Complete Control

The late Celtic football manager Jock Stein was reportedly once asked whether, faced with the opportunity to sign either a Catholic player or a Protestant player who were of exactly equal talent and were both available for the same price, which would he sign?

He replied that he would sign the Protestant.

His reasoning was simple. If he signed the Catholic then the Protestant would probably sign for Rangers. But if he signed the Protestant then Rangers would not want the Catholic, so he could have him too.

I once heard an allegation, completely unproven but from a source that I consider honest and who would know, that in the dim and distant past a local developer offered a substantial pecuniary inducement to councillors on the London Borough of Hounslow in return for planning consent for a major project. What is interesting however is that the inducement was allegedly offered not only to members of the ruling Labour Group, but also to members of the opposition Conservative Group. He was unable to say whether or not the offer was taken up and I cannot vouch for the veracity or otherwise of the story, but if it were true it would make good sense. Grease the palms of the ruling group and the opposition will scream, no matter how small their number. Include them in the deal and there is nobody left to protest.

In business success is about more than just having a good product to sell. If somebody else is selling an equally good product then that guy will be taking a share of the market that could otherwise be yours. You can of course improve the quality of your product, but then so can your competitors. You can cut the price, but your competitors can cut their prices too. But what if you get the opportunity to buy your competitors’ businesses? You can carry on using their brand names, does it really matter if you now own the brand?

To prevent this kind of thing from happening the then government in 1949 set up the Monopolies Commission, now known as the Competition Commission. But of course there is only one of them!

In the world of politics the West is run in practice by a financial elite rather than by sovereign governments or heads of state. Its model is capitalism and its instinct is to grow. It knows no national boundaries, and precious few ethical ones either. Whether it is selling long-range bombers or air-raid shelters, fast food or drugs to combat obesity, the name of the game is to make a fast buck. If there was a financial benefit to be had for Coca Cola to set up a drinks stall at an anti-globalisation protest rally they would do it with neither a pang of conscience nor a hint of irony.

International capitalists control the news media which reports to us on the big political issues of the day. We have seen at election after election how the press can make or break a politician, or a political party, more or less at will. It is completely within their power to talk down good news, talk up bad news, destroy the reputation of one individual or promote another. We have seen time and again how all the major parties court the press, especially in the run-up to an election, because they understand its power. The “free press” is free only to those rich and powerful enough to own it.

So on what basis, and for what reason, will media barons woo politicians, and political parties? Why, for instance, did Rupert Murdoch court New Labour? Was there some deep-felt, fundamental change involved in his political conviction (which he later reversed)? Or did he just recognise a winner when he saw one?

The answer of course is that the relationship between the media barons and politicians is a symbiotic one. Just as political parties need the co-operation of the media to show them in a favourable light before the voters, so the press bosses seek the favour of whichever government is in office, or is about to assume office – for reasons too obvious to be worth stating here.

This doesn’t only apply to capitalists in the media, of course. The list of business luminaries who threw their lot in with Tony Blair and New Labour in preference to their traditional friends in the Tory Party is impressive and the reasons are simple and twofold – first they wanted the favour of the incoming government at a time when the Tories looked destined to be washed up for a generation, and second it was not good for their respective brands to be associated in the public mind with losers.

The powerful financial interests that control the West wield clout not because of their support for the parties of government but due to their willingness and ability to offer support, at whatever level is deemed to be appropriate at the time, to the parties of opposition. Nobody, surely, can seriously believe that when one government leaves office and another steps forward the giant corporations and press magnates and oil barons lose all their power over nations just because their party of preference has lost its majority?

Incredibly some do. I despair of otherwise intelligent people who, whilst recognising the power that big business interests clearly wield over the current government, pine for the election of Labour who, they honestly believe, will (this time) put the interests of the workers and the unemployed, the dispossessed and the underprivileged to the fore and fight the good fight in the cause of fairness of justice.

As for the Labour Party itself, it has played its part well. It denounces Tory attacks on benefit claimants whilst muttering quietly that it doesn’t actually intend to do anything to reverse them. Its members pass resolutions to renationalise the Royal Mail which it publicises loudly before its leaders quietly drop them. In fact beyond a pledge to increase the minimum wage by some negligible amount there is nothing at all of substance for the bosses who currently pull the strings of the Conservative Party to worry about.

What irritates and annoys me most of all is that those hundreds and thousands of basically good people throughout the world of social media who faithfully publicise and expose every Tory sleight of hand and every Labour condemnation thereof are destined, in the event of a Labour government after 2015, either to sit in embarrassed silence for five years or to switch hats and try to defend the kind of shocking abuses of which they are rightly so critical now.

It has long been my belief that the explosive growth of Internet technology and social media, and of the awareness that it generates, must inevitably do for the rotten two-party charade that is our party politics. But I fear we still have a while to wait before that finally happens.

This consultation is meaningless

The following letter was sent to the Hounslow Chronicle last week by Isleworth-based community activist David Pavett, of the campaign group Campion Concerns. Whilst the views contained in the letter are entirely those of the author, I believe they raise some interesting issues and are worthy of wider circulation.


THE budget consultation document on which residents have been asked to comment is a new low point for Hounslow's local democracy.

It reduces the political process to the sum of (mainly) uninformed opinions. And the latter is, of course, difficult to distinguish from straightforward prejudice.

We are asked to comment on such things as the working conditions of council workers, whether particular teaching posts should be cut, and the Civic Centre's management of its fuel consumption. No background information is provided. On what basis are we supposed to decide?

Worst of all, in my view, is that buried in the consultation is a threat to area committees. These are the one point at which residents get a chance to engage with the political process and where members are able to investigate proposals of direct interest to their area.

This is the opposite of serious politics. It suggests that Hounslow Labour has no vision to offer. This explains its lack of a clear programme. That in turn reflects the alarming lack of political awareness of the average councillor. The sad fact is that most councillors have no more idea about the complex issues in the budget consultation than the average resident.

The point of the party political system is that different parties represent different political philosophies and offer different programmes for dealing with social problems and for giving guidance on new directions for society.

The parties should explain the principles on which they base their reasoning on detailed matters. In Hounslow the Labour and Conservative parties are very far from doing this.

This is political leadership in the form of a headless chicken. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives offer a clear programme to residents. Neither make clear anywhere in detail the basis on which they make their decisions. Neither has the habit of making the rationale for its decisions publicly available. Some individual councillors, of both parties, do their best to represent residents but they do so in a political vacuum. The political parties should explain their approach and their programmes in detail to the electorate. They could start by providing websites with this information. It speaks volumes that they have not yet done so.

DAVID PAVETT
Thornbury Road
Isleworth

Revolting Labour backbenchers fight for the Right to Lie

Their protests against the illegal war in Iraq amounted to nowt but a damp squib. Concerns over student loans and the introduction of ID cards were whispered briefly about the place before fizzling out with a phut.

But at last Labour backbenchers have found a cause around which to rally with gusto, indignation and shrill vengeance in unprecedented measure. The second largest party in the UK and aspirant government of the future is furious that a decision by two High Court judges could compel them to conduct their future election campaigns without knowingly making false and malicious statements about their opponents without running the risk of losing their seats.

The "Right to Lie" campaign is in full flow and Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the party who has very decently made clear her view that dishonest politicking of this kind is in her view unacceptable, is its target.

Nobody, as far as I am aware, has disputed the fact that Phil Woolas not only lied about his Liberal Democrat opponent during his general election campaign but did so wilfully. None of his supporters, as far as I can tell, would appear to feel at all uncomfortable about the fact that Woolas would seem to have based his campaign on stirring up racist sentiment in his constituency.

As is the case here in the London Borough of Hounslow the party that publicly preens itself on its "enlightenment" and its commitment to equality, which it would have us believe is totally unique to itself, evidently has no qualms about provoking racial tensions if there is a perceived electoral benefit to be had.

That in Hounslow their tactic is to try to frighten minorities into voting for them by invoking threats to their safety that do not really exist, whilst in Oldham it is the white racists to whom they pander, would appear to be no more than a matter of simple demographics.

I dearly hope that decent elements within the Labour Party rally round Harriet Harman in the same way that the politically unscrupulous have gathered around Woolas. A fight for the soul of a once great party and a subsequent triumph of honest values of such a magnitude that it reverberates throughout the party would have a seismic effect on the future political landscape in our borough.

Despite the fact that this is not on the surface of it a local issue to us here, the ICG will for obvious reasons be watching how this one plays out with an enormous amount of interest.

Politicians squeal over loss of their right to deceive the electorate

The fallout from the Phil Woolas ruling was never going to be long in coming.

Woolas himself, whilst not appearing to deny that he wilfully lied about an opponent in order to gain a political advantage, whined that the judgement "raised fundamental issues about the freedom to question politicians.

"Those who stand for election...must accept that their political character and conduct will be attacked.

"It is vital to our democracy that those who make statements about the political character and conduct of election candidates are not deterred from speaking freely for fear that they may be found in breach of election laws."

One needs to remember that "speaking freely" in this context means actually telling deliberate lies about the character of an opponent.

Some might be surprised that the Labour Party itself has not rallied round Woolas, indeed Deputy Leader Harriet Harman has stated in quite unambiguous terms that telling deliberate lies about opponents is not a part of the party's modus operandi (it would of course be very interesting to hear what she would have to say if she knew half of what her party members got up to in our little corner of the world).

It was "not part of Labour's politics for somebody to be telling lies to get themselves elected," she insisted.

Woolas not unreasonably complains that he has been hung out to dry. Clearly there are those in his party who exude an aura of relief at having been gifted such an opportunity to show him the door. One is reminded of the words of the late Alan Clark, who once famously observed: "There are no true friends in politics. We are all sharks circling, and waiting, for traces of blood to appear in the water".

Amusingly, Woolas bewails the fact that his party will not be funding his legal challenge to the ruling and that it will cost him some £50,000-£60,000 from his own pocket. I would guess the irony of the fact that that places him in the exact same boat as most of us victims of his party's routinely libellous campaigns will have been lost on him entirely!

Predictably other members of the political establishment have weighed in to his defence. Conservative MP Edward Leigh complained: "What worries me about this is that, if this is allowed to stand, it will be virtually impossible for there to be really robust debate during elections.

"People will be terrified of attacking their opponents."

No you moron, it means you will have to start considering whether the things you are saying to the electorate actually have a grain of truth in them!

The most telling comments of all however are those of former Labour Party General Secretary Peter Watt, who asked: "He was definitely found guilty of breaching electoral law by telling untruths about one of his opponents. But does that overwrite his history and contribution to the party of so many years?"

Not to the likes of you probably Mr. Watt, who seem to take it for granted that everyone in your party will put tribal loyalty before principle - party before people. But thankfully the days of creatures such as you exercising complete dominance over our body politic would seem to be drawing to a close at long last.

Comment would be superfluous...

Elwyn Watkins' statement

Further to the item below, Liberal Democrat Elwyn Watkins has released the following brief statement:

"This verdict is a historic victory for the people of Oldham East and Saddleworth, a victory for fair play and a victory for clean politics.

"Anyone who knowingly lies to the voters or looks to set constituent against constituent has no place in a democracy.

"I hope this judgment makes it very clear that if you deceive your constituents you should be kicked out of Parliament.”

Ruling could pave the way for a return to honest politics

I don't imagine I'll have to explain to anybody from around these parts the significance of the verdict in the Phil Woolas case heard by two High Court judges:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11699888

Phil Woolas, Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth (and former party activist in Hounslow), beat his Liberal Democrat rival by 103 votes at the recent general election. The Lib Dem, Elwyn Watkins, claimed that Mr. Woolas had knowingly made false statements about him in his election material that may have had a decisive impact upon the result.

He took legal action against Mr. Woolas under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act and the case was heard before a special elections tribunal, the first of its kind to sit for almost a century.

The Act makes it an offence to publish "any false statement in relation to the candidate's personal character or conduct" in order to prevent their election - unless they believed it was true and had "reasonable grounds" for their belief.

Having considered the evidence, the judges found in favour of Mr. Watkins and a re-run of the contest has been ordered.

I've not yet studied the Act to ascertain whether or not it applies to local elections as well as to general elections. Natural Justice would suggest that it should.

As we know, Labour in Hounslow not only regularly produces material about its opponents during elections that it knows to be untrue, it even openly boasts of the fact.

There are several examples from Isleworth during recent contests to which I can point. The alleged "firebomb attack" on a Labour candidate's house in 2006 followed almost instantly by a leaflet suggesting that the ICG was responsible. A leaflet circulated in 2010 claiming that I owned a holiday home in Portugal when its originators knew at the time that I was in an Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA) with my creditors which would have made it impossible for me to so. Another leaflet circulated during the same campaign alleging that ICG candidates had held a meeting discussing plans to sell off local authority housing stock. There are countless examples of which these are just a tiny few.

That the circulation of untrue and sometimes malicious allegations about opponents is deliberate local party policy was confirmed in a debate at Borough Council when the Deputy Leader of the then Labour opposition, Councillor Ruth Cadbury, casually dismissed criticisms of dishonest campaigning with the immortal words: "You call it dishonesty, we call it politics".

Anybody who has ever spoken to these people on a personal level will confirm that when confronted about their actions they appear genuinely confused as to what all the fuss is about. They almost all give an impression of regarding dishonest campaigning and vicious personal smears against their opponents as being an integral and quite normal part of the process of political campaigning, and that the end result completely justifies the means. One must assume that such a peculiarly mercenary approach to human engagement is instilled in them by the organisation the service of which would appear to dictate their every deed and emotion.

Away from politics many of them are actually quite decent, trustworthy, friendly, sometimes helpful. I have found myself especially impressed that they always seem to stand their round. And yet when they don the rosette...

For what it is worth, I would like to state publicly that I do not believe local Labour's dishonest campaign methods cost us the seats that we lost in Isleworth and Syon back in May. The political conditions under which that election was fought did for us, and in my considered view we would have lost all six seats even had the Labour campaign been a paragon of honesty and honour. Let me be quite clear about that.

However in another place and in another time it is conceivable that a small reverse could be brought about as a result of local Labour's policy of deliberately smearing and misrepresenting its opponents in the most crude and malicious manner.

I hope the electorate punishes Labour dearly in Oldham East and Saddleworth in a determined expression of righteous anger. If there is any justice the Lib Dem victim of Labour's smears will be selected by his party and elected by the voters. As victory was probably rightfully his in May it would be nice to see the Conservatives stand down and give him a clear run, but I doubt whether they will.

It will also be interesting to see whether Labour have the nerve, not to mention the contempt for the electorate and for the integrity of politics, to field Mr. Woolas once again.

The dark soul in our midst that cannot move on

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

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

The main thrust of the attack was as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While the cat's away...

My son Joe and I have recently returned from a brief weekend stay at Gurnard Pines, on the Isle of Wight. I am a little envious of Caroline and my daughter Rosie who will still be there until Friday afternoon.

I've mislaid the mobile phone cable again so I'll post up a few photos if and when I manage to locate it.

While I was away I received a message from one of our Worton members advising me of what would appear to be a spectacularly appalling Labour leaflet, even by the standard of its authors, which has evidently been distributed on part of the Worton estate (they appear to lack either the manpower or the stamina to be able to circulate all 500 doors on the estate in one day as we frequently do).

I don't have a hard copy to hand, but by all accounts it consists solely or at least mainly of a bilious attack on the ICG in spite of the fact that we no longer have any councillors and have stated publicly that we would prefer henceforth to pursue our community objectives in a non-political way and outside of the electoral process. For those inclined to wonder why this statement of intent would appear to have especially irked them, a clue lies in the word "community" - it can reasonably be deduced that the scum element remains in control of the party in Isleworth at the time of writing.

When I take physical possession of the item I'll scan it and post it up. Presumably its originators will snigger that we will have given them free publicity, whilst the grown-ups amongst my readership will have the opportunity to behold precisely what it is we are dealing with today in local Labour.

For now, for me, it is on to more pressing things, such as the need to earn a living. So with the promise of more soon, I will away.

ICG must be more than a localised anti-Labour pressure group - a personal viewpoint

It is common knowledge that the ICG was launched back in 1994 as a residents' response to the controlling influence that the Labour administration at the London Borough of Hounslow then enjoyed over every aspect of organised community life in what was then the electoral ward of Isleworth South.

In those days it was to all intents and purposes obligatory for amenity groups, civic societies and residents' associations to congest their top tables with Labour politicians, apparatchiks who understood that their brief was to represent the party interest at all times, and to pursue the party objective from within whichever host body they had managed to worm their way into. There was never much attempt made to conceal what was going on. Labour were the community's lords and masters and it was generally understood that non-compliance would inevitably lead to the full weight of the local establishment being brought down upon transgressors and, in all likelihood, offending associations and groups finding themselves being strangled out of existence by fair means or foul, with a marked preference for the latter.

Things have moved on today. After twelve years of ICG representation in Isleworth and four years in Syon residents' groups enjoy relative freedom of association even under a new Labour administration. Our community would never tolerate a return to the bad old ways in spite of a few damp and doomed recent efforts on the part of certain of the new councillors to dictate to local groups whom they may or may not associate with. On the community front, ICG members should recognise with some pride that they have changed the rules of engagement for good.

Notwithstanding these entirely positive developments it is understandable that ICG members should continue to be driven to anger by some of the antics of their traditional adversary. When we read the Labour election leaflets back in April promising potential voters that they would put 100 new uniformed officers onto the streets of "this area" (undefined) and clearly worded in such a way as to lead the public to believe they meant police officers, we knew full well that a confidence trick was being pulled on the voting public. The ink had barely dried on the ballot papers before all was revealed - the officers in question would be council officers, and the reference to "new uniformed officers" actually meant that existing officers would be issued with new uniforms (well we didn't actually use the word "police" officers, did we? Tee hee, giggle giggle).

Those of us who contested Isleworth ward and had the dubious pleasure of reading a leaflet from an Ivybridge-based Labour supporter (actually a former ICG member with the morals of a rattlesnake who would appear to have defected upon the promise of some personal reward) claiming to have attended an ICG Committee meeting at which plans to sell off local authority housing stock were said to have been discussed - a claim which was a complete fabrication as no such meeting or discussion had ever taken place - are entitled to feel aggrieved.

I have still not received an apology, and frankly don't expect one, from the local Labour Party Chair for the lie contained in a leaflet issued in his name that I own a holiday home in Portugal when he knows full well the truth is that, unlike him, I don't even own the roof over my own head.

But the fact is that, whatever we may think of their methods and their morals, the Labour Party won the election and did so by a fairly convincing margin. Yes, we can with justification point to the exceptional circumstances under which the election was fought and the fact that our own vote actually increased significantly despite our defeat. But we must accept the verdict all the same, and look not to what might have been but to the future.

That is why I think it would be a mistake, both tactically and ethically, for our members to attack the new administration gratuitously without some acknowledgement of its right to a "bedding in" period, or recognition that it might - just might - be prepared to learn from some of its previous errors. This mistake is in my view compounded when criticism of the new administration comes accompanied by complete silence over the appalling treatment we received at the hands of our own so-called partners during the later days of the coalition (I happen to think that for the first two to two and a half years the arrangement worked rather well and demonstrated the value of trust in any partnership).

I have already drawn attention on this blog to the fact that, even whilst we were in coalition, at least three members of the Community Group on the local authority were approached by the Conservatives and asked to defect to them. I have no doubt that all those approached are bright enough to understand that this attempt had precious little to do with their own talents being sought after (although all three were very talented councillors), but was instead simply an attempt to actually use the cover provided by the coalition to undermine the ICG as an organisation and to step into our shoes in Isleworth and Syon wards.

This is what you get when you treat with big party politicians. The robotic allegiance to a rosette which leads them to favour a bad councillor sporting a particular colour over a good councillor sporting another is present on both sides of the chamber. Sometimes there is not even any logic to what is going on - on several occasions a good working relationship was thrown into jeopardy with no obvious benefit to be gained from doing so. The fable of The Frog and The Scorpion frequently presents itself when one is dealing with the political big boys. They do it because it is what they do.

As I have previously indicated the ICG has yet to decide what it is going to do, elections wise, in the future. Speaking personally, when we say we want to give the new administration a fair opportunity to prove itself I believe we should mean it. But if we do decide to continue along the electoral path we will need to give some thought to what we would want to achieve from having ICG councillors re-elected to office. How would we use the balance of power from opposition for the benefit of our residents? What would be the role of our councillors under the different circumstances in which they would find themselves?

For me all roads lead to the ideal of a third power in local politics (although I like it I avoid the term "third force" as it has reactionary connotations in French, South African and Northern Irish history). Such a power could probably not, in my view, involve one organised party but rather an agreement between several smaller groups that some level of common effort and pooling of resources is desirable. We need to be in a position to confront big party politics all across the borough with a view to seeking real culture change at the Civic Centre.

And we need to do it soon. The big parties will both know that if they can sustain their carve-up for another election the momentum that has sustained the ICG and other local groups and parties may not be maintained. For them to move into Syon, Isleworth and other areas formerly represented by vibrant small parties or independent groups and to smother our communities once again with their bland, anodyne brand of politics, devoid of imagination and lacking in any kind of vision, would be an absolute tragedy after everything we have been through.

It is my sincerely held view that the ICG needs to think hard about where it stands, if indeed it stands at all, in the the vast gladiatorial arena that is our local politics. Yes, we should certainly continue to expose the shortcomings of our traditional Labour adversary, particularly now that it is in office and its words and actions impact on the lives of every member of our community. But we need also to accept that our enemy's enemy is not always our friend and that in the wider scheme of things there is actually some convergence of interest between the big players who may on the surface of it appear to be inveterate rivals, interest which both will be at pains to conserve.

We are the same ICG, with the same objectives, as we have always been but sometimes the world about us changes and we need to move on and adopt new strategies to confront new challenges.

Hounslow's new administration - "helping officers to bring about culture change at the Civic Centre"!

I was pleasantly surprised this evening to see that Councillor Ruth Cadbury, Deputy Leader of the London Borough of Hounslow and Labour councillor for Brentford ward, has finally updated her blog. The previous entry having been made on May 30th, it would have been easy for the cynic to have concluded that her readers had served their purpose and that it was felt there was no longer any cause to be served in keeping us mere mortals up to speed with what was happening in the borough under the "control" of her new administration (regular readers of Ruth's blog will know that "control" is a word that appears with an almost obsessive regularity in her esteemed columns, a feeling of being in "control" is very important and comforting to our Ruth as any who know her will confirm).

But before I comment on the content of her latest offering, let me just issue a little disclaimer lest I be accused of engaging in offensive political posturing. When the election results were announced on May 7th I straight away made clear my position that I felt the new administration should be given a chance. I stated publicly that I personally would not bad mouth the new regime gratuitously but would instead adopt a neutral position, offering praise where praise was due and criticism where criticism was justified.

In my view Ruth's latest encyclical most definitely warrants criticism as its purpose clearly is to soften up local residents for the service cuts which, only a few months previously, she would have had the hoi polloi believe were the sole preserve of non-Labour administrations.

Inevitably said cuts will not be her fault, nor that of her party. They will instead be down entirely to the old administration at the local authority, and to the new Conservative/Liberal Democrat government. Natch.

"I fear we could be returning to an era when homeless families were lucky if they got into a hostel. Local Councils, with less funding, will be expected to up the pieces," she says, somewhat ignoring the fact that such an era has long been with us already as was only too evident to me during my time as Lead Member for Housing.

But the real classic is the following sentence:

"We have told our officers that we will support them in turning round the culture of the Council."

Excuse me? They will support the officers in turning around the culture of the Council? Shouldn't that be the other way around?

It seems clear from the above that the bad old ways of officers directing policy and strategy and elected members merely offering words of comfort are set to return. If, indeed, they ever left us. When I think of how brazenly the Environment Department in particular raised two fingers to the Community Group councillors in response to every reasonable request when we were part of an administration that was allegedly member-led (and would truly have been had the ICG not been so thoroughly undermined) it isn't really difficult to see how this lot are going to be led a merry dance over the next four years, is it?

Ruth has a talent for uttering memorable words and phrases that so characterise the local mentality of the organisation she represents. It was she who happily declared during a council debate a few years ago her party's view that lying to potential voters during election campaigns was simply "politics" and therefore acceptable.

Now it seems she leads an administration which is going to support officers who are going to being about culture change in Hounslow!

I promise I'm not making all this up - take a look for yourself.

"We have assumed control..."

I have become an occasional visitor to Councillor Ruth Cadbury's new blog. Ruth, for those who don't know her, has been the Deputy Leader of the Labour Group for several years and is now Deputy Leader of the London Borough of Hounslow following her party's victory in the recent local elections. Indeed in her personal profile she reminds us that "Labour took back control of Hounslow on 6th May".

Some of the most recent entries make interesting reading. A letter allegedly from an enquirer called Kerry back in April asked: "I have been searching on the Internet to see who controlled Hounslow Council, and found out that it was controlled by Labour from 1971 to 2006, when labour lost control."

Fast forward to May 7th, and Ruth is pondering the outcome of the local elections, where the ballot papers are still being counted. She was "off to the Council count to see...whether we managed to...take back control of Hounslow".

Sure enough, a little while later she was able to announce: "Labour Takes Control of Hounslow, ICG out". Those who follow her on Twitter were similarly treated to the news: "Wow back in control of the council!"

Like the rest of us who had been engaged in a gruelling campaign she presumably took a well deserved rest for a few days, but Ruth was blogging once again on May 20th. Recalling the events of a couple of weeks previous she reminds us: "Friday 7th, we went to bed knowing we had gained control of Hounslow council".

Indeed, across London "we had taken control of 18 councils, up from 9".

I tried to leave a comment under one of Ruth's articles but regrettably she declined to publish it. I guess that is one's prerogative when one is in control.

ICSF back in business

It was a pleasure to attend the first meeting of the Isleworth Community Safety Forum (ICSF) to be held for some time, I think possibly for a couple of years. It's Chair, David Freeman, was on top form and is clearly eager to get things back into the swing.

The Forum has had an interesting and at times troubled history. Having begun its life about a decade and a half ago as the Isleworth Policing Forum, originally a police initiative, it became the ICSF for reasons that I can't quite remember. For most of the '90s it became the focus of some political shenanigans of a kind with which people who go back that far in Isleworth are depressingly familiar, with politicos ambushing meetings en masse and having their apparatchiks elected to all the key positions. When the residents wrested power from the politicians the Council, then under New Labour control, withdrew its support from the Forum (the officer assigned to it was himself a key New Labour activist so needed little persuading) and pressure was placed upon the police to stop attending its meetings. All this because "ordinary" residents had had the temerity to want to run their own Forum!

All that, as they say, is history. Now the Forum enjoys the backing of the elected local councillors who support its activities when asked to without seeking to dominate or control. With the advent of the Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs) some of its work has been replicated and its priorities have needed to be realigned, but there is still a role for an exclusively resident-led, independent vehicle through which the general public can express their views and ask questions.

Inevitably after such a layoff yesterday's meeting attracted a modest attendance, but the important thing is the show is on the road once again.

On honest campaigning and muesli

I don't, to my knowledge, suffer from dementia nor any other such debilitating condition that might seriously affect my judgement.

It came as a bit of a shock therefore to have discovered this evening that over the past few days I have been eating with cold milk several large helpings of "muesli", complaining quietly to myself about the quality of the product that Caroline had purchased from Tesco, only to realise tonight upon reading the wording on the near-empty packet that it was actually porridge. I promise I am not making this up.

In the absence of any serious medical ailment to explain away my error I can only put it down to the stresses of everyday life. Those stresses will be the same as those that affect most ordinary people - parenthood, making an income - with the added pressure of having to help to organise a local election campaign. Despite the fact that this time around we have a much stronger team than ever before including some extremely talented and dedicated individuals, many of whom now have four years more experience than they did last time we ventured forth, the hosepipe principle in which the more people we have available to do the work the more work there is to do would appear to apply.

Over the past week or so it would appear that some of our opponents have joined the battle. We always knew they would and we are resigned to having them around for a few weeks until polling day arrives, whereupon they will in all likelihood return whence they came into hibernation for another three years and ten months until the next round of hustings arrives.

In Hounslow South New Labour has been distributing a glossy leaflet announcing the candidacy (in so many words) of veteran party activist and former council leader Dave Wetzel, alongside local stalwart Bob Whatley and a young lady with whom the ICG is not familiar. In Isleworth, residents of a small section of the Worton estate have had to make do with a rather grotty card introducing residents to Sue "Pyro" Sampson, Ed Mayne of Chiswick (who surprised the Poppy Organiser from the Isleworth Royal British Legion when ordering a wreath at last year's Remembrance Day Parade by informing him that he was an Isleworth councillor when, being my own father, said Poppy Organiser knew full well he wasn't), and another new face. The previous week Sue had been out and about on the periphery of the Worple estate delivering her message, whatever that may be.

The promises made by New Labour in both glossy and grotty cannot be accused of lacking ambition. Apparently they are going to put 100 new uniformed police officers onto the streets of Hounslow (which is even more impressive when one considers that employing police officers is not even within the remit of the local authority) and cut Council Tax!

In reality of course this is just another example of the dishonesty for which New Labour in Hounslow have become renowned, and of the contempt in which they hold "ordinary" voters and the lack of respect that they have for their intelligence, which in turn explains their almost obsessive aversion to allowing "ordinary" people to participate in the running of residents' associations and community groups.

It also demonstrates their preparedness even at this early stage to renege immediately upon their promises if they were to be elected, bearing in mind that this particular pledge is one that they will know full well cannot be delivered.

During their previous local election campaign, in 2006, they had claimed in their leaflets to have put an end to the Mogden Pong and to have made the 267s the run on time.

Maybe it is the knowledge that I am resigned to having to spend almost the next two months of my life engaged in a battle of sorts with such dishonest, low-grade individuals to ensure that residents are equipped with the information they need to see through them that has brought about such stress as to render me temporarily incapable of differentiating between muesli and porridge?

But New Labour would consider the above paragraph to be a compliment in every aspect, so if it's all the same to readers of this blog I am going to put it down to old age.

New movement gives Independence real meaning

Nearly twelve years ago, shortly after having been elected to the London Borough of Hounslow for the first time as its first ever independent councillor, I attended a meeting of the Local Government Association Independent Group of councillors at the Connaught Hotel in Bournemouth.

To be truthful the reason for my attendance at the meeting was a combination of natural curiosity with an opportunity to take my family away to the seaside for a couple of days. Bournemouth in my view is one of the better resorts on the South Coast - conspicuously clean, much to do but not too populous as Brighton can be at its worst. We couldn't afford to stay at the Connaught but we found an adequate little guest house a few minutes' walk away and were happy enough with that.

At the meeting were a hundred or so independent councillors from around the country. One thing I noticed straight away was that they were mostly older (at 36 I figured I was probably the youngest person in the room), mostly male and almost exclusively white. As they began to speak I also picked up fairly quickly that a disproportionate number of them were from the West Country or thereabouts, representing farming communities.

They didn't have a great deal in common with me or the ICG, whether politically or socially. The majority, but not all, seemed conspicuously right of centre and probably did not know very much about community life in a place like Isleworth. Nevertheless I found them to be a likable bunch and, well, friendly. Some seemed possessed of a sense of humour which I had found lacking amongst many of my fellow councillors back home. I gave out a few of my LBH "business" cards and resolved to keep in occasional touch with this group, although overall I did not consider they could do a great deal to help shape the development of the ICG.

Fast forward nearly twelve years and we are facing a general election, at which the likelihood is that the era of New Labour will draw to a close and will be replaced either by a Conservative government with a clean majority, or a messy and unclear situation á la February 1974.

I have long argued, to the obvious disappointment of some of my good friends in the local Conservative Group, that the scenario we have before us is not 1997 in reverse. Then an excited and excitable tide of New Labour fervour overwhelmed with embarrassing ease a Conservative establishment that had long been in decline to the point at which it could no longer do anything at all right. At that election half the parliamentary Conservative Party had been wiped out and a new age was well and truly upon us. Things, we were told, could only get better.

Whether things did in fact get better depends of course upon whom one speaks to. What is not in dispute, other than amongst the most absurdly blinkered few who remain loyal to the class of '97 (and they still appear on local community forums from time to time, emerging in fighting mode out of the blue like Japanese nonagenarians from the jungle thinking the war is still on), is that the New Labour project is in its death throes as we approach May 2010 and, for some, the political equivalent of an appointment with a firing squad.

But the situation is not the same as in 1997 because there is no real sense of excitement about the opposition, at least not anything remotely like on the same scale as had been the case when Blair first assumed power. Public disquiet and disgust over expenses has tainted all the major political parties, and the Conservatives nationally only find themselves ahead by virtue of the fact that Labour are behind them. There is a general disillusionment with party politics which could truly herald a new age in national government, as it has in local government in Hounslow.

A couple of months ago I wrote a light-hearted piece for this blog entitled Rise of the Indies, in which I pointed out how betting giants Ladbrokes were shy of offering too generous odds on some of the more high-profile independent candidates who will be standing at the general election for fear that they may cause an upset. Leading Irish bookie Paddy Power has since taken a similarly cautious approach. Although the concept of the independent MP is still in its infancy and will not be making any major breakthroughs this May, the tide is clearly going out on the old politics and looks poised to wash something new and exciting up on the shore when it eventually returns.

This new force is binding together in the form of an organisation called the Independent Network. Rather than being a political party, the Network offers support to independent parliamentary candidates provided they adhere to a few basic, common-sense principles which unite them all. They are then free to fight their different campaigns, on their different issues, from wherever on the so-called political spectrum they happen to reside.


One of the many independent candidates associated with the Network is Tony Clarke, former Labour MP for Northampton South and now an independent member on Northampton Borough Council. As well as being a truly welcome supporter of this blog (!), Tony is also a full-time Director of Northampton Football Club. He has consistently opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has his own distinct political programme with a distinctly "people first" flavour. He also publishes a superb blog of his own entitled The Northampton Independent, which I highly recommend. At the next general election Tony will be seeking to recapture his old seat, and according to the bookies he is not without a chance.

Like I said I am not anticipating a flood of independent MPs being elected to office in May. But the Independent Network and its quality candidates such as Tony and Khizar Iqbal show us clearly that the writing is on the wall for old-style politics in this country.

Getting down to business

On Friday evening several members and supporters of the ICG met at the Isleworth Royal British Legion for our monthly social get-together as we approach the 2010 local elections, which are now just six months away.

Despite several notable absences we had a good crowd gathered around the extended table. Four current councillors, a former councillor, two former Labour candidates and another disillusioned Labour stalwart discussed with other community activists from a position of some authority the demise of the Labour Party in the borough, the merits or otherwise of the coalition and the work that is still clearly to be done if our empowerment objectives are to be realised in full.

No less significant was the way in which the ICG crowd and the indigenous inhabitants of the Legion blended effortlessly. There was no sense of us being in any way a different or separate entity, we were instantly welcomed and treated all evening as though we were part of the community there (which of course some of us are).

With the greatest of respect intended to all those many good people who have served their community in the past, I cannot recall a time when the ICG as an aggregate included so many of such experience and quality as it would appear to today. In and around Isleworth it would be no exaggeration to say that the ICG has drawn the largest part of the community together under its banner almost like a magnet, including former politicians and even current ones from all across the so-called "political spectrum". Those who insist upon remaining outside of the community movement - aloof and superior, legends in their own lunchtime - choose to detach themselves not only from the progress of the locality itself but, increasingly, from the reality of the situation and of the age.

We select candidates for our local election campaign shortly and it's still not entirely clear whose names will be in the ring. Speaking personally, I told colleagues after the 2006 campaign that I felt I had done my bit and that I'd fought my last election, but I look around me and I see that there is still so much unfinished business. I've not decided yet but there is a fair chance I'll have another shot, possibly in a different role to hitherto. There is so much to do and, now, so many people offering to join us in doing it.

May 2010 will be unusual to say the least. For the first time we will be defending the council's record (In some areas of the operation anyway) rather that challenging it. In all likelihood the general election will be held on the same day, which must inevitably skew the result. There is increasing evidence - at the moment circumstantial, but growing by the day - that the old enemy, Labour, is placing so much strategic priority on stopping the ICG from completing its programme that it has begun to consider whether an outright Conservative victory might not be the best achievable result and that at least some consideration is being given to working towards that end. Little wonder that the rank and file are so disillusioned - the majority of them joined the Party to fight their traditional Conservative opponents, not the residents.

There can be no doubt that the coming months will be interesting. In the meanwhile though I am preparing for a second visitation to the IRBL later this morning to attend the annual Remembrance Day parade. More on that anon.

ICG raises the game on Community Engagement

A lot has been happening politically in the ten days or so since I last blogged, but probably nothing so significant as the Report carried through Executive by Councillor Paul Fisher on Tuesday which put the meat on the bones of the successful Motion on Community Empowerment put to Borough Council by the Community Group back in July.

The Report introduced the findings of the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) who had been commissioned towards the end of 2008 to look into Hounslow's general approach to the subject of Community Engagement. Engagement is, of course, one of those all-embracing buzz words that is used by councils of all political complexions but actually understood in its proper sense by few. To many it is an unnecessary and unwelcome distraction in which boxes have to be ticked before a piece of work can be done. What it actually is in its true sense however is a recognition that as members and officers our role is to offer the services to local people that they actually require from us.

Not wishing to cramp Paul's style I watched the meeting at home on the webcast and was amused by the tempered protests of one Executive member who complained that the Report had undertones of New Labour. Those of us who came together in an Isleworth pub in 1994 and who have been fighting ever since for our community to be elevated to its rightful place in the collective mindset of the local authority machine would not associate this project with New Labour, of all people, in a million years. Empowerment is about taking elitism and control-freakery out of our local politics.

There is a discussion still to be had about the developing role of Area Committees, which was lifted from the Report as it was felt it was a subject deserving of a separate discussion in its own right, however with this Report having been given the nod the dynamic is clearly for more local democracy, not less.

Paul's excellent Report was just the lastest manifestation of the Community Group's determination to have all the most significant aspects of its political programme incorporated into the process before the May 2010 local elections. Its passing was a massive development in the relentless onward march towards a people-focused council in Hounslow.

Now Ann cuts Mogden community adrift

Sorry to keep banging on about the Keens, but an extraordinary development yesterday left me wondering just what kind of advice our Member of Parliament is receiving.

Users of the BrentfordTW8.com and ChiswickW4.com community forums will be aware that a spokesperson for Ann Keen recently threatened that his party would "work around" the resident-led Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG), which for many years has served as the voice of the organised community living in the vicinity of the plant and whose authority to do so derives from public meetings attended by hundreds, a petition signed by several thousand and a group action involving some 1,400 litigants.

To understand the thinking behind this one has to look back into the history of the conflict in and around Isleworth between the residents' movement and New Labour. This conflict is essentially one between two broad schools of thought. One (theirs) has it that only a small, select group of people who are essentially "in the know" and have the requisite intelligence, guile and expertise (them) are truly capable of representing the people's interests and that the role of the wider community is to elect them to positions of office - not just strictly political office but also within residents' associations, amenity groups and suchlike - and then stand back and leave it to them to do what needs to be done on our behalf.

The other (ours) has it that the community itself should aspire to take the lead on local issues and that the role of their elected political leadership is simply to provide guidance, advice and assistance where asked for.

It would have been as a direct follow-up to her spokesperson's threat that, on August 22nd (a Saturday?), Mrs. Keen allegedly met privately with an unnamed Director of Thames Water without any prior consultation with the residents. The Director, we are told, regaled her with the usual empty spiel about how concerned the company is for the plight of long-suffering residents, advised her of a meeting of the Mogden Residents' Liaison Committee to take place in September of which the rest of us have already long been aware, and informed her (and from the wording of her Press Statement it came as news) that nearly six months ago the local authority had granted permission for a 40% expansion of the plant's capacity.

According to Mrs. Keen she was "delighted" by news of the plant's expansion, and following publication of the Press Statement her spokesperson raced onto the local internet forums to announce "Ann Keen Speaks Up For Local Residents"!

And yet, of course, what she has done is added her own name to the already long list of politicians who have consigned residents already suffering the excesses of Mogden to even more misery as Thames sets about making a case for reneging on its promise not to increase intake, which anybody who is familiar with its track record knows it inevitably will.

By her actions Mrs. Keen has without question kissed goodbye to almost any remaining support she might have had within a two-mile radius of Mogden. That they consider her betrayal something to gloat about would suggest that Camp Keen is either woefully ignorant of local issues and has given her the worst possible advice or, more likely, that they have already given up and that the remainder of her campaign is to be a mere "spoiling" exercise in which she intends to wreak as much "revenge" as possible upon her ungrateful constituents.

Whichever is the case she's bought it, but on a parliamentary level at least the question remains - who will speak up for the residents living around Mogden?

Keens' continued boycott of Hounslow Council gives the lie to victim plea

I hit the headlines again this week, courtesy of the Hounslow & Brentford Times which carried an article about my relationship with the parasitic Keen duo and their lack of co-operation with the London Borough of Hounslow.

For the benefit of anyone who is unfamiliar with this particular story I will elucidate. In May 2006 I joined the local authority's Executive as Lead Member for Housing & Community Safety. Some time afterwards the his-and-hers MPs decided to make an issue of the fact, and they wrote a letter to Councillor Peter Thompson, Leader of Hounslow Council, "reserving the right to withhold our co-operation from your administration" for as long as I remained a member of the Executive. The reason given was my former membership of the National Front, an organisation whose views I had publicly renounced a decade and a half previously.

The letter itself was simply a "hook" for a much wider campaign against me and by association the Community Group, which involved briefing a number of sympathetic journalists from Tribune, the Daily Mirror, and of course the London Evening Standard where the Keens seem to enjoy a naturally cosy relationship with the odious and deceitful Andrew Gilligan. It also included a question in the House of Commons by Mrs. Keen to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, which to his credit he brushed aside with barely concealed contempt.

The devil in the Keen's "non co-operation campaign" transpired over the coming months to be in the detail. Their principled stand did not, it seem, extend to boycotting publicity opportunities and photo calls organised by the local authority. The non co-operation was to be limited to issues which involved an element of hard work.

Unimpressed by the Keens' selective application of what was supposed after all to be a point of high principle, I put a Motion to Borough Council which had the effect of formalising the lack of a working relationship between the local authority and the MPs in a way which removed the potential for embarrassment to our officers, by declaring that henceforth the Keens would only be admitted to any activity organised by the local authority with the express permission of the administration. The Motion was passed with the full support of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat, ICG and other independent councillors, with only Labour voting against. No more unearned photo ops for the Keens.

Having been hoist by their own petard the Keens and their little band of followers and organised letter-writers squealed concertedly like stuck pigs, just as I had predicted they would. It wasn't fair. The local authority was cutting off relations with the Keens, who had done nothing wrong. They hadn't said they wouldn't co-operate with the council, only that they would reserve the right to do so. And so on. Henceforth the lie was promulgated that the severing of the relationship between the borough and its MPs was all at the behest of the administration, with the MPs being the innocent victims for simply having done the honourable, ethical thing by expressing real and valid concerns about the involvement of the neo-fascist ICG in the administration of a multi-cultural borough.

In order to be sustained the lie had to divest itself of some inconvenient truths. The first was that, in the many months which had passed between the sending of the letter to Councillor Thompson and the Motion to Borough Council the Keens had already withdrawn their co-operation from the local authority. Nobody can name one solitary instance of them having helped or co-operated with the new administration during that period in any way, shape or form.

The second was that, far from being motivated by ethical considerations, the Labour position was actually incredibly confused. My initial appointment to the Executive was made by Borough Council in May 2006 and was supported unanimously, that is by every member of the Council including all 24 members of the Labour Group. Then, in 2007, following the announcement of the Keens' "principled" stance against my appointment, the same Labour Group abstained on (not opposed) my appointment to the Executive on the grounds of my former NF membership (they also refused to support Caroline's appointment as Deputy Mayor, presumably in the belief that previously-held political associations are contagious and can be passed on to other members of the family). And in 2008, which was to be the last year I would stand for Executive, they approved my nomination unanimously once again!

The gist of the newspaper article was to point out that, now I am no longer a member of the Executive, there is not really any justification for the Keens' non co-operation continuing. Yet continue it does, with Mrs. Keen refusing to comment as to why (it also gave a very gratefully received plug to my new anti-fascist blog Walk Away, which is already beginning to attract a small trickle of new visitors).

This petulance and deceit characterises completely the sheer unpleasantness of what New Labour has become today. I am looking forward to the electorate giving these two shameless self-seekers the boot at the next general election and replacing them with people who are prepared to put the welfare of their constituents before political point-scoring and work with the local authority, whatever its political complexion, for the greater good of the community we were all elected to serve.

Doth the Keen Machine protest too much?

My article on Friday in which the possibility of an ethical revolt wihin the ranks of the Labour Party in Hounslow following the party's announcement that it was sticking by Ann Keen seems to have ruffled some feathers.

Over at the BrentfordTW8.com community forum long-time Keen bag carrier Robin Taylor responded to the article in the conventional fashion, "revealing" to bored forum users for the umpteenth time that I had been a National Front member back in the 1980s.

Meanwhile on its sister site at ChiswickW4.com one David McLaughlin, who would seem to be a party hack and possibly a rising star in an increasingly empty galaxy, makes much of the fact that I have not been unreservedly critical of the plucky young men and women who briefly occupied the Keens' Brentford home to highlight the fact that the his-and-hers MPs had been conning us all by claiming it to have been their primary abode while accepting handouts from the taxpayer for the purchase of their alleged "second" home, a luxury pad in Waterloo.

Mr. McLaughlin, I am guessing, is gathering quotation material for a pre-election smear leaflet in the mistaken view that the general public actually give a toss about the Keens or their long-abandoned hovel in Brook Road South. Most of people living in the immediate vicinity seem to be missing the squatters, who proved to be helpful, generous and courteous neighbours during their short tenure.

But let's get back to the substantive issue here - good people who had once given their loyalty and support to the Labour Party for the most noble of reasons. People who believe passionately in Social Justice and Equality but who do not subscribe to the smug, arrogant, unjustified assumption of social and intellectual superiority, and indifference to the inevitable reaction against the same even by so many of their own, which seems to predominate what remains of this once proud party today.

The ICG believes there must be a home, even if it is to be a temporary one, for the many sincere people who can no longer abide the company of the types who reign amid the ruins of the house of New Labour. Such people deserve better than to be consigned, fuming but powerless, to the sidelines of local politics.

We are now talking to several of such people. I repeat my appeal to those who still haven't to get in touch and to work in an organised way, if separately, with others who similarly aspire to restore some decency and honour to our local political debate.