the Rainbow Project was formally launched on Tuesday, with an impressive gathering of tenants, councillors and officers from both Hounslow Homes and the London Borough of Hounslow coming together to celebrate the release of around £1.5m of funds for tenant-led initiatives on our estates.

After enjoying tea and biscuits whilst listening to a series of short speeches from Alf Chandler (Chair, Hounslow Homes), Bernadette O'Shea (Chief Executive, Hounslow Homes), Councillor Dr. Genevieve Hibbs (Mayor of Hounslow), Julie Brooker (Chair, Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations) and myself, delegates were led under a rainbow which had been imaginatively located across the door into a "fairground" at which popcorn, hot dogs, burgers and ethnic delights were purveyed whilst the younger ones were able to play games, blow up balloons and have their portraits drawn in caricature.

All in all it was a lot of fun, and with the latecomers taken into account some 100 people were able to partake. However the essential message was not in doubt - that residents of this borough, in this case tenants and leaseholders in properties managed by Hounslow Homes, are taking control of their own communities at last.

My speech to delegates at the event made the rationale for the Project abundantly clear, and I make no apologies for reproducing it in full below:


"When the new administration took office in 2006 I think it is fair to say that my appointment as Lead Member for Housing wasn't greeted with whoops of delight in every office at St. Catherine's House.

"I had, and have, some very forthright views on the question of Tenant Involvement, views which were the product of years of history and personal experience, and I was equally forthright in expressing them.

"When I came into this office I was absolutely determined to reshape our approach, as a local authority, to this area, and I pressed ahead determinedly - some might say a little pig-headedly - to do precisely that.

"Put at its very simplest, the goal I have striven to achieve is the maximum possible participation, involvement, and ownership by our tenants of everyday life and activity on our estates.

"Whether we are councillors or officers, Board Members or whatever, our sole reason for being here is to serve the public. We exist for the public, the public doesn't exist for us.

"Our tenants and leaseholders - our residents, call them what you will - are the eyes and ears of our community. They let us know when there are issues on their estates - whether it be a lapse in our performance as a landlord or wider issues such as anti-social activity, drugs, crime - it is usually through our residents that we find out. And when those residents are organised, we find out more quickly.

"Tenants' and residents' associations are the best vehicle for creating community cohesion (basically the "in" term for a society in which people from all backgrounds get along, enjoying the same rights and opportunities and living together in harmony). There is no better way to break down barriers between sections of the community which may mistrust or fear one another than for those people to come together and discuss, and campaign on, those issues that concern them the most. More often than not, they quickly discover that their problems and concerns are fairly much the same.

"So there is nothing to be afraid of with free, independent and strong tenants' associations. An association that just does what the landlord tells it and doesn't challenge us is frankly of no use to anyone. Working with organised bodies of tenants is actually an easier, and more productive option than not doing so.

"The Rainbow Project is about empowering our residents. What we have done is taken approximately £1.5m from Housing Revenue Account reserves - tenants' money - and said this is here for residents to spend how they think it should be spent, improving the fabric and quality of life on their own estates. Whilst we will offer help and guidance it is the tenants, not us, who will be leading on the Project. Even the name - Rainbow Project - was chosen by a resident at the HFTRA Conference back in the Spring.

"The objective of the Project is threefold:

"Firstly, obviously, it will provide regeneration in areas where it is needed. At a time when Hounslow Homes has had to reorganise and make efficiency savings, it is a piece of really good news. We hope we will see community centres refurbished, play facilities built, environmental and community cohesion projects launched.

"Secondly, it will energise existing TAs. Those of you who represent tenants' and residents' groups will be aware of just how thankless a task it sometimes is, working to create a better environment for everyone when so few people offer to muck in and help, sometimes even criticising you when things go wrong without having even the slightest intention of helping you to put things right. We hope this project will serve as an incentive and as a morale-booster to our hard-working residents' groups.

"Thirdly, we hope it will lead to the creation of new groups where none currently exist, and similarly to more interaction with other voluntary bodies, some of whom incidentally you may find being very friendly with you all of a sudden as this Project gets under way.

"Now, whatever the virtues of this Project, let me make one thing clear - empowering tenants is not all about money. Money is a necessity, money is nice. But it can be used for good or for ill. It can be used to empower and indeed liberate residents, or it can be used to shackle them. If money is thrown at you to make you do a certain thing or vote in a particular way then it causes more problems than it solves, and ultimately does nothing to help you no matter how much the opposite may seem at first to be the case.

"This Project is not about buying your support or your acquiesence, it is about giving you back something that's yours, and helping you to regenerate your estate in the way in which residents feel it should be regenerated. It's about empowering our community.

"I began by saying that my appointment as Lead Member for Housing was not well received in some quarters. Let me just say that, a little over two years on, I have been absolutely overwhelmed by the enthusiasm, the co-operation, the help, the inspiration, the ideas and the sheer energy that has been put into this Project by all the staff at Hounslow Homes, as well as those who have been involved at the Council itself. The reaction of staff members to this Project has been nothing short of fantastic, and it is why I firmly believe that this Project will be a success.

"It is my hope that the Rainbow Project will not be a one-off, but will be the first of many schemes to put power and decision-making back where it belongs, and to build our already excellent tenants' movement into something still better and stronger.

"I'll shut up now. I hope you enjoy the remainder of the evening, and I look forward to working with you all on the Project."

£1.5m HRA Reserves Project launched at HFTRA Conference

A radical initiative to empower communities living on estates managed by Hounslow Homes was formally launched at the Annual Conference of the Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations (HFTRA) today (May 10th).

The scheme will make up to £1.5m of capital money from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) available to tenants' associations around the borough to spend on estate improvement projects of their choosing, which they will then take ownership of. The project is the first of what will be a series of bold initiatives to empower residents in the borough following the passing by Borough Council of an enabling motion which committed the new administration to a new way of thinking in the way in which we engage the communities we serve.

Delegates were asked to choose a name for the project, with the winner walking away with a £50 gift voucher. In the end we decided upon the Rainbow project, appropriate not only because of the colourful variety of estate-based schemes which will benefit from this allocation, but also because the award represents a pot of gold which awaits at the end of what has been something of a journey.

At least 200 people attended the Conference, and in spite of the rocky relationship which I "enjoyed" with Hounslow Homes and with some sections of HFTRA during my early tenure as Lead Member for Housing & Community Safety, and particularly while the Hounslow Homes Management Review was in progress, I have begun to pick up a real sense of warmth and of sincere affinity in my dealings with these organisations and the people who work so hard for them as they have come to understand just what it is that I am trying to achieve on behalf of our long-suffering tenants and leaseholders. Where there was once suspicion, if not in places downright hostility, a real united sense of direction and commonality of purpose has emerged in its place.

There are clearly still issues to be resolved before we can turn a very good service into a truly exceptional one, but just the fact that we know we are all striving for the same goal helps us to resolve difficulties as they arise. Exciting times.