That Election Result - One Month On

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

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

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

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

LABOUR GAMEPLAN

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

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

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

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

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

SUPERIOR

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

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

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

CONVERGENCE

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

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

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

WHERE TO FROM HERE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHANCE ENCOUNTER

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

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

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

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

Hounslow Labour's All-Out Assault on Community

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

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

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

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

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

Council turns its guns on tenants

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

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

Battle lines

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

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

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

Here We Go Again!

At its most recent meeting the managing Committee of the Independent Community Group (ICG) expressed its great concern that the Group of 15 residents' associations, of which the ICG is a member, would appear to be being given the run-around by the Labour administration at the London Borough of Hounslow in connection with its contribution to the forthcoming and long-awaited Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).

A number of amendments submitted by residents to the original draft SCI were formally adopted by the Planning Committee under the chair of Councillor Theo Dennison back in December 2012. At the time we were advised that the proposed amendments, now with the Planning Committee's official endorsement, would be taken to Cabinet and thereafter to Borough Council in January. January became March and now, as we approach the latter half of April 2013, residents have been advised in a one-liner from Lead Member Ruth Cadbury that the proposed report has been pulled from agenda of the April Cabinet meeting too (with characteristic chutzpah Councillor Cadbury tried to sell this as some kind of good news story for the community on the grounds that "we have more time"!).

Attempts to seek clarification of the position from Councillor Cadbury have, at the time of writing, proved unsuccessful.

The ICG has never been convinced that the Cabinet would be happy to accept the community's lead on this process and it is our view that the process is being dragged out with a view to losing it in the confusion that invariably accompanies the approach of the local elections. Whether this exercise in obfuscation is being led by officers or by the political management of the present administration is really of little import. Both parties have an interest in fending off the residents.

As an activist residents' movement the ICG is committed to the process of empowering our community and we intend to increase the pressure on this administration to adopt an SCI in which G15's expressed concerns retain pride of place. Whether we do this as an active participant in next year's local elections or as a pressure group taking advantage of that event remains to be decided, but either way the present administration needs to understand that this is an issue that is not just going to conveniently disappear from the local agenda.

LBH Twits Move to Silence their own Councillor

The London Borough of Hounslow has sent another shot across the bows of its outspoken Chair of Planning and community-friendly Syon councillor Theo Dennison by announcing a ban on members tweeting from Council meetings.

Councillor Dennison had recently introduced the simple but innovative concept of tweeting live from meetings of Borough Council to keep his readers and followers informed of what was going on, but it would appear this is too much to bear for the party he represents.

Meanwhile the Hounslow Conservatives have opened a Twitter account of their own at @LBHConservative to "hear from residents any ideas and/or suggestions they have for questions and motions".

Councillor Dennison is at @syonward.

LATEST: Planning Committee Adopts Community Involvement Agenda...Or Does It?

I am now free to reveal that a crucial amendment to the London Borough of Hounslow's Statement of Community Involvement, submitted by a powerful and expanding bloc of residents' groups from across the borough, has been formally endorsed by the borough's Planning Committee.

The Group of 15 residents' alliance, which includes the Independent Community Group (ICG), took the view that the original Statement was effectively a box-ticking response to the requirement laid down by central government for local authorities to adopt a formal process of community involvement in decision-making. Focusing to begin with on the important area of planning, the Group (which actually now comprises more than fifteen individual organisations) thus resolved to redress this deficiency by offering the following amendments:

1. The Statement of Community Involvement is a contract between the community and the Council with the purpose of encouraging the involvement of the public in all aspects of the planning process.

2. The SCI should be reviewed annually alongside the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report.

3. The SCI should enable and encourage the public to offer their views on planning policies and applications at Planning Committee and Area Forums where applications are called in for Members and the public to comment in a consultation capacity.

4. Registered amenity groups should be able to exercise a “community call in” where they believe a planning application would have a serious and adverse impact on their local community.

5. The draft SCI should be reviewed to remove ambiguous wording ensuring clear commitments are made that the public can have confidence the Council mean to deliver.

The document was submitted by:

Bedford Park Society, Brentford Community Council, Chiswick Protection Group, The Grove Park Group, Heston Residents’ Association, Hounslow & District History Society, Friends of Hounslow Heath, Independent Community Group, The Isleworth Society, The Old Isleworth Four Roads Residents’ Association, St John’s Residents’ Association, St. Stephen’s Residents’ Association, Strand on the Green Association, Thornton-Mayfield Residents’ Association, West Chiswick & Gunnersbury Society, The West London River Group

The residents' case was ably presented to the Planning Committee by Andy Murray from the Grove Park Group and Councillor Sheila O'Reilly (Conservative, Osterley & Spring Grove) proposed that the Committee endorse it in its entirety, commenting that if anything the residents' amendments erred on the side of timidity in their approach. The Chair, Councillor Theo Dennison (Labour, Syon) was clearly enthusiastic and supportive and reassured residents that whatever choice of wording was adopted there would be no room for ambiguity. The amendment was adopted unanimously by the Committee.

So far so good, however it did not go unnoticed by residents that some members of the Committee, most notably Councillor Steve Curran (Labour, Syon), seemed to be keen to stress the view that the Planning Committee was forwarding a residents' consultation document to Borough Council for discussion rather than endorsing it in its own capacity. And, sure enough, when the minutes of the discussion were published this interpretation was indeed the one that was contained therein!

It was also noted that the Lead Member for Planning - Councillor Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford) - did not attend this part of the meeting, choosing instead to turn up shortly after the item had concluded, and didn't seem that eager to discuss it with residents after the meeting.

The discrepancy in the record of the meeting was swiftly reported to the Chair via Twitter as soon as the erroneous minutes were published and his response was clear: "I have read decision notice now and agree it's not what PC agreed: G15 amendment was endorsed and goes forward as PC's view."

The community now has a clear commitment from the Planning Committee that it wholeheartedly endorses a resident-led approach to community involvement in the planning process, and that endorsement must inevitably carry a huge amount of weight when the matter comes to Borough Council (we believe) for decision.

I hope to be able to bring more news on this historic and far-reaching local development in due course.

Community - Just How Far Has Hounslow Moved?

Today I was asked by two very prominent and influential members of the active community in Isleworth whether the Independent Community Group (ICG) would once again be fielding candidates at the next local elections in May 2014.

It’s not the first time that I have been asked this question in recent weeks, but the answer I gave them was the same as I have given to others who have inquired from a less favourable perspective. That answer is that it is not my decision to make and, to the best of my knowledge, those whose decision it will be have yet to make it. And that it is the very truth.

It was a useful and constructive meeting over coffee and cakes. For the most part we discussed the wider question of community involvement, the differing attitudes towards it between various individual councillors, and between councillors in general and officers. I would like to stress that it was noted in particular that one councillor – Theo Dennison (Syon) – has quite consistently demonstrated what we all believe to be a really sincere commitment to the cause of our community’s emancipation and would appear to have paid the price within his own party for doing so.

Theo was one of three local councillors whom I got the opportunity to speak to last Sunday after the fantastically well-supported Remembrance Day Parade in Isleworth. The others were Ed Mayne and, more briefly, Sue Sampson. Both Ed and Sue have been very supportive of the Isleworth Royal British Legion and of the efforts of the local Branch to raise funds for the Poppy Appeal each year. I understand that the third Isleworth ward councillor, Mindu Bains, was representing the Mayor at another parade on the same day.

I have been disappointed that in spite of the obvious goodwill that exists amongst all concerned our efforts to heal old wounds and eradicate any lingering divisions remain hampered by the self-centred activities of an outsider to the ward (and to the borough) about whom I have written previously. In spite of Theo’s optimistic pleas to the contrary, this man retains the ear of some of our elected members, and has clearly been the driving force behind some of the negative activity, at least in Isleworth ward, which has taken place since the 2010 local elections and which is quite obviously designed to scupper any attempt by us to try to find an honourable consensus with our current elected members. In the words of one councillor with whom I spoke a few weeks back, “we can’t let him go”.

As I have said before, it is not this ridiculous man that is important but the relationship and the reaction of others to him. Isleworth councillors may have binned a particularly poisonous and defamatory post-election leaflet after having second thoughts once a relatively small number had gone out, but by whose authority is an outsider producing such material in the name of our local Labour Party and what were councillors thinking of by even venturing to deliver them in the first place? How can the strategic direction of a group of intelligent and enthusiastic new councillors reasonably be influenced, in whole or even in part, by the consistently ill-informed and irrational prejudices of an unelected individual from another borough who shows serious signs of mental and emotional imbalance?

But when all is said and done it would be wrong to base our whole approach on the self-serving activities of one obscure individual. We need to take a wider view. We need, above everything else, to consider how the current administration at the London Borough of Hounslow is dealing with the question of Community Engagement, and to do so in recognition of the fact that past election defeats at the hands of the organised community and the “threat” of an ICG electoral resurgence is likely if anything to artificially distort the Labour regime’s current approach to the subject in a more pro-community direction than might otherwise have been the case.

Or to put it another way – if they are not “doing it” now, what chance is there that they will be doing it when and if, to adopt an Irish analogy, the ICG has decommissioned its electoral weapons?

I have already related how long-time Brentford councillor Ruth Cadbury, still a hugely influential figure within the Labour Group, quite shamelessly attempted to take the credit for her party for a commitment of funds to the St. John’s Community Centre in Isleworth which had been made by the ICG when we were in office and which she and her party had actually voted against.

This morning (Tuesday) I am advised that Councillor Colin Ellar, now once again Deputy Leader of Hounslow Council, regaled amused residents’ leaders at a community event with his account of how the current council leadership is supporting them (whilst trying to corral them under his party’s strategic leadership of course) and the previous administration wasn’t. There can surely be nothing more perverse than a Hounslow Labour politician pleading that an administration in which the ICG took the lead on Communities was less of a friend to organised residents than one in which he and the likes of Councillor Cadbury are involved!

Overall, Councillor Dennison excepted, I have to say I do not see an administration champing at the bit to relinquish its power to the residents’ associations and amenity groups, to the voluntary organisations and the civic societies. Its continued coolness towards the ICG even after we had offered the hand of friendship is in itself testimony to this. I don’t think I am assuming too much of a sense of our own importance when I aver that an administration that truly wanted to embrace the community ideal would have reacted to the new reality that followed the 2010 local elections by seeking to incorporate our knowledge and experience – if only to neutralise a potential rival – rather than by circulating scurrilous leaflets commenting on the private financial affairs of individual ICG members and making wholly false claims about alleged holiday homes. By these actions they simply made it clear that it was the whole community concept, rather than just our organisation, with which they felt they had an issue.

I must confess I feel my scepticism became apparent to the two community champions as I sipped my medium Americano with a small dash of milk. We regretted the abolition of the Area Committees and the reclamation of planning powers by officers. We shared a sense of dismay over the loss of the Brentford Festival to the borough, and over the administration’s instinctive response to the news by trying to blame their predecessors rather than dedicating their efforts towards reversing this sorry and quite unacceptable situation.

This evening I received a document from a community leader in another part of the borough referring to the local authority’s “Statement of Community Exclusion” (it is supposed to read “Involvement”). I know what he meant.

I recognise, of course, that if the ICG is involved in the 2014 local elections it is compelled to contest those areas in which it has a reasonable chance of success, and that in so doing the councillors we will be trying to knock out will not necessarily be those with whom we have much of a quarrel. This is regrettable, even a tad ironic, but sadly unavoidable. With a bit of luck they will be able to find safer seats elsewhere, as others have done rather than face us in the past.

Nevertheless I feel that unless an unambiguous sign is forthcoming shortly from Labour (and it has to be Labour, as they are in office) that real Community Empowerment and not more inane political gamesmanship is on the agenda the ICG’s committee should take the plunge and commit to continued involvement in the electoral process in a once and for all conclusion of sadly unfinished business.

Hounslow Labour Group - No Change, No Quarter

I commented in a previous thread about Syon Labour Councillor Theo Dennison and his noble sentiments about engaging with the community, albeit from the perspective of a Labour administration.

In that article I noted that Theo had been demoted from the Council Cabinet, and expressed the view that this did not send a good signal to those of us who might be looking for some way in which to try to subsume the now borough-wide movement for a community role in decision-making into the existing political structure so as to negate the need for perpetual electoral challenge, and all the hassle that that entails.

There have been some further developments since I wrote that article, regrettably none of them good.

An intervention on the Comments section of prominent Labour councillor Ruth Cadbury's blog by a well-known Labour supporter from Southall, whose membership status is unclear but who nonetheless involves himself heavily in Hounslow politics, prompted me to comment on the Brentford TW8 community forum.

Perhaps unsurprisingly given his positive approach to local political engagement, Councillor Dennison made it clear that he had no respect for the Southall interloper. In response the latter not only made some unflattering remarks about Councillor Dennison but presumed to do so - interestingly - in the name of the Hounslow Labour Group. In particular, he announced that Councillor Dennison had been demoted due to his colleagues having a low opinion of him as a person.

I enquired as to whether any of Theo's colleagues would be offering any words in his defence, bearing in mind that he is a colleague, anytime soon. In particular they might wish to reassure us that the interloper was not in a position to speak for the Hounslow Labour Group, bearing in mind his status as a non-councillor, non-Hounslow resident and possibly even non-party member.

In reply Theo very honourably attempted to mitigate their apparent lack of support by pointing out that no other member of the Labour Group (other than Councillor Cadbury, a now self-declared mate of the interloper despite having previously told us that she didn't know him!) ever posts on the forum.

No sooner had he done this than another member of the Hounslow Labour Group, a Cabinet member no less, further undermined Theo by herself entering the debate on the forum, not to defend her colleague but to speak out in support of the interloper!

To date neither the Hounslow Labour Group nor any member thereof has seen fit to speak up for Councillor Dennison, despite the fact that he regularly makes it his business to defend them whenever any of them come in for any criticism, even when it is sometimes well-deserved. It would appear that in the Hounslow Labour Group loyalty is very much a one-way street.

One is, very reluctantly, forced to conclude that it is very much the Taylor/Cadbury approach to local engagement, rather than the approach clearly preferred by Theo Dennison, which is in the ascendancy at Lampton Road, and that the show is being run by outside forces with their own agenda rather than by elected members in Hounslow.

It's not looking good.

Yes, We Call it Dishonesty!

I've just read the following on the blog of Councillor Ruth Cadbury, former Deputy Leader of Hounslow Council and still obsessive partyist:

"Before I left the Civic Centre on Tuesday I signed the order to repair the roof at St John’s Community Centre in Isleworth...the issue was in my In-tray when I took over Cabinet responsibility for Assets in May this year, and as soon as committee members showed me round the centre, I ensured we had funds in the capital budget to cover the repair costs and instructed officers to go out to tender."

It would have been too much to have expected Ruth to acknowledge that this money was made available to the St. John's Centre by community councillors at the request of residents at the Borough Council Budget Meeting in April 2010, and was opposed by her and her colleagues, but for her to now effectively try to take the credit for the allocation really does take the biscuit, notwithstanding the fact that the current administration has added a small amount to the kitty presumably in order to provide a hook for such a claim.

Ruth once infamously justified the practice of telling lies during election campaigns at a Borough Council meeting with the immortal words: "You call it dishonesty, we call it politics".

Despite the noble sentiments of Councillor Theo Dennison when trying to convince us otherwise it is clear to me that Labour in Hounslow has not changed one iota.

Councillor Cadbury's article has inclined me towards the view that the ICG should involve itself once more in the 2014 local elections.

Will the Real Hounslow Labour Party Please Stand Up (and other associated questions)?

“To get the message across that Hounslow falls too far short of what we all expect as councillors and residents the whole organisation is being reshaped from the top downwards - slimming down the lardy top tiers and testing Directors and Assistant Directors against their peers through competitive interviews with external as well as internal candidates. There's a new Chief Executive, one Department and three chief officers have already gone and the rest including the much mentioned Director of Environment will be leaving within a couple of months. Understanding that Hounslow has to listen to local residents, respond to the needs of the community and pull its proverbial socks up is a key requirement in every one of those interviews - hence the changing personnel…

“None of the above should dissuade residents from continuing to press for change and faster improvement - external pressure is essential. Just don't assume Hounslow is inert and unredeemable. I don't think anyone has a lower opinion of what Hounslow became, but that doesn't mean it can't be fixed…

“I think the overwhelming majority of councillors and residents are now agreed that Hounslow needed fixing and are keen to support meaningful steps to open up the council - the days for one party states and arrogant bureaucracies are gone.

“Being beaten in 2006 helped remind Labour members that most of them came into politics to make their communities stronger and better - hence a little more modesty, the willingness to work a little harder, focus on a limited number of practical priorities and to slim down, open up and transform the council. Self interest will continue to help – because doing nothing promises to see 2006 repeated.

“I recognise that Labour were appalling (it kept me out of local politics for two decades) and we are yet to be coherent on community engagement, but I don't think a bold new statement would be worth anything at the moment because there’s nothing for anyone to trust yet until we see something tangible delivered – I think Labour and the Council need to pay a lot more forward not make promises. And at the moment let's be frank, it is a struggle every day to get good stuff delivered by the Council – but perhaps surprisingly it is a challenge Labour members are now very much up for.”

These words from Theo Dennison, Labour ward councillor for Syon and former London Borough of Hounslow Cabinet member, certainly leave no room for charges of ambiguity. Even if, taking the unkindest and most cynical view, one was to dismiss his words as lacking sincerity, they still tell us that at least one person within the local Labour camp recognises the concerns felt by large sections of the community and understands that ignoring them is the surest and fastest route back to political Boot Hill.

This in itself, small and inconsequential though it may appear in isolation, is the local community equivalent of One Giant Step for Mankind. Councillor Dennison has already gone where no Labour councillor, in these parts at least, has gone before.

Difficult decision

I keep being asked whether or not the Independent Community Group (ICG) will be fielding candidates again at the local elections in 2014. The honest truth is that this will not be my decision to make, and to be equally honest I am really pleased that that is the case. It truly is an extremely difficult decision to make, and there are so many imponderables involved that those who will be entrusted with making it will not be able to do right for doing wrong.

Of course, as the party in power, the attitude of the local Labour Party is always a massive consideration. Councillor Dennison’s comments are very much noted. So too is the fact that none of his colleagues seem in any rush to endorse them, as indeed is that, coincidentally or otherwise, they would appear to have coincided with his demotion from the Council’s Cabinet.

It is difficult to see certain long-standing councillors not a million miles from Syon embracing the idea of the primacy of community, primacy that is over the diktats of a political party to which blind and unquestioning allegiance is for some almost a religious matter.

There are also pernicious outside influences that need to be factored into the equation. Perusing his Facebook page, far too much influence would still appear to be wielded over the politics of the Hounslow party by the peculiar and obsessive man-child of Southall. I’ll not massage his ego by mentioning his name – it is not him that is important, but the way in which others relate to him and, more significantly still, to his method. His ethics are the antithesis of everything Councillor Dennison would appear to stand for, and a cursory stroll around the Web would seem to indicate that his gutter politics approach is still very much more widely favoured by Labour decision-makers in Hounslow than that of the Syon councillor.

The old ways have in any event continued to manifest themselves on occasions. Just recently the Lead Member for Environment declined to meet the Mogden Residents’ Action Group (MRAG), a community group representing many thousands of victims of Thames Water’s neglect of its legal and moral obligations over the odour emanating from its Mogden plant, unless the residents agree to meet on his terms (that is in the presence of officers who have long demonstrated their lack of support for the community’s aspirations). This “we are in charge, not you” message is wholly inconsistent and incompatible with the resident-driven model that we desire to see.

Dichotomy

One thing the ICG needs to accept is that if it abstains from the fray in 2014, it will find it much harder to come back in 2018 if that is what needs to be done. The effective Lab/ICG dichotomy which exists at present in both Isleworth and Syon wards will have been replaced once again by a Lab/Con dichotomy, and the organised community will have an uphill struggle trying to re-establish itself as the natural opposition to Labour. New residents will have moved in, old supporters will have moved out or passed away, and we will be back to where we were prior to 1998.

Thus if we are to place our trust in Labour we would need very good reason – with all due respect, far more than just Councillor Dennison’s rather optimistic word – to believe that the local party had taken real community empowerment to the heart of its politics rather than appending it to its schedule as some reluctant afterthought which itself would appear to be hotly disputed. To put it quite simply, if they are not going for it with enthusiasm now when the spectre of the ICG returning to the electoral fold is looming, why should they do so four years hence when that “threat” is less pressing?

I find myself wondering just to what extent Councillor Dennison actually believes that his local party is embracing the spirit of community empowerment. He must, after all, know his colleagues better than I do, and I know them well enough to know just how affronted some of them will be by the very thought of being led, as opposed to followed, by the massed ranks of the unenlightened.

His protestations could be indicative of his fierce loyalty to his colleagues. My feeling is that he is in fact, rather cleverly, leading them to a place where they will be left with no option other than to declare either for or against this new and, perhaps unsurprisingly in my view, better approach to engagement. Quite where he proposes to go should they cling obstinately to type remains anyone’s guess.

Of course it is not just Labour’s position that will inform the ICG’s decision. The Community Group needs to understand just what it is that it would be returning to. For councillors who have only experienced power and not opposition a rude awakening could be in store.

The fact is that even with six ICG councillors returned in Syon and Isleworth it is highly likely that Labour will hold an overall majority at the London Borough of Hounslow post-2014. With the coalition government out of favour and the local Conservative Party showing no obvious signs of ever being capable of differentiating between wishful thinking and cold reality it is easy to see several Tory seats in the west of the borough falling to Labour. Even traditional “strongholds” such as Hounslow South and Osterley & Spring Grove do not look particularly safe. A couple of bad weeks in the opinion polls and an unspectacular local election campaign could conceivably see them eliminated outside of their W4 comfort zone. Perhaps only then will the consequences of their idiotic behaviour during the later months of the Conservative/ICG coalition become fully apparent to all their own members and supporters.

Opposition

Opposition is a place that bears no comparison with office, especially when you are a community councillor. It means going through the motions at Council meetings before inevitably being voted down. It means chief executives cutting you off after three minutes of your allotted five minute speech in the Chamber. It means officers passing you in the corridors of the Civic Centre and not daring to venture a smile or often even so much as an acknowledgement lest it be spotted by an eagle-eyed politico and held against them when the next round of redundancies comes around. It means any committees or panels that by accident of circumstance your group may dominate being closed down or “reorganised” in such a way that your influence is removed. I had eight years of it before 2006, I’m not persuaded that I would want to put myself through it again.

And then of course there is the question of our relationship with other opposition parties and groups. When I was first elected as an independent in 1998 I rather enjoyed my status as a lone wolf, loathed equally by both the major parties which competed with one another to be seen as the ones who could shun me the most publicly. Politically it couldn’t have worked better if I had written the script myself – voters everywhere were able to contrast the essential sameness of both sides of the political establishment with the new, fresh and vibrant approach to local politics that the ICG represented.

Then of course came 2006, and the discovery when totting up the scores on the doors following the local election of that year that we were really not so bad after all. We entered into coalition eager to run our programme for community empowerment alongside the political programme of our Conservative partners, believing them to be at least neutral if not particularly sympathetic towards the things we wished to achieve.

Later of course we were to be disappointed, finding ourselves frustrated by chief officers while our partners either stood back and watched or actively collaborated with them behind the scenes (perm one from two), with both establishment parties meanwhile openly making common cause against us at Area Committee meetings. Then followed the debilitating news that our partners were hoping to divide the Community Group following the local elections of 2010 in the event of the numbers making it feasible to offer coalition terms only to certain of our councillors (variously considered – wrongly in my view - to be either mercenary, or easy to flatter or manipulate), and all remaining trust was lost.

Pincer movement

Ultimately we were to be fatally caught in a pincer movement between the two major parties at those elections and none of us were returned to office in any case.

In the unlikely event of any community councillors from Isleworth and Syon holding the balance of power again following the 2014 elections we would of course find ourselves in a wholly different position to that of 2006. In such circumstances we may be reduced to playing the role of an outspoken but very small opposition to an effective two party dictatorship, just as was the case in fact on the Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee between 2002 and 2005.

When one considers the complexity of the decisions that we will be faced with in the very near future it is hopefully easy to understand why I am relieved that these decisions will be for others to take. What the ICG should be doing right now is canvassing the views of the active community and finding out precisely what it is that they want us to do.

Another Isleworth Councillor on the LBH Executive

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Hain and Labour Could Not Be More Wrong

Apparently the former Welsh Secretary Peter Hain will attack independent councillors at today's Welsh Labour conference in Cardiff, saying they have "no manifesto, no plan and no clue - many of them (are) closet Tories".

Well, we can safely titter about the "closet Tories" reference from a spokesman for a party that introduced tuition fees, wanted to privatise the Royal Mail and recently all but backed the current government's austerity programme, but it is the "no clue" suggestion that intrigues me. It is, of course, a classic expression of the more or less universally held view amongst Labour Party apologists that politicians in general and Labour politicians in particular are "experts" in a field of activity that is too complex for "ordinary" people to grasp.

Let us consider one local example of how the "clueless" independents measure up to the Labour elite. The proposed closure of the St. John's Community Centre.

Now I'm not going to take a personal swipe at the Lead Member, who is also a ward member for Syon in which the Centre is situated, because I believe he genuinely worked hard on behalf of local people to achieve what would appear, at least for now, to be a more or less satisfactory outcome for the Centre and for the community that uses it. But maybe we should take a closer look at quite how this successful outcome was delivered.

First the impending closure is announced "subject to consultation". An economic case for closure, of sorts, is mooted. It is, apparently, losing money and the building is in need of repair. Fellow Labour councillors protest that the closure is necessary "to protect frontline services" (which in the view of the community the Centre is). Residents, organised by former independent councillors, march in protest. The Lead Member attends the march to find out what is going on and to meet and take questions from members of the public. The Lead Member then promises to go back to his officers and find out more information (during the course of all this activity it was brought to the Lead Member's attention by the community itself that former independent councillors had managed to set aside £250,000 precisely to fund the required repairs, a fact that not only officers but apparently also his own party colleagues had not bothered to share with him). Unable to get a response from his own officers, he is compelled to make a Freedom of Information Request to get an answer out of them. He gets an answer. There is, after all, no economic case for closure. The Centre will not be closed after all.

Compare this with the actions of independent ICG councillors during the previous administration.

Officers proposed the closure and sale of the property to the Conservative Lead Member, who presented it to his ICG colleagues for consideration. The ICG said no. Discussion over, proposal shelved.

The point of this post is not to suggest that the Labour Lead Member is in any way less talented, nor indeed less committed, than the ICG councillors who proceeded him. It is to demonstrate that councillors whose first allegiance is to a political party cannot, with the best will in the world, compete with decent independent councillors, because their hands are completely tied by the very system of which they, by their own choice, are locked into.

Peter Hain, in other words, is talking complete and utter tosh. But then what does he care? His concern begins and ends with achieving political power for his organisation. For him, as with them, that is the end as well as the means.

The people of Wales suffer as a consequence. But then what does it matter? They don't have a clue, after all.

Where Is Our Money?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch this space.

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.

Reflections on the new IBAC

Last night, in the company of Liberal Democrat leader Andrew Dakers, fellow ICG Committee members Andy Sibley and Caroline Andrews, and several other Community colleagues, I attended a meeting of the now Labour-dominated Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (IBAC). As well as having an interest in some the issues discussed I was also curious to see how the new team perform.

I have of course been a member of IBAC at a time when it had a Labour majority and was about as welcome as an outbreak of flatulence in an astronaut's suit. But this was the first time I had attended a meeting as a member of the public.

Initial impressions were varied. The Isleworth councillors were quiet, doubtless they will become more confident and assertive with experience. Matt Harmer chaired with authority, but was at times a trifle brusque - as Basil Fawlty might have put it - with some of the members of the public. Ruth Cadbury, interestingly, spoke considerably less than she was given to doing during the previous administration. Possibly now that she is surrounded by "real" councillors her calling to educate has abated a tad?

The enigma for me is Theo Dennison, one of the three new Labour members for Syon ward. He was consistently, and quite vocally, an advocate for more consultation with and participation from the wider public, as I am informed he had been at the previous meeting. Naturally with what we know about the Labour Party locally this "does not compute" but I am keen to establish whether this welcome approach is sincere, or whether he simply has more confidence than most of his colleagues that public participation can be managed and channeled in the direction that the Party would like it to go. Doubtless we'll be able to form a clearer view as his term of office progresses but I believe this to be a potentially significant development and one that is well worth monitoring.

More in keeping with the old local Labour mentality that we all know and love was Brentford member Mel Collins, who on four separate occasions referred to the people in the public area as his "audience" and praised the Chair for having been "tolerant" of said public by allowing them to speak, when objecting to Councillor Dennison's proposal to move the Open Forum part of the agenda forward at future meetings as a courtesy to those attending. Conservative councillor Barbara Reid was irritatingly keen to be seen supporting the Chair in rebuffing this particularly helpful proposal. If he is sincere Councillor Dennison is clearly going to have his work cut out over the next four years.

After the meeting several of us retired to the wonderful Magpie and Crown in Brentford High Street where a rather too nice scrumpy was one of the star attractions. It was a long walk home. Happy days.

New Isleworth and Syon councillors "at the top table"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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