I understand that a very short Special Borough Council Meeting was held last night at Hounslow Civic Centre to consider various questions and motions tabled by the opposition Conservative Group.
The reason it was short was that a Labour councillor moved at the onset of the meeting that it be adjourned indefinitely, and so it was.
Of course this kind of stunt is underhand, bad for democracy etc., but is anybody truly surprised by Labour's actions? I know I do bang on somewhat about the fact that it was a Conservative campaign which put Labour back in office in May - but - well, it was a Conservative campaign which put Labour back in office in May.
The new Labour administration at the London Borough of Hounslow has no respect for its Conservative opponents and, with appropriate apologies to my good friend Councillor Mark Bowen who now leads the Conservative Group (and I wish him well), they don't deserve any respect following the debacle that was the local election.
Labour will simply trample all over them throughout the next four years as they quite rightly do not fear electoral repercussions at the hands of the Conservatives in a borough which has a "natural" Labour majority. Especially with a Conservative-led government in office which, whether rightly or wrongly, is committed to a major cuts programme.
The only hope of unseating Labour in Hounslow now, if that proves to be a desirable objective, lies in the emergence of a third political power within the borough to take on both establishment parties and to present residents with a new, radical, community-led and community-focused alternative. I wonder whether any of the current crop of Conservative councillors is ambitious enough, and angry enough, to wish to join us in helping to bring that about?
In the meantime the opposition should expect much more of the kind of thing they experienced last night. And the less time they spend at council meetings, maybe the more time they will have to reflect upon whether or not the strategy of using the cover provided by the general election to move in on the various independents around the borough in the hope of replacing them in their respective areas of influence was truly a clever one.
Showing posts with label General Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Election. Show all posts
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Who gets shafted in coalition - David or Goliath?
I have read some interesting articles and discussions around the place following the emergence of the Cameron-Clegg coalition from the recent general election.
On Facebook and the local Internet community forums much complaining has taken place, a lot of it to the effect that any agreement would be Conservative dominated and that the Liberal Democrats would end up playing patsy to their larger partner. Understandably a lot of this has emanated from members or supporters of the Labour Party, who could be assumed to be unhappy with the coalition if for no other reason than that it replaced their own regime and that they are not part of it.
Reading the News at the BBC and elsewhere it seems there are rumblings of discontent from some on the right wing of the Conservative Party, who seem surprised and upset that a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition appears unlikely to pursue a purebred Conservative agenda.
An uneasy sense of deja vu overcame me when I read the particular concerns of Lord Tebbit. The reason for this was that I had beheld similar outbreaks of incredulity on occasions as a member of the previous administration at the London Borough of Hounslow, in which the Community Group had itself been a junior partner to the Conservatives, when it had been explained to those concerned that as a coalition the administration would be taking some aspects of the Community Group's programme on board as part of its overall policy portfolio.
What sometimes gets overlooked during the debate as to whether it is the senior or the junior partner that is calling the tune is that political parties and groups are themselves often coalitions of a kind, and the larger the party or group in question the more of a coalition it presumably is. The Leader of Hounslow Council under the coalition administration was a moderate and pragmatic man. It would be fair to say (although usually disputed by Labour for tactical reasons) that on the mundane issues of policy the Community Group on the council had more in common with the "moderate" wing of the Conservative Group - for want of a better term - than with its right wing. And, more significantly, the moderate wing of the Conservative Group had more in common with us.
If I can put that another way, it wasn't always with regret that the Conservative leadership would abandon proposals from its right wing "because the Community Group won't accept them". The Prime Minister would appear to be using his being in coalition with the Liberal Democrats as an opportunity to shape his own policy programme in much the same way, to the evident annoyance of the headbangers.
Of course where the Community Group was more "extreme" than its Conservative partners of both left and right, in the areas of culture change and democratisation, we met a lot more resistance and eventually, in my view, failed to break down the establishment sufficiently in a way that would have prevented the Old Order from being rebuilt, as it is now likely to be.
The Liberal Democrats in government will similarly find their partners to be less co-operative in areas where there are real differences between themselves and the Prime Minister's team.
It will be interesting to see what comes out of the mix. For the moment I am just pleased that Clegg would appear to be holding his ground in the face of what must have been some quite formidable pressure.
On Facebook and the local Internet community forums much complaining has taken place, a lot of it to the effect that any agreement would be Conservative dominated and that the Liberal Democrats would end up playing patsy to their larger partner. Understandably a lot of this has emanated from members or supporters of the Labour Party, who could be assumed to be unhappy with the coalition if for no other reason than that it replaced their own regime and that they are not part of it.
Reading the News at the BBC and elsewhere it seems there are rumblings of discontent from some on the right wing of the Conservative Party, who seem surprised and upset that a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition appears unlikely to pursue a purebred Conservative agenda.
An uneasy sense of deja vu overcame me when I read the particular concerns of Lord Tebbit. The reason for this was that I had beheld similar outbreaks of incredulity on occasions as a member of the previous administration at the London Borough of Hounslow, in which the Community Group had itself been a junior partner to the Conservatives, when it had been explained to those concerned that as a coalition the administration would be taking some aspects of the Community Group's programme on board as part of its overall policy portfolio.
What sometimes gets overlooked during the debate as to whether it is the senior or the junior partner that is calling the tune is that political parties and groups are themselves often coalitions of a kind, and the larger the party or group in question the more of a coalition it presumably is. The Leader of Hounslow Council under the coalition administration was a moderate and pragmatic man. It would be fair to say (although usually disputed by Labour for tactical reasons) that on the mundane issues of policy the Community Group on the council had more in common with the "moderate" wing of the Conservative Group - for want of a better term - than with its right wing. And, more significantly, the moderate wing of the Conservative Group had more in common with us.
If I can put that another way, it wasn't always with regret that the Conservative leadership would abandon proposals from its right wing "because the Community Group won't accept them". The Prime Minister would appear to be using his being in coalition with the Liberal Democrats as an opportunity to shape his own policy programme in much the same way, to the evident annoyance of the headbangers.
Of course where the Community Group was more "extreme" than its Conservative partners of both left and right, in the areas of culture change and democratisation, we met a lot more resistance and eventually, in my view, failed to break down the establishment sufficiently in a way that would have prevented the Old Order from being rebuilt, as it is now likely to be.
The Liberal Democrats in government will similarly find their partners to be less co-operative in areas where there are real differences between themselves and the Prime Minister's team.
It will be interesting to see what comes out of the mix. For the moment I am just pleased that Clegg would appear to be holding his ground in the face of what must have been some quite formidable pressure.
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Cleggbama and me - witnesses at the birth of this new Coalition of Hope
by Suzanne Moore, Independent parliamentary candidate for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. Reproduced with acknowledgements to Mail Online.
Do you remember the time long ago before Cleggbama walked amongst us?
Amazingly it's less than two weeks. This Election was shaping up as deathly dull, with Brown and Cameron both flatlining.We sat through the near-death experience that is Brown's campaigning and watched bemused as Cameron failed to hide his exasperation that he just wasn't being handed what was rightfully his.The depressing arguing over cuts and the 'disappearing' of all significant women except dutiful spouses - now cast as fashion-conscious carers - made it even harder to engage.
My own frustration with the lack of choice bubbled over and my solution was to stand for Parliament myself as an Independent. Party politics had produced this stasis.
Rash, I am sure, but my form of direct action.
Even I, though, am not daft enough to think individuals can shift the system, simply that we can draw attention to its flaws. This is something most Independents have in common.
Having already expressed my preference for a hung parliament, my feeling was that the electorate was also in no mood to give one party a mandate. Such an outcome would be a way of ticking a 'none of the above' box.
This was before the TV debates. It's not that people just changed their vote on the basis of 90 minutes of telly, more that an attractive, articulate figurehead had been found for their rumbling discontent.
The Lib Dem leader was an unknown quantity. No more. Now we know his freshness makes both Brown and Cameron look stale.
He looked directly into the camera and connected viscerally with people's desire for a more direct form of democracy.
Arcane arguments about constitutional reform and proportional representation rarely excite.
But something happened visibly in the first debate: we could see the leaders of the two main parties were working overtime to maintain the status quo that Clegg was challenging.
Indeed the forces of conservatism on both sides have been ambushed by the urgency of those who now scent meaningful change. The Tories don't want substantial parliamentary reform and Labour only talks desperately of it in the dying days of its administration.
The Lib Dems may be wobbly on many issues but this is not one of them. It is wrong to suggest all have fallen in love with this party or that the Lib Dems are completely different from the main parties.
They are not. They are not clean on expenses, nor above using very dirty tricks when campaigning.
The prize now will go to those who offer actual change.
Brown can offer only more of the same as he floats among the wreckage of the latest job figures and lack of growth.
Cameron cannot hide his look of dismay that a new kid on the block may steal what is rightfully his. It's not in the script, yet it is written all over his face.
The unscripted Clegg, meanwhile, makes his success look entirely natural. You have to pinch yourself to remember that only weeks ago his party was deemed entirely unelectable.
The true measure of the Lib Dem insurgency is the reaction against it.
The unsettled mewlings about a hung parliament causing the end of civilisation as we know it emanate from those who have complacently invested in a Tory victory.
The City - that bastion of fairness and accountability - won't like it, they complain. Oh dear.
Well other countries cope and, actually, not all City people feel the same way.
Two unpopular wars, economic meltdown and huge inequality is the result of a party with a large majority. It is hard to imagine in what way a hung parliament could do worse.
I am biased obviously. I am not a Lib Dem but I share absolutely a sense that something has to shift and am excited to think it might. Standing as an Independent is part of pushing for a shift.
In my constituency other Independents have also come forward. Some good, some barmpots. I now find myself up against 'A Ripperologist'.
Well what did I expect? A clean fight? But what motivates most Independents is the same despair with our political system that Clegg is tapping into.
The practical problem for Independents, as I am finding out to my cost, is that without the teams and money that the big parties' machinery offers it is virtually impossible.
Last week, standing at a borrowed table wi th our lovely little flyers, we watched in awe as a bus pulled up.
Out got the sitting MP (Diane Abbott) and several of her staff.
They glared at us, dispensed their expensive literature and drove off. They must have stayed for all of five minutes.
Labour take my area, Hackney, for granted and clearly don't like being challenged in any way. Still they have the money to do wham-bam-thankyoumam campaigning.
No one at the top should take voters for granted. Something is shifting from the bottom up.
Brown is incapable of delivering the kind of change now being demanded.
Cameron provides only a change of leader and direction but no deep structural change of the institutions.
So forming now before us are two new coalitions.
On one side are those who want to reinvent the wheel of democracy, on the other those vested interests who like things just the way they are.
We have the progressives in the shape of Lib Dems, some Greens and many Independents now arrayed against the conservatives (small c) of the big parties. This is bad news for Labour, but they have had their chance.
Having been fed a politics of fear, something organic and long repressed is somehow manoeuvring us towards a politics of hope.
It is this coalition of hope - not Clegg himself - that is important. Such a moment may pass. But we shouldn't let it.
To witness the birth of a new political era would count as victory for many of us.
Do you remember the time long ago before Cleggbama walked amongst us?
Amazingly it's less than two weeks. This Election was shaping up as deathly dull, with Brown and Cameron both flatlining.We sat through the near-death experience that is Brown's campaigning and watched bemused as Cameron failed to hide his exasperation that he just wasn't being handed what was rightfully his.The depressing arguing over cuts and the 'disappearing' of all significant women except dutiful spouses - now cast as fashion-conscious carers - made it even harder to engage.
My own frustration with the lack of choice bubbled over and my solution was to stand for Parliament myself as an Independent. Party politics had produced this stasis.
Rash, I am sure, but my form of direct action.
Even I, though, am not daft enough to think individuals can shift the system, simply that we can draw attention to its flaws. This is something most Independents have in common.
Having already expressed my preference for a hung parliament, my feeling was that the electorate was also in no mood to give one party a mandate. Such an outcome would be a way of ticking a 'none of the above' box.
This was before the TV debates. It's not that people just changed their vote on the basis of 90 minutes of telly, more that an attractive, articulate figurehead had been found for their rumbling discontent.
The Lib Dem leader was an unknown quantity. No more. Now we know his freshness makes both Brown and Cameron look stale.
He looked directly into the camera and connected viscerally with people's desire for a more direct form of democracy.
Arcane arguments about constitutional reform and proportional representation rarely excite.
But something happened visibly in the first debate: we could see the leaders of the two main parties were working overtime to maintain the status quo that Clegg was challenging.
Indeed the forces of conservatism on both sides have been ambushed by the urgency of those who now scent meaningful change. The Tories don't want substantial parliamentary reform and Labour only talks desperately of it in the dying days of its administration.
The Lib Dems may be wobbly on many issues but this is not one of them. It is wrong to suggest all have fallen in love with this party or that the Lib Dems are completely different from the main parties.
They are not. They are not clean on expenses, nor above using very dirty tricks when campaigning.
Surely the surge towards Clegg is happening because so many have felt locked out of the two-party system for many years. This sea change has been called a Diana moment and therefore irrational. But just as the outpouring over Diana reflected changes that had already happened and marked a break with a more buttoned-up past, so the Lib Dems' sudden popularity reflects years of the electorate feeling ignored by its leaders.
It doubtless helps, too, that Clegg embodies an energy and modernity that makes the twoparty system appear lethargic and creaky.The prize now will go to those who offer actual change.
Brown can offer only more of the same as he floats among the wreckage of the latest job figures and lack of growth.
Cameron cannot hide his look of dismay that a new kid on the block may steal what is rightfully his. It's not in the script, yet it is written all over his face.
The unscripted Clegg, meanwhile, makes his success look entirely natural. You have to pinch yourself to remember that only weeks ago his party was deemed entirely unelectable.
The true measure of the Lib Dem insurgency is the reaction against it.
The unsettled mewlings about a hung parliament causing the end of civilisation as we know it emanate from those who have complacently invested in a Tory victory.
The City - that bastion of fairness and accountability - won't like it, they complain. Oh dear.
Well other countries cope and, actually, not all City people feel the same way.
Two unpopular wars, economic meltdown and huge inequality is the result of a party with a large majority. It is hard to imagine in what way a hung parliament could do worse.
I am biased obviously. I am not a Lib Dem but I share absolutely a sense that something has to shift and am excited to think it might. Standing as an Independent is part of pushing for a shift.
In my constituency other Independents have also come forward. Some good, some barmpots. I now find myself up against 'A Ripperologist'.
Well what did I expect? A clean fight? But what motivates most Independents is the same despair with our political system that Clegg is tapping into.
The practical problem for Independents, as I am finding out to my cost, is that without the teams and money that the big parties' machinery offers it is virtually impossible.
Last week, standing at a borrowed table wi th our lovely little flyers, we watched in awe as a bus pulled up.
Out got the sitting MP (Diane Abbott) and several of her staff.
They glared at us, dispensed their expensive literature and drove off. They must have stayed for all of five minutes.
Labour take my area, Hackney, for granted and clearly don't like being challenged in any way. Still they have the money to do wham-bam-thankyoumam campaigning.
No one at the top should take voters for granted. Something is shifting from the bottom up.
Brown is incapable of delivering the kind of change now being demanded.
Cameron provides only a change of leader and direction but no deep structural change of the institutions.
So forming now before us are two new coalitions.
On one side are those who want to reinvent the wheel of democracy, on the other those vested interests who like things just the way they are.
We have the progressives in the shape of Lib Dems, some Greens and many Independents now arrayed against the conservatives (small c) of the big parties. This is bad news for Labour, but they have had their chance.
Having been fed a politics of fear, something organic and long repressed is somehow manoeuvring us towards a politics of hope.
It is this coalition of hope - not Clegg himself - that is important. Such a moment may pass. But we shouldn't let it.
To witness the birth of a new political era would count as victory for many of us.
Sunday, 18 April 2010
Trying to live a normal life at an abnormal time
"You can't hide beat," according to the song.
Last night I sat up so long with my laptop doing paperwork stuff for the forthcoming local election that I didn't get around to going to bed. Then at 8.30 it was off to Hounslow Heath to collect my son from his cousin's, where he had been staying over, and a swift drive to Pinner for his last football league match of the season (in the event he was subbed early on as his asthma got the better of him and his side lost 4-1 - I'm not sure whether the two were connected).
Back home, quick sleep to try to recover from last night's data entry marathon, then off to visit several residents in Isleworth and Hounslow South.
In the meantime activists were out and about working in all three of the wards that we are contesting.
This is proving to be an unusual election. The general election being on the same day ensures a higher than usual turnout and yet there is still a great of deal of indifference and uncertainty on the doorsteps. More so, I would say, than is usually the case at this stage during a normal local election campaign.
Labour have been out and about but it all seems a bit half-hearted. They are doing more in Syon than they did last time, but then they did nothing whatsoever last time. In Isleworth they are all over the place, with 15-year-old hoodies knocking on doors and the same streets and the same residents on hostile estates being canvassed twice. Their almost complete rejection on "their" social housing estates seems too much for them to acknowledge, even to themselves, and consequently they are in denial.
At the general election the Lib Dems would appear to be riding on the crest of a wave following their success in the first leaders' televised debate. Whether it will last till polling day or not remains to be seen. In this constituency, certainly, there is plenty of political space for their candidate Andrew Dakers to move into (more observations about Andrew's campaign are to follow).
I envisage a local election turnout of around 45-48% in Isleworth and Syon, and as much as 55% in Hounslow South. It will be interesting to see whether voters' national preferences repeat themselves in their local choices, or whether electors are cute enough to differentiate between the two. My suspicion is that they will be.
Last night I sat up so long with my laptop doing paperwork stuff for the forthcoming local election that I didn't get around to going to bed. Then at 8.30 it was off to Hounslow Heath to collect my son from his cousin's, where he had been staying over, and a swift drive to Pinner for his last football league match of the season (in the event he was subbed early on as his asthma got the better of him and his side lost 4-1 - I'm not sure whether the two were connected).
Back home, quick sleep to try to recover from last night's data entry marathon, then off to visit several residents in Isleworth and Hounslow South.
In the meantime activists were out and about working in all three of the wards that we are contesting.
This is proving to be an unusual election. The general election being on the same day ensures a higher than usual turnout and yet there is still a great of deal of indifference and uncertainty on the doorsteps. More so, I would say, than is usually the case at this stage during a normal local election campaign.
Labour have been out and about but it all seems a bit half-hearted. They are doing more in Syon than they did last time, but then they did nothing whatsoever last time. In Isleworth they are all over the place, with 15-year-old hoodies knocking on doors and the same streets and the same residents on hostile estates being canvassed twice. Their almost complete rejection on "their" social housing estates seems too much for them to acknowledge, even to themselves, and consequently they are in denial.
At the general election the Lib Dems would appear to be riding on the crest of a wave following their success in the first leaders' televised debate. Whether it will last till polling day or not remains to be seen. In this constituency, certainly, there is plenty of political space for their candidate Andrew Dakers to move into (more observations about Andrew's campaign are to follow).
I envisage a local election turnout of around 45-48% in Isleworth and Syon, and as much as 55% in Hounslow South. It will be interesting to see whether voters' national preferences repeat themselves in their local choices, or whether electors are cute enough to differentiate between the two. My suspicion is that they will be.
Sunday, 28 March 2010
Ann puts on a show but it's not unusual
Back in 2005, shortly before the result of the general election of that year in the Brentford and Isleworth constituency was announced, a peculiar and rather amusing thing happened.
Ann Keen, who had presumably been notified by an associate that she had survived the challenges of the various opposing candidates, at last entered the election count at Hounslow Civic Centre. But that wasn't the amusing bit.
What gave cause for much hilarity was the entourage by which she was accompanied, and the manner of its arrival. Surrounded by young boys attired in near-identical suits, she was escorted all the way from her carriage, up the spiral staircase and through the antechamber to the podium from which the result was to be announced. I could have sworn the spotty oiks were marching in step too, although I concede that just possibly my imagination was playing tricks with me and getting carried away.
This group exercise in delusional self-importance was not in any way untypical, indeed the whole Ann Keen experience has revolved for most of its time around a cult of imagined celebrity. I recall a residents' meeting on my own estate being gatecrashed by the then local Labour Party organiser and a handful of his members who scrutinised the gathering closely, furtively identifying individual residents whom they obviously felt might be vulnerable to an approach before sidling up to them like market spivs and whispering "would you like to meet Ann Keen?", the name itself spoken in a more assertive tone as if to emphasise the sheer generosity of the offer that was being made to the lucky resident.
Until recently, when at long last it would seem to have dawned upon them that she has become a liability, Labour's wannabe local councillors would queue to be photographed with their idol, and would proudly publish their photographs all across their own election leaflets in the apparent belief that their own importance and celebrity would somehow be enhanced by mere association.
Last week, inevitably, the circus came to Isleworth. As Mrs. Keen's gold minibus arrived at the Bridge Link Centre on Ivybridge on Thursday an aide excitedly raced to the passenger side door to open it so that her very important personage could step down and greet the excited throng that been awaiting her arrival.
In actual fact it wasn't really much of a throng. Five or six frankly pathetic ladies who probably hadn't been so excited since the time they threw their knickers at Tom Jones, and a very small handful of bitter and resentful men who still mourn the passing of the good old days when only Labour Party members were allowed to get involved with organising residents' activities, inasfar as any actually took place, on the estate.
And the royal visit itself was a tad disappointing, for there were others who had turned up to actually speak to their MP and ask her questions only to be brusquely advised by one of her hangers-on that she would only be sparing them fifteen minutes of her valuable (and very expensive) time which was just sufficient for her to have some photos taken. The knickerless screamers will probably be sent copies that they will truly treasure for what little remains of their middle age.
For those though who actually had questions to ask or problems to resolve - rehousing issues, repairs, anti-social behaviour, domestic violence and the like - the fleeting visitation did not really provide a great deal of relief. As a result of this the local authority's Lead Member for Housing and Service Improvement, ICG councillor Jon Hardy, has decided at short notice to hold a surgery of his own (see above) to make good the deficit.
The sheer brass neck of these objectionable people who assume themselves to be our lords and masters and who, given half the chance, would reverse the movement towards involvement and participation that my colleagues and I have triggered since becoming part of the administration at the local authority is absolutely staggering. One can only imagine how, in private session, they must mock and pour scorn upon those they represent, or in many cases aspire to.
How gratifying it is indeed to know that it will all be over in six weeks.
Friday, 2 October 2009
SORTED!
"BNP will not be back!" says pub landlord
The landlord of an Isleworth pub which unwittingly played host to a meeting of the far-right British National Party (BNP) on Wednesday evening will not be re-admitting his unwanted guests after the ICG exposed their true identity.
The "Hounslow" BNP (in reality a motley collection of activists from all across West London and beyond) had used the venue to discuss plans for its forthcoming general election campaign in the Feltham & Heston constituency, as well as its proposed participation in the local elections. Although it aspires to contest all sixty council seats, it currently admits to having only four volunteers, at least one of whom is believed to live in Brentford.
ICG councillors have worked hard to promote unity and cohesion in their wards and believe the BNP strategy was to destabilise these communities and to divide residents on the basis of their ethnicity. The landlord of the pub, which has a multi-cultural clientele, was grateful for our intervention.
Our work against the BNP is actively supported by council colleagues from all the major political groups and we would like to acknowledge and thank them for their help in achieving this result.
The landlord of an Isleworth pub which unwittingly played host to a meeting of the far-right British National Party (BNP) on Wednesday evening will not be re-admitting his unwanted guests after the ICG exposed their true identity.
The "Hounslow" BNP (in reality a motley collection of activists from all across West London and beyond) had used the venue to discuss plans for its forthcoming general election campaign in the Feltham & Heston constituency, as well as its proposed participation in the local elections. Although it aspires to contest all sixty council seats, it currently admits to having only four volunteers, at least one of whom is believed to live in Brentford.
ICG councillors have worked hard to promote unity and cohesion in their wards and believe the BNP strategy was to destabilise these communities and to divide residents on the basis of their ethnicity. The landlord of the pub, which has a multi-cultural clientele, was grateful for our intervention.
Our work against the BNP is actively supported by council colleagues from all the major political groups and we would like to acknowledge and thank them for their help in achieving this result.
Thursday, 27 August 2009
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?
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?
Friday, 7 August 2009
New Labour - has the grass-roots finally had enough?
I had an interesting conversation over a pint yesterday with somebody who has been active in the local Labour Party for some time.
Nothing particularly spectacular or out of the ordinary about that, but what was out of the ordinary was that he asked me a question. The reason that was out of the ordinary was that it was the third time that particular question - unthinkable from anybody involved with the Labour Party until very recently - had been asked of me by a party member in recent weeks. And all three were from different wards, making the prospect of collusion a bit less likely.
I won't divulge what the question was, far less the answer that I gave, but what it suggested to me was that some sections of the party are beginning to think outside the box in a quite radical way. I have always believed that there are some good people involved with the Labour Party in this borough whose creativity, independence of thought and genuine concern for the welfare of the community has been stifled for so many years. It was inevitable that, one day, a straw would break the proverbial camel's back and all that goodwill would come rushing to the surface.
It may well be that the straw in this instance was the local party's reassertion of its support for the candidacy of the awful Ann Keen at the forthcoming general election in the face of all the revelations about her expense claims, her taxpayer-funded second home, the mysteries surrounding the fact that neither she nor her husband would seem to have been anywhere near their "first" home for over a year, and the controversy around her claim for private medical treatment.
It is obvious to me that decent members were hanging on to the slender hope that the party would replace her with an electable candidate. Their hopes were cruelly dashed by the news, which for some peculiar reason the local party deemed worthy of a big publicity splash when, in strategic terms, it was about as deserving of announcement as an outbreak of flatulence in a crowded lift. The question is, now the deed has been done, do they stand and watch as what is left of the local party kisses its ass goodbye, or do they search for a radical solution to the party's predicament?
We are always willing to speak, with strictest confidence assured, with any well-meaning member of the local Labour Party who is concerned for its future. We believe that the existence of a Labour Party, in some form or another, is not only desirable but essential to our local politics. With those party members who desire to see a stronger, more vibrant and engaged community - and there are certainly some - we have a commonality of interest.
As Bob Hoskins will tell you, it's good to talk.
Nothing particularly spectacular or out of the ordinary about that, but what was out of the ordinary was that he asked me a question. The reason that was out of the ordinary was that it was the third time that particular question - unthinkable from anybody involved with the Labour Party until very recently - had been asked of me by a party member in recent weeks. And all three were from different wards, making the prospect of collusion a bit less likely.
I won't divulge what the question was, far less the answer that I gave, but what it suggested to me was that some sections of the party are beginning to think outside the box in a quite radical way. I have always believed that there are some good people involved with the Labour Party in this borough whose creativity, independence of thought and genuine concern for the welfare of the community has been stifled for so many years. It was inevitable that, one day, a straw would break the proverbial camel's back and all that goodwill would come rushing to the surface.
It may well be that the straw in this instance was the local party's reassertion of its support for the candidacy of the awful Ann Keen at the forthcoming general election in the face of all the revelations about her expense claims, her taxpayer-funded second home, the mysteries surrounding the fact that neither she nor her husband would seem to have been anywhere near their "first" home for over a year, and the controversy around her claim for private medical treatment.
It is obvious to me that decent members were hanging on to the slender hope that the party would replace her with an electable candidate. Their hopes were cruelly dashed by the news, which for some peculiar reason the local party deemed worthy of a big publicity splash when, in strategic terms, it was about as deserving of announcement as an outbreak of flatulence in a crowded lift. The question is, now the deed has been done, do they stand and watch as what is left of the local party kisses its ass goodbye, or do they search for a radical solution to the party's predicament?
We are always willing to speak, with strictest confidence assured, with any well-meaning member of the local Labour Party who is concerned for its future. We believe that the existence of a Labour Party, in some form or another, is not only desirable but essential to our local politics. With those party members who desire to see a stronger, more vibrant and engaged community - and there are certainly some - we have a commonality of interest.
As Bob Hoskins will tell you, it's good to talk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)