“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.
Showing posts with label LBH Community Group. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LBH Community Group. Show all posts
Sunday, 19 August 2012
Monday, 6 August 2012
Lib Dems MUST Punish this Betrayal, for the Sake of Decency in Politics
If all the rumours are true, as all those we assume to be in the know would appear to accept they are, the Conservatives are about to stab their Liberal Democrat partners in the back and betray their promise, enshrined within the terms of the Coalition Agreement, to support reform of the House of Lords.
Forget all the dishonest spin and weasel words about the Agreement making no reference to specific detail that is contained in the proposals that are now being made. If Conservative backbench unease was about detail it would have been possible for the two parties of government to have amended the proposals between them in such a way as to address any legitimate concerns. The bottom line is that a substantial body of opinion within the parliamentary Conservative Party is wedded to the whole notion of inequality and privilege in politics as are, to their eternal disgrace, most of the so-called "progressives" of the Labour Party. Not for nothing did Labour's Peter Hain describe the current Lib Dem-inspired attempt to reform the second chamber as a once in a lifetime opportunity.
The argument that now is the "wrong time" due to there being "other priorities" is also a cop out. There will always be economic issues to address. There will never be a time when there will not be one national or international concern or another which can be given priority over constitutional reform if we look hard enough for an excuse to place the issue onto the back burner for another hundred years. The bottom line is that we cannot claim as a society to be committed to fairness and equality of opportunity for as long as our institutions themselves are based upon patronage and favour.
The stark fact of the matter is that the Conservatives, having wrested Lib Dem support for their unpopular and ideologically driven austerity programme, given in good faith, are now preparing to renege on their promise to their partners to honour their side of the bargain. It is a thing that the big parties do. As somebody who was Leader of a minority group at the London Borough of Hounslow in coalition with the Conservatives from 2006 to 2010 the pattern of behaviour is instantly familiar to me.
I have only bad news for Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. The situation will get worse. As the next general election begins to approach their partners will figure that it will become increasingly difficult for them to cut and run. Throw a few spanners into the works, employ a few delaying tactics to stretch things out for a year or two, and suddenly it will have become nigh on impossible for the Lib Dems to abandon the coalition without being accused of extreme cynicism in the run-up to an election.
The fear of heavy electoral losses, itself a consequence of Lib Dem participation in the coalition, will also play heavily on the minds of the party's elected members when it comes to contemplating taking the very drastic step of forcing an early election by walking away from a one-sided coalition. Self-interest will almost inevitably win the day and so the coalition will limp on grumpily until 2015 at which time the Lib Dems will lose most of their seats, dispense with their leader and set about the long, painstaking but at some point probably successful task of placing some distance between themselves and this whole regrettable episode and eventually regaining lost ground.
What seems clear to me is that the big parties attract and encourage a mentality in which intrigue, behind-the-scenes plotting and betrayal are considered a necessary and inevitable feature of political discourse and one which some of those involved actually find quite exciting. Just behold for a moment the smug, fatuous grin on the face of the career politician on Question Time or Newsnight as he or she smarmily avoids answering a question and you will clearly see for yourself what I mean - these people actually believe that by the practice of spin and deceit they are in some way being clever rather than just deceitful.
In the course of its betrayal the senior partner will have powerful allies. In Hounslow it was senior officers of the Council, not necessarily supportive of the Conservatives but wedded to the old establishment practices to which they had become accustomed under Labour and fearful of the radical agenda promoted by the Community Group on the Council which I led. In the case of the government it will be the largely Conservative press, and we can be sure that between now and 2015 the Daily Mail and other such esteemed organs of the establishment will be drip-feeding us juicy titbits of information, and non-information, about the junior coalition partner for our edification.
Meanwhile another plank of the Coalition Agreement concerns proposed electoral boundary changes, due to be introduced before the next election, which will favour the Conservatives at the expense of the Lib Dems and the Labour Party. The rationale of the changes is that they will bring more integrity to the process of government by rectifying inequalities that have developed within the present alignment of constituency seats.
Through their betrayal over Lords reform the Conservatives will have demonstrated that they have no interest in bringing more integrity to government, nor in rectifying inequality. As such the Liberal Democrats will no longer have any moral obligation to support the proposed changes.
Furthermore, the Conservatives will already have set the precedent that coalition promises need not be honoured.
It is almost certainly too late for the Lib Dems to reverse the hemorrhaging of their own support that their participation in the coalition government has brought about. Nevertheless it is essential that that loss of support is not exacerbated by the complete loss of credibility that will ensue should they roll over and simply accept the bad faith shown to them by their untrustworthy partners.
In my view it is of critical importance that the Lib Dems punish the impending betrayal by withdrawing their support for boundary changes and making it crystal clear why they have done so. Their partners will whine like stuck pigs and no doubt some of them will genuinely be too stupid to understand why it has happened, in the same way as some of the Conservatives on Hounslow Council were shocked when we failed to support their 2010 budget following the Mogden debacle, when our partners refused to back us in our quarrel with chief officers over the nuisance caused to residents by a local sewage plant "managed" by Thames Water (which has donated money to the Conservative Party).
Not only will such a response be crucial if the Liberal Democrats are to maintain any dignity and self-respect at all, but I also truly believe that punishing underhandedness and betrayal will send precisely the right message to the spinners and backstabbers who seem to dominate modern party politics that their way doesn't actually pay.
In other words it will, in the long run, be beneficial not only to the Lib Dems but indeed to all those politicians, including those within the Conservative and Labour parties, of which I have no doubt there are many, who do actually appreciate the importance of good faith and integrity in our politics.
Forget all the dishonest spin and weasel words about the Agreement making no reference to specific detail that is contained in the proposals that are now being made. If Conservative backbench unease was about detail it would have been possible for the two parties of government to have amended the proposals between them in such a way as to address any legitimate concerns. The bottom line is that a substantial body of opinion within the parliamentary Conservative Party is wedded to the whole notion of inequality and privilege in politics as are, to their eternal disgrace, most of the so-called "progressives" of the Labour Party. Not for nothing did Labour's Peter Hain describe the current Lib Dem-inspired attempt to reform the second chamber as a once in a lifetime opportunity.
The argument that now is the "wrong time" due to there being "other priorities" is also a cop out. There will always be economic issues to address. There will never be a time when there will not be one national or international concern or another which can be given priority over constitutional reform if we look hard enough for an excuse to place the issue onto the back burner for another hundred years. The bottom line is that we cannot claim as a society to be committed to fairness and equality of opportunity for as long as our institutions themselves are based upon patronage and favour.
The stark fact of the matter is that the Conservatives, having wrested Lib Dem support for their unpopular and ideologically driven austerity programme, given in good faith, are now preparing to renege on their promise to their partners to honour their side of the bargain. It is a thing that the big parties do. As somebody who was Leader of a minority group at the London Borough of Hounslow in coalition with the Conservatives from 2006 to 2010 the pattern of behaviour is instantly familiar to me.
I have only bad news for Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. The situation will get worse. As the next general election begins to approach their partners will figure that it will become increasingly difficult for them to cut and run. Throw a few spanners into the works, employ a few delaying tactics to stretch things out for a year or two, and suddenly it will have become nigh on impossible for the Lib Dems to abandon the coalition without being accused of extreme cynicism in the run-up to an election.
The fear of heavy electoral losses, itself a consequence of Lib Dem participation in the coalition, will also play heavily on the minds of the party's elected members when it comes to contemplating taking the very drastic step of forcing an early election by walking away from a one-sided coalition. Self-interest will almost inevitably win the day and so the coalition will limp on grumpily until 2015 at which time the Lib Dems will lose most of their seats, dispense with their leader and set about the long, painstaking but at some point probably successful task of placing some distance between themselves and this whole regrettable episode and eventually regaining lost ground.
What seems clear to me is that the big parties attract and encourage a mentality in which intrigue, behind-the-scenes plotting and betrayal are considered a necessary and inevitable feature of political discourse and one which some of those involved actually find quite exciting. Just behold for a moment the smug, fatuous grin on the face of the career politician on Question Time or Newsnight as he or she smarmily avoids answering a question and you will clearly see for yourself what I mean - these people actually believe that by the practice of spin and deceit they are in some way being clever rather than just deceitful.
In the course of its betrayal the senior partner will have powerful allies. In Hounslow it was senior officers of the Council, not necessarily supportive of the Conservatives but wedded to the old establishment practices to which they had become accustomed under Labour and fearful of the radical agenda promoted by the Community Group on the Council which I led. In the case of the government it will be the largely Conservative press, and we can be sure that between now and 2015 the Daily Mail and other such esteemed organs of the establishment will be drip-feeding us juicy titbits of information, and non-information, about the junior coalition partner for our edification.
Meanwhile another plank of the Coalition Agreement concerns proposed electoral boundary changes, due to be introduced before the next election, which will favour the Conservatives at the expense of the Lib Dems and the Labour Party. The rationale of the changes is that they will bring more integrity to the process of government by rectifying inequalities that have developed within the present alignment of constituency seats.
Through their betrayal over Lords reform the Conservatives will have demonstrated that they have no interest in bringing more integrity to government, nor in rectifying inequality. As such the Liberal Democrats will no longer have any moral obligation to support the proposed changes.
Furthermore, the Conservatives will already have set the precedent that coalition promises need not be honoured.
It is almost certainly too late for the Lib Dems to reverse the hemorrhaging of their own support that their participation in the coalition government has brought about. Nevertheless it is essential that that loss of support is not exacerbated by the complete loss of credibility that will ensue should they roll over and simply accept the bad faith shown to them by their untrustworthy partners.
In my view it is of critical importance that the Lib Dems punish the impending betrayal by withdrawing their support for boundary changes and making it crystal clear why they have done so. Their partners will whine like stuck pigs and no doubt some of them will genuinely be too stupid to understand why it has happened, in the same way as some of the Conservatives on Hounslow Council were shocked when we failed to support their 2010 budget following the Mogden debacle, when our partners refused to back us in our quarrel with chief officers over the nuisance caused to residents by a local sewage plant "managed" by Thames Water (which has donated money to the Conservative Party).
Not only will such a response be crucial if the Liberal Democrats are to maintain any dignity and self-respect at all, but I also truly believe that punishing underhandedness and betrayal will send precisely the right message to the spinners and backstabbers who seem to dominate modern party politics that their way doesn't actually pay.
In other words it will, in the long run, be beneficial not only to the Lib Dems but indeed to all those politicians, including those within the Conservative and Labour parties, of which I have no doubt there are many, who do actually appreciate the importance of good faith and integrity in our politics.
Thursday, 2 September 2010
ICG must be more than a localised anti-Labour pressure group - a personal viewpoint
It is common knowledge that the ICG was launched back in 1994 as a residents' response to the controlling influence that the Labour administration at the London Borough of Hounslow then enjoyed over every aspect of organised community life in what was then the electoral ward of Isleworth South.
In those days it was to all intents and purposes obligatory for amenity groups, civic societies and residents' associations to congest their top tables with Labour politicians, apparatchiks who understood that their brief was to represent the party interest at all times, and to pursue the party objective from within whichever host body they had managed to worm their way into. There was never much attempt made to conceal what was going on. Labour were the community's lords and masters and it was generally understood that non-compliance would inevitably lead to the full weight of the local establishment being brought down upon transgressors and, in all likelihood, offending associations and groups finding themselves being strangled out of existence by fair means or foul, with a marked preference for the latter.
Things have moved on today. After twelve years of ICG representation in Isleworth and four years in Syon residents' groups enjoy relative freedom of association even under a new Labour administration. Our community would never tolerate a return to the bad old ways in spite of a few damp and doomed recent efforts on the part of certain of the new councillors to dictate to local groups whom they may or may not associate with. On the community front, ICG members should recognise with some pride that they have changed the rules of engagement for good.
Notwithstanding these entirely positive developments it is understandable that ICG members should continue to be driven to anger by some of the antics of their traditional adversary. When we read the Labour election leaflets back in April promising potential voters that they would put 100 new uniformed officers onto the streets of "this area" (undefined) and clearly worded in such a way as to lead the public to believe they meant police officers, we knew full well that a confidence trick was being pulled on the voting public. The ink had barely dried on the ballot papers before all was revealed - the officers in question would be council officers, and the reference to "new uniformed officers" actually meant that existing officers would be issued with new uniforms (well we didn't actually use the word "police" officers, did we? Tee hee, giggle giggle).
Those of us who contested Isleworth ward and had the dubious pleasure of reading a leaflet from an Ivybridge-based Labour supporter (actually a former ICG member with the morals of a rattlesnake who would appear to have defected upon the promise of some personal reward) claiming to have attended an ICG Committee meeting at which plans to sell off local authority housing stock were said to have been discussed - a claim which was a complete fabrication as no such meeting or discussion had ever taken place - are entitled to feel aggrieved.
I have still not received an apology, and frankly don't expect one, from the local Labour Party Chair for the lie contained in a leaflet issued in his name that I own a holiday home in Portugal when he knows full well the truth is that, unlike him, I don't even own the roof over my own head.
But the fact is that, whatever we may think of their methods and their morals, the Labour Party won the election and did so by a fairly convincing margin. Yes, we can with justification point to the exceptional circumstances under which the election was fought and the fact that our own vote actually increased significantly despite our defeat. But we must accept the verdict all the same, and look not to what might have been but to the future.
That is why I think it would be a mistake, both tactically and ethically, for our members to attack the new administration gratuitously without some acknowledgement of its right to a "bedding in" period, or recognition that it might - just might - be prepared to learn from some of its previous errors. This mistake is in my view compounded when criticism of the new administration comes accompanied by complete silence over the appalling treatment we received at the hands of our own so-called partners during the later days of the coalition (I happen to think that for the first two to two and a half years the arrangement worked rather well and demonstrated the value of trust in any partnership).
I have already drawn attention on this blog to the fact that, even whilst we were in coalition, at least three members of the Community Group on the local authority were approached by the Conservatives and asked to defect to them. I have no doubt that all those approached are bright enough to understand that this attempt had precious little to do with their own talents being sought after (although all three were very talented councillors), but was instead simply an attempt to actually use the cover provided by the coalition to undermine the ICG as an organisation and to step into our shoes in Isleworth and Syon wards.
This is what you get when you treat with big party politicians. The robotic allegiance to a rosette which leads them to favour a bad councillor sporting a particular colour over a good councillor sporting another is present on both sides of the chamber. Sometimes there is not even any logic to what is going on - on several occasions a good working relationship was thrown into jeopardy with no obvious benefit to be gained from doing so. The fable of The Frog and The Scorpion frequently presents itself when one is dealing with the political big boys. They do it because it is what they do.
As I have previously indicated the ICG has yet to decide what it is going to do, elections wise, in the future. Speaking personally, when we say we want to give the new administration a fair opportunity to prove itself I believe we should mean it. But if we do decide to continue along the electoral path we will need to give some thought to what we would want to achieve from having ICG councillors re-elected to office. How would we use the balance of power from opposition for the benefit of our residents? What would be the role of our councillors under the different circumstances in which they would find themselves?
For me all roads lead to the ideal of a third power in local politics (although I like it I avoid the term "third force" as it has reactionary connotations in French, South African and Northern Irish history). Such a power could probably not, in my view, involve one organised party but rather an agreement between several smaller groups that some level of common effort and pooling of resources is desirable. We need to be in a position to confront big party politics all across the borough with a view to seeking real culture change at the Civic Centre.
And we need to do it soon. The big parties will both know that if they can sustain their carve-up for another election the momentum that has sustained the ICG and other local groups and parties may not be maintained. For them to move into Syon, Isleworth and other areas formerly represented by vibrant small parties or independent groups and to smother our communities once again with their bland, anodyne brand of politics, devoid of imagination and lacking in any kind of vision, would be an absolute tragedy after everything we have been through.
It is my sincerely held view that the ICG needs to think hard about where it stands, if indeed it stands at all, in the the vast gladiatorial arena that is our local politics. Yes, we should certainly continue to expose the shortcomings of our traditional Labour adversary, particularly now that it is in office and its words and actions impact on the lives of every member of our community. But we need also to accept that our enemy's enemy is not always our friend and that in the wider scheme of things there is actually some convergence of interest between the big players who may on the surface of it appear to be inveterate rivals, interest which both will be at pains to conserve.
We are the same ICG, with the same objectives, as we have always been but sometimes the world about us changes and we need to move on and adopt new strategies to confront new challenges.
In those days it was to all intents and purposes obligatory for amenity groups, civic societies and residents' associations to congest their top tables with Labour politicians, apparatchiks who understood that their brief was to represent the party interest at all times, and to pursue the party objective from within whichever host body they had managed to worm their way into. There was never much attempt made to conceal what was going on. Labour were the community's lords and masters and it was generally understood that non-compliance would inevitably lead to the full weight of the local establishment being brought down upon transgressors and, in all likelihood, offending associations and groups finding themselves being strangled out of existence by fair means or foul, with a marked preference for the latter.
Things have moved on today. After twelve years of ICG representation in Isleworth and four years in Syon residents' groups enjoy relative freedom of association even under a new Labour administration. Our community would never tolerate a return to the bad old ways in spite of a few damp and doomed recent efforts on the part of certain of the new councillors to dictate to local groups whom they may or may not associate with. On the community front, ICG members should recognise with some pride that they have changed the rules of engagement for good.
Notwithstanding these entirely positive developments it is understandable that ICG members should continue to be driven to anger by some of the antics of their traditional adversary. When we read the Labour election leaflets back in April promising potential voters that they would put 100 new uniformed officers onto the streets of "this area" (undefined) and clearly worded in such a way as to lead the public to believe they meant police officers, we knew full well that a confidence trick was being pulled on the voting public. The ink had barely dried on the ballot papers before all was revealed - the officers in question would be council officers, and the reference to "new uniformed officers" actually meant that existing officers would be issued with new uniforms (well we didn't actually use the word "police" officers, did we? Tee hee, giggle giggle).
Those of us who contested Isleworth ward and had the dubious pleasure of reading a leaflet from an Ivybridge-based Labour supporter (actually a former ICG member with the morals of a rattlesnake who would appear to have defected upon the promise of some personal reward) claiming to have attended an ICG Committee meeting at which plans to sell off local authority housing stock were said to have been discussed - a claim which was a complete fabrication as no such meeting or discussion had ever taken place - are entitled to feel aggrieved.
I have still not received an apology, and frankly don't expect one, from the local Labour Party Chair for the lie contained in a leaflet issued in his name that I own a holiday home in Portugal when he knows full well the truth is that, unlike him, I don't even own the roof over my own head.
But the fact is that, whatever we may think of their methods and their morals, the Labour Party won the election and did so by a fairly convincing margin. Yes, we can with justification point to the exceptional circumstances under which the election was fought and the fact that our own vote actually increased significantly despite our defeat. But we must accept the verdict all the same, and look not to what might have been but to the future.
That is why I think it would be a mistake, both tactically and ethically, for our members to attack the new administration gratuitously without some acknowledgement of its right to a "bedding in" period, or recognition that it might - just might - be prepared to learn from some of its previous errors. This mistake is in my view compounded when criticism of the new administration comes accompanied by complete silence over the appalling treatment we received at the hands of our own so-called partners during the later days of the coalition (I happen to think that for the first two to two and a half years the arrangement worked rather well and demonstrated the value of trust in any partnership).
I have already drawn attention on this blog to the fact that, even whilst we were in coalition, at least three members of the Community Group on the local authority were approached by the Conservatives and asked to defect to them. I have no doubt that all those approached are bright enough to understand that this attempt had precious little to do with their own talents being sought after (although all three were very talented councillors), but was instead simply an attempt to actually use the cover provided by the coalition to undermine the ICG as an organisation and to step into our shoes in Isleworth and Syon wards.
This is what you get when you treat with big party politicians. The robotic allegiance to a rosette which leads them to favour a bad councillor sporting a particular colour over a good councillor sporting another is present on both sides of the chamber. Sometimes there is not even any logic to what is going on - on several occasions a good working relationship was thrown into jeopardy with no obvious benefit to be gained from doing so. The fable of The Frog and The Scorpion frequently presents itself when one is dealing with the political big boys. They do it because it is what they do.
As I have previously indicated the ICG has yet to decide what it is going to do, elections wise, in the future. Speaking personally, when we say we want to give the new administration a fair opportunity to prove itself I believe we should mean it. But if we do decide to continue along the electoral path we will need to give some thought to what we would want to achieve from having ICG councillors re-elected to office. How would we use the balance of power from opposition for the benefit of our residents? What would be the role of our councillors under the different circumstances in which they would find themselves?
For me all roads lead to the ideal of a third power in local politics (although I like it I avoid the term "third force" as it has reactionary connotations in French, South African and Northern Irish history). Such a power could probably not, in my view, involve one organised party but rather an agreement between several smaller groups that some level of common effort and pooling of resources is desirable. We need to be in a position to confront big party politics all across the borough with a view to seeking real culture change at the Civic Centre.
And we need to do it soon. The big parties will both know that if they can sustain their carve-up for another election the momentum that has sustained the ICG and other local groups and parties may not be maintained. For them to move into Syon, Isleworth and other areas formerly represented by vibrant small parties or independent groups and to smother our communities once again with their bland, anodyne brand of politics, devoid of imagination and lacking in any kind of vision, would be an absolute tragedy after everything we have been through.
It is my sincerely held view that the ICG needs to think hard about where it stands, if indeed it stands at all, in the the vast gladiatorial arena that is our local politics. Yes, we should certainly continue to expose the shortcomings of our traditional Labour adversary, particularly now that it is in office and its words and actions impact on the lives of every member of our community. But we need also to accept that our enemy's enemy is not always our friend and that in the wider scheme of things there is actually some convergence of interest between the big players who may on the surface of it appear to be inveterate rivals, interest which both will be at pains to conserve.
We are the same ICG, with the same objectives, as we have always been but sometimes the world about us changes and we need to move on and adopt new strategies to confront new challenges.
Saturday, 27 February 2010
Approaching the budget for 2010/11
This week the Community Group on the London Borough of Hounslow put out the following statement to various local news media:
"THE Community Group on the London Borough of Hounslow wants to deliver an “aspirational” budget that combines low tax with opportunities for increased engagement with residents.
"This week the Leader of the Council Peter Thompson announced his intention of delivering a fourth consecutive Council Tax freeze for the year 2010/11. The Community Group, which runs the local authority in coalition with the Conservatives, expressed its delight at being able to present another low tax budget but called upon the administration to be 'bold and imaginative' in using available funds to strengthen local democracy and empower communities.
"Community Group Leader Phil Andrews commented: 'The Leader of the Council deserves a lot of credit for spearheading this administration’s successful efforts to produce a zero increase budget under such difficult circumstances, and it is to his credit that he has taken on board concerns about some of the proposals that were floated in December, and which following discussions have now been withdrawn.
“'We are proud to be associated with such an achievement and it is our hope that it will be accompanied by some bold and imaginative measures to direct resources towards empowering our community.
“'We want to see an aspirational budget that does something tangible to demonstrate our commitment to strengthening local democracy rather than just cutting tax. We are still discussing a few options and are likely to support the proposals if we can incorporate some of our objectives into the end product.'”
We mean everything we said in the statement. We have supported 0% budgets for the past three years and are happy to do so again. We recognise that, particularly in times of recession, even a small increase in Council Tax can penalise those on low incomes disproportionately.
But when all is said and done I personally do not find myself getting all excited about tax cuts. Some seem to derive an almost sexual relief from making savings and seeing a lower figure at the foot of a balance sheet. Such people have probably got a lot more money than I have, and it's not difficult to see why.
What I as a community advocate want to see is a budget that uses itself as a good excuse for rolling out the Community Empowerment agenda further. It needn't cost much, or even anything, to do but it sends our constituents - the people who elected us in preference to the politicians in the hope and expectation that we would effect positive change in our communities - the message that we are doing what we promised local people when they entrusted us with their votes. Without this aspect forming part of the budget proposals, I would be inclined to stay at home and watch telly.
The feeling I have is that our case is being heard. After all, at the end of the day those whose interest in the budget proposals begins and ends with a series of digits after a pound sign are unlikely to be fazed by a shopping list which doesn't involve shelling out a lot of money. Everything we bring to the process has a Buy One, Get One Free label affixed to it.
Monday's Group Meeting will be when we finally decide what we are going to do. But I am hoping my community gets a double result on Tuesday night - more say and less tax.
Community Group seeks
"aspirational" budget next week
X"aspirational" budget next week
"THE Community Group on the London Borough of Hounslow wants to deliver an “aspirational” budget that combines low tax with opportunities for increased engagement with residents.
"This week the Leader of the Council Peter Thompson announced his intention of delivering a fourth consecutive Council Tax freeze for the year 2010/11. The Community Group, which runs the local authority in coalition with the Conservatives, expressed its delight at being able to present another low tax budget but called upon the administration to be 'bold and imaginative' in using available funds to strengthen local democracy and empower communities.
"Community Group Leader Phil Andrews commented: 'The Leader of the Council deserves a lot of credit for spearheading this administration’s successful efforts to produce a zero increase budget under such difficult circumstances, and it is to his credit that he has taken on board concerns about some of the proposals that were floated in December, and which following discussions have now been withdrawn.
“'We are proud to be associated with such an achievement and it is our hope that it will be accompanied by some bold and imaginative measures to direct resources towards empowering our community.
“'We want to see an aspirational budget that does something tangible to demonstrate our commitment to strengthening local democracy rather than just cutting tax. We are still discussing a few options and are likely to support the proposals if we can incorporate some of our objectives into the end product.'”
We mean everything we said in the statement. We have supported 0% budgets for the past three years and are happy to do so again. We recognise that, particularly in times of recession, even a small increase in Council Tax can penalise those on low incomes disproportionately.
But when all is said and done I personally do not find myself getting all excited about tax cuts. Some seem to derive an almost sexual relief from making savings and seeing a lower figure at the foot of a balance sheet. Such people have probably got a lot more money than I have, and it's not difficult to see why.
What I as a community advocate want to see is a budget that uses itself as a good excuse for rolling out the Community Empowerment agenda further. It needn't cost much, or even anything, to do but it sends our constituents - the people who elected us in preference to the politicians in the hope and expectation that we would effect positive change in our communities - the message that we are doing what we promised local people when they entrusted us with their votes. Without this aspect forming part of the budget proposals, I would be inclined to stay at home and watch telly.
The feeling I have is that our case is being heard. After all, at the end of the day those whose interest in the budget proposals begins and ends with a series of digits after a pound sign are unlikely to be fazed by a shopping list which doesn't involve shelling out a lot of money. Everything we bring to the process has a Buy One, Get One Free label affixed to it.
Monday's Group Meeting will be when we finally decide what we are going to do. But I am hoping my community gets a double result on Tuesday night - more say and less tax.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)