New council leadership does not respect the opposition. Anyone surprised?

I understand that a very short Special Borough Council Meeting was held last night at Hounslow Civic Centre to consider various questions and motions tabled by the opposition Conservative Group.

The reason it was short was that a Labour councillor moved at the onset of the meeting that it be adjourned indefinitely, and so it was.

Of course this kind of stunt is underhand, bad for democracy etc., but is anybody truly surprised by Labour's actions? I know I do bang on somewhat about the fact that it was a Conservative campaign which put Labour back in office in May - but - well, it was a Conservative campaign which put Labour back in office in May.

The new Labour administration at the London Borough of Hounslow has no respect for its Conservative opponents and, with appropriate apologies to my good friend Councillor Mark Bowen who now leads the Conservative Group (and I wish him well), they don't deserve any respect following the debacle that was the local election.

Labour will simply trample all over them throughout the next four years as they quite rightly do not fear electoral repercussions at the hands of the Conservatives in a borough which has a "natural" Labour majority. Especially with a Conservative-led government in office which, whether rightly or wrongly, is committed to a major cuts programme.

The only hope of unseating Labour in Hounslow now, if that proves to be a desirable objective, lies in the emergence of a third political power within the borough to take on both establishment parties and to present residents with a new, radical, community-led and community-focused alternative. I wonder whether any of the current crop of Conservative councillors is ambitious enough, and angry enough, to wish to join us in helping to bring that about?

In the meantime the opposition should expect much more of the kind of thing they experienced last night. And the less time they spend at council meetings, maybe the more time they will have to reflect upon whether or not the strategy of using the cover provided by the general election to move in on the various independents around the borough in the hope of replacing them in their respective areas of influence was truly a clever one.

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.

Proud to support our successful community football club

In gave me great pleasure on Friday to welcome Manager Andy Scott, Captain Kevin O'Connor and several other delegates from Brentford Football Club to a Reception given by the Mayor at Hounslow Civic Centre in recognition of their success in gaining promotion to League One last season as League Two Champions.

Both the Mayor and the Deputy Leader of the Council, Mark Bowen - standing in for the Council Leader - paid tribute in two moving speeches not only to the team's prowess on the pitch, but also to its repeated success as a community club, providing learning and sporting opportunities for local youngsters across the borough. I was privileged to be able to say a few words myself too, before handing over to Andy Scott.

My wife Caroline (Councillor Andrews to some), my kids Rosie and Joe, and Rosie's friend Siobhan - a Brentford nut - also came along and seemed to enjoy the evening. They are pictured above posing with Kevin and Andy, and Joe is below with the League Two trophy.

Persisting to apply common sense

Although I am no longer a member of the London Borough of Hounslow's Executive, as Leader of the Community Group I naturally keep a keen eye on the recommendations that come forward for approval. One which caught my eye prior to last night's meeting was proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Council and Executive Member for Complaints Mark Bowen and was entitled Dealing with Abusive, Vexatious or Persistent Complainants.

Now it hopefully goes without saying that if a member of the public is abusive towards officers of the local authority, or makes complaints which are clearly vexatious, there must be a point at which we can reasonably terminate our dealings with such a complainant. Our officers should not be expected to put up with abuse, insults or obscenities, and we make no apology for protecting them from such. Most large organisations have a policy of this kind, and much of the report which was brought to Executive concentrated on ratifying what was essentially the obvious and the indisputable.

However my attention was drawn to the reference to "Persistent Complainants", as this as a concept is not so easy to define. A complainant might, for instance, make the same complaint repeatedly despite it being self-evidently unreasonable or not upheld following a proper investigation. It is right that at some point we as organisation need to be able to say that enough is enough and discontinue a conversation that has clearly run its course.

On the other hand a persistent complainant could of course be someone who makes a series of different but nonetheless valid complaints, possibly acting on behalf of a residents' group or civic society. Or a person who, having not received a proper answer to a first complaint, pursues the matter in the hope of achieving appropriate closure.

One fairly recent example of the latter was a correspondent from the Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG), who had to ask a question of a senior officer thirteen times before he would provide a substantive answer. Even after councillor intervention the officer continued either to evade the question or, on other occasions, to ignore it completely. Under such circumstances the MRAG representative could not in all good sense be labelled a persistent complainant and cut adrift from the process - indeed the officer should have been disciplined by his seniors, who had been copied in to most of the correspondence.

Councillor Bowen, probably more than any other elected member, is a tenacious advocate of the member-led council. Nevertheless even the most competent batsman can be bowled out as a result of a momentary lapse in concentration, and so my ICG colleague Councillor Jon Hardy proposed an amendment to the recommendation which ensured that the relevant ward councillors, together with the Lead Member himself, would be given prior notice before the extreme and, I would hope, exceptional step of discontinuing communication with a complainant would be taken. The amendment was accepted.

To make doubly sure - and I hope I am not breaching any confidences by sharing this - I contacted Councillor Bowen this afternoon and he agreed with me that this power would not be allowed to be misused to silence genuine complainants, even those whose correspondence is frequent or challenging.

So, anybody within the organisation who might have had ideas about using the approval of this report against community activists and representatives of such groups as MRAG or The Isleworth Society (TIS) would do well to disavow themselves of them right now. To do so would effectively be a declaration of non co-operation with the Community Group and as such an unacceptable challenge to the authority of the coalition administration.

This recommendation was a sensible one, but requires sensible implementation. My colleagues in the community can be assured that for at least as long as we have anything to do with it this principle will be applied at all times.

Three Wise Men....a postscript

As we promised those who came along to the Question Time event earlier in the week (see below), we have studied the comments which were submitted on the survey sheets at the end of the debate and have taken on board some of the suggestions that have been made to improve it for next year and to provide an even more effective platform through which residents attending can let us know of their concerns.

One thing that surprised and pleased me was that I seem to have held my own in the "ratings". Attendees were asked to rate the performances of the three elected members on the panel as well as of the Scrutiny team. My rating was marginally ahead of one of my colleagues, and just a little behind the other. Considering I was on "away" territory - almost exclusively discussing service matters rather than the community empowerment issues which are the ICG's concern - I am very happy with this.

Overall the event itself was very well received, with a very large majority expressing the view that it had been a useful exercise.

Three Wise Men?

Probably not. But Council Leader Peter Thompson, Deputy Leader Mark Bowen and I did our best to give full and honest answers when questions were put to us by residents at what will hopefully have been the first of many Question Time events hosted by the London Borough of Hounslow's Overview & Scrutiny Committee at the Civic Centre last night.

Questions were asked on a whole range of subjects, including parking, leisure, social services, conservation and the credit crunch. O&SC Chair Councillor Peter Carey, who was superb as Master of Ceremonies for the event, then put them to each of us for our comments.

There is never too much we can do to engage reisdents and to find out what their concerns really are. Although the gathering last night was too small to be accepted with confidence as being reliably representative, it enabled us to make a very good start.

Old dogs and new tricks

On Thursday I and the excellent Sue Witherspoon, Acting Director of Housing at the London Borough of Hounslow, made a presentation to the Board of Hounslow Homes about the coalition administration's vision as defined through the new Hounslow Plan, and its ambitious Performance Improvement Programme (PIP) which will create the structures through which it will be realised.

Such a presentation was never going to be greeted with whoops of enthusiasm by everybody on the Board. When Hounslow Homes was set up in 2003 under the old administration it was regarded by most as fairly much an appendage of the New Labour political machine. All five council appointees on the new Board were either serving Labour councillors or unsuccessful Labour candidates. Having been rejected at the polls by the borough's tenants, the then administration thought it a good idea to cock a snook at the electorate by putting these same people in charge of the borough's housing stock.

The five tenant representatives were elected behind closed doors and, amazingly, usually resulted in the election of known New Labour activists. The ten council and tenant Board members would then choose another five independent members to make up the remainder of the Board of fifteen.

On the staff side the set-up was not entirely dissimilar. Many of the problems on our estates described elsewhere on this blog arose from the fact that those of us who were the "wrong" councillors were effectively frozen out of discussions relating to things happening in the wards which we had been elected to represent, as were the tenants who were known to have supported us.

When I took over the Housing portfolio I resolved to introduce a new culture into Housing in Hounslow. I believed there was a better way to conduct business, one which was not only more ethical but which also served our tenants and leaseholders better. The conduct of business by whisper and secret handshake may well work in other institutions, but in the field of government it is not only undemocratic, it also leads invariably to stagnancy in ideas and complacency and inertia in service delivery.

Nevertheless the Old Guard retains an important presence on the Board and, surprising as it may sound to some people, I have no issue with this. When we first came into office, both the Community Group and the Conservatives agreed to elect council representatives to the Board on the basis of political balance, rather than political allegiance as had been the case previously. Consequently two of the five seats were offered to Labour, an offer which they happily accepted without any evident embarrassment, even though we all know full well that in the event of Labour being voted back into office in Hounslow the old, undemocratic practices would immediately be restored. As Councillor Mark Bowen rightly said during a recent debate at Borough Council, we do things a better way because we are better.

Similarly I have no issue with other Labour activists being on the Board, just so long as they are properly elected or appointed by means of an open and transparent process. To me it is healthy, and a good thing, for all shades of opinion to be represented on such an important body.

Anyway, I digress. My brief was to present the administration's vision to the Board and I entirely anticipated that the political element would not pass up the offer of a platform from which to give voice to their sometimes very peculiar notions of where they believe me, as Lead Member, to be coming from.

The first indication that this opportunity would not be passed by came as soon as Sue introduced the ruling coalition as being one comprising the Conservative and Community Groups. "And the Liberal Democrats," interjected one of the Labour councillors, obviously disappointed by the more selective and intelligent approach to opposition taken by the small Lib Dem team on the council than by his own gang.

But it was at the Question and Answer session following the presentation that the claque really got into the swing. One member delivered himself of the opinion, completely unsupported by any evidence at all, whether circumstantial or actual, that I intended to sell off all HRA (Hounslow Revenue Account) land to developers to build private accommodation. Another, paradoxically, took the opportunity to plug a proposed development in which a close relative of a very well-known local Labour politician has or recently had an interest, even though the issue had no connection with Hounslow Homes whatsoever.

However, when all is said and done what really was pleasing about the evening was the level of interest being taken by some of the newer members of the Board, who seemed genuinely keen to know where the future lay for social housing in the borough, and how their partnership with the local authority might be further developed. This, and the fact that I already enjoy a good and positive working relationship with most of the current senior officers at Hounslow Homes, bodes well for the organisation in the future.

I hope I am not being naive when I say I believe that many who may at first have been sceptical now see the new positivism as being an altogether better way. There is no reason, other than possibly party diktat, that this positivity cannot in time transcend organisational allegiance and permit a group of people who are united in their desire to improve social housing in our borough to all work together in a spirit of openness and mutual trust.

I remain of the view that it is just possible in certain circumstances, given the time and the will, to teach an old dog new tricks. To those who counsel that it would have been easier to have just shot the dog and been done with, I would simply point out that I still have the gun.

Musings from a faraway place

As I write I am enjoying a short break between sessions at the 2008 CIH Housing Conference in Harrogate.

Until very recently I was only half a Lead Member for Housing, sharing the portfolio with Councillor Mark Bowen. My responsibility involved liaising with Hounslow Homes, the Council's ALMO (Arm's Length Management Organisation), whilst Councillor Bowen dealt with the client side of the operation. Following the slight reshuffle which took place following the election of the new Executive by Borough Council in May, it was agreed that I would take on the whole Housing portfolio from the end of this month.

Against all odds I arrived in Harrogate yesterday morning in time for the opening speech from the Rt. Hon. Caroline Flint MP, the Minister for Housing and Planning. This was immediately followed by a familar political double-act from the Rt. Hon. Michael Portillo (I hadn't previously realised that Right Honourability remained after one ceased to be a political bigwig) and Diane Abbott MP, giving slightly different but equally helpful perspectives on the main challenges facing local and national politicians in trying to deliver what people want whilst helping to build diverse but cohesive communities.

But it was a session involving such B-list celebrities as the Deputy Leader of Islington Council and the Deputy Chief Executive of the Housing Corporation on the theme "Power to the People - will the Tenant Services Authority deliver?" which I have found the most helpful so far.

I would like to digress just for a moment and offer some background as to how I came to be here in the first place. The ICG, which is a partner in the coalition that took control of the London Borough of Hounslow back in 2006, has its roots in the tenants' movement. It emerged from within the heart of the Isleworth community as a response to the inequities and unfairness of a régime which possessed a strictly limited view of the tenants' movement as simply one of many vehicles through which to pursue a political agenda. An ipso facto consequence of this narrow view was that our tenants' associations became political playthings, with positions of office being achieved through service to the political cause rather than through a democratic process driven by residents. Associations thus constituted were never going offer a meaningful challenge to the policies or actions of a régime of which they were, after all, an integral part.

The justification which the practitioners of this chicanery attached to their actions was that they, as a "socialist" party, had the tenants' interests at heart. Historically there is little doubt that there is some truth in this, although the existence of checks and balances on political power is healthy under any system.

More recently, however, the Labour Party has of course abandoned its traditional values in its pursuit of electability (which must rather grate with people of principle who remain in the party now that it is neither socialist nor electable). As New Labour, the party has become an organisation whose raison d'etre would appear to be no more than the acquisition of power, for the purpose of being in power.

So we have (or had until very recently), on our estates, a policy which sought to influence our tenants' movement, not for the furtherence of an ideological agenda from which it might expect to derive some benefit, but simply for the purposes of pursuing the power objectives of an organisation which desires to exercise control over others.

The ICG has an entirely different philosophy, one which our opponents almost universally fail to understand, and one which they sometimes go to extraordinary lengths not to understand. In our way of doing things, criticism and complaint is encouraged. We believe in structures which are by their nature self-critical, always holding themselves up to scrutiny. In order to achieve this we welcome and encourage the greatest possible level of involvement from everybody, including those who oppose us as a Group. Our opponents mock us for what they perceive as our lack of political savvy in taking such a position (although it is worth noting that they do so now from a position of opposition), but for us this is, quite simply, morally the right thing to do.

It is also our belief that tenants' and residents' associations are among the best means of promoting community cohesion. Residents from diverse backgrounds who find that they have concerns and issues in common soon learn to put any differences to one side. In the current climate, to do anything with might jeopardise the growth of associations and interest groups across the community in pursuit of a political agenda would be an act of unforgivable selfishness and irresponsibility.

It is because of Labour's track record and instinct for organisational self-advancement at any price that I harbour a natural suspicion of any member of that party who seeks to be involved in any way in the process of tenant participation. My default position when any new initiative issues forth from this government with the stated objective of empowering residents is always to look for the catch. So it was when Phil Morgan, the Chief Executive of the Tenant Participation Advisory Service, declared to the Conference that he had always been "a bit of a lefty". Not because there is anything at all wrong with being a "lefty", but simply because the majority who would describe themselves thus still seem to retain an irrational organisational affinity to the Labour Party in spite of its rejection of its their core beliefs, which in more cases than not leads them to a position of party before principle.

But as I waited for the catch it occurred to me that maybe that I would be left waiting for some time. The language which brings news of the powers which the Tenant Services Authority will have is uncharacteristically that of giving communities more power and more independence. Proposals, for instance, to give tenants powers to reward good practice and to take action against poor landlords have to be encouraging. There is a worryingly frequent use of the word "regulation", but only time will tell how this fits in within the wider context of the initiative.

As Lead Member for the whole Housing portfolio I will be taking a keen interest in all these developments, and in particular will want to analyse their implications for Hounslow. More on this anon.

Welcome to A Community In Action

Welcome to A Community In Action, my very first attempt at this blogging thing.

After several months of dithering I was naturally horrified when I discovered that I had been beaten to the post for the honour of being the first Hounslow councillor to publish his own blog.

Mark Bowen, Conservative councillor for Feltham North and Deputy Leader of the London Borough of Hounslow, launched the interesting Bowen's Blog back in January, and it's well worth a visit.

All the same, I hope through this new venture to give some idea of the thoughts and deeds of a community councillor working to serve the people of Hounslow. I 'll try to keep it updated as frequently as possible. Please bookmark the site and feel free to add your own comments.