Forum Topic

GarethAll political parties and groups tailor the information they give on their published material in order to show themselves in the best possible light and their opponents in the worst.  Rightly or wrongly, this has always been the way.What sets New Labour's strategists apart, particularly in this part of the world, is that it seems to be of no consequence to them whether there is any factual basis whatsoever for the claims which they make.  They seem of the view that the local electorate is stupid enough to believe anything, and that anything can be justified just so long as it is believed.Take the material which they circulated in Isleworth ward at the 2002 local elections.  In one leaflet they claimed the credit for the successful completion of a programme of window replacements on the Ivybridge estate.  And yet the fact is that even now, over three years later, the programme still hasn't been completed.Another leaflet boasted of all the excellent work which Isleworth Labour councillors had performed on the "Redlees Park Estate".  When we pointed out, through a local newspaper, that in fact no such place existed they explained that the leaflets had been published by "someone at Head Office" (yes, that one again!) and admitted that a mistake had been made.  But this didn't stop them from continuing to distribute the leaflet containing a claim which they accepted to be completely fictitious!My suspicion is that the leaflet which Conal is trying to get to the bottom of will, if it comes to it, be explained away in the same manner.Fortunately, although they still command a majority in both local and general elections that majority has fallen consistently in recent years, and it is only a matter of time before a sufficient number of voters see through them to enable us to consign them to the obscurity which their unprincipled conduct so richly deserves.

Phil Andrews ● 7281d

"The only person that wants us to keep quite about the NF and your own past is you and your supporters"AlanI know you are not going to take any notice of anything I say but I can only assure you that you are so, so wrong.You repeat the well-known fact that I was once a member of the National Front time and time again, in a way which suggests that you are very pleased with yourself and that you believe you are imparting information which I don't want people to have.  You honestly could not be more mistaken if you tried.I want people to know about my political history because I want to be judged with all my cards on the table.  If this was a big issue with the ICG why do you suppose I was selected to be its general election candidate?  There are plenty of other members without my political history, and although your party would think nothing of suggesting that other ICG members did have a National Front agenda you would have to be careful about how you put this across because you have already admitted this in a court of law to be a Labour fabrication.To say it again - yet again - the only time I become angry with your strategy is when it is deliberately used to cause fear amongst minority communities.  It would seem I am going to have accept that you are not capable of understanding this and move on.I sincerely feel that the National Front have come to Brentford & Isleworth because the endless publicity which they have received in this area without even being active would have led them to believe that it would be fertile ground for recruitment.  If this bothered you you would have sought my views on this because, of all people, I do know how they think.  I think it is somewhat revealing that you have not had a word to say about the presence of the National Front locally, yet you continue to attack the ICG in a manner which is almost pathological.  This says rather a lot to me about your political priorities.Could you please explain to us on precisely what grounds you apparently consider the ICG to be a greater threat to the things you believe in than the National Front?

Phil Andrews ● 7281d

You don't need to tell me that the Labour Party is guilty of engaging in fear-mongering.  It's quite fitting that the flipside of their argument of your past associations is that they themselves have rather over-egged the threat of terrorism which in itself has increased racial tension and lended much support to the Tory Part's promotion of racial hatred on the issues of immigration and asylum seekers.I remember Ann making daft comments about the government's efforts to boost security at Heathrow Airport and in the area around the airport from attack.  Like two dozen tanks stationed all over Hounslow are going to stop a suicide bomber on a plane or a rocket launcher in a backyard anyway!?  Makes even less sense when there is a sizeable Asian- Muslim minority in the Borough who stand to be at risk from hysterical Labour Party fear-mongering.  People who used to be solidly Labour.Apparently if you are scared enough you'll vote Labour and fear people like you Phil.  It's a Tory trick that works as much for Labour.I am under no illusion as to your early past in the NF, I don't much like it but then at least you are honest and understand that it's important to state this in the public arena. People do change politically over time owing to their life experiences. Sheerins isn't astute enough to comprehend this ( I really hate having to correct and educate people much older than myself).  I voted Labour once upon a time.  And I am utterly ashamed I helped put them in power.  Like you I was young, foolish, and mis-guided. Accepting that you make mistakes is dignified and human.  That's just another thing Sheerins isn't capable of doing: re: his election leaflets.Like I said previously, Alan Sheerins seems quick to forget that his own party consists of people with a past, pasts that he prefers to conveniently ignore. He has a past too. Don't you Alan?

Conal Stewart ● 7282d

ConalI appreciate your support on this, but there is a reason for Alan's ludicrous insistence upon including a reference to my past membership of the National Front in virtually every posting he makes.He and his people also still seem to believe that my former NF membership is something of a secret of which only they are aware, and that they need only to point out this fact to my family, friends and neighbours and I will be forever shunned.  As well as revealing a wholly undeserved superiority complex, this also gives some indication of how detached they are from the community in which I live, and which they aspire once again to lord it over.He also labours (ugh!) under the rather peculiar misapprehension that I become agitated when any reference to it is made.  He is actually quite wrong - I frequently refer to my former NF membership myself, because as one who presently seeks public office I feel it is something people are entitled to know.What, I must admit, does annoy me is when Alan (and others) try to exploit my past associations as a deliberate means of injecting fear into the community, and amongst ethnic minorities in particular, in order to frighten people into voting for his candidates as a defence against a "threat" which he knows does not truthfully exist.Most normal people would be able to spot the difference between the two.  As a member of a party which has become so completely devoid of any understanding of the basic concepts of right and wrong, Alan unfortunately cannot.It is likely that the actions of Alan and his cronies played a major part in persuading the real National Front to contest the general election in Brentford & Isleworth,by raising its profile in the area with their constant references and thus leading them to believe that the constituency would provide them with fertile ground.Will we get an apology from Alan and his gang for importing into our community a very real threat to race relations?  Will we heck, because the truth is he doesn't really give a toss.  All that will matter to him is whether or not the presence of the National Front in the area can be exploited for votes for his rotten party.This is how the Labour Party viewed the National Front when I was a member, only I was too stupid to see it at the time.  It also explains their obvious disappointment when I left and renounced its views, and why they have strained every sinew to keep the "racist threat" alive ever since.When I do finally get around to writing my book about my early years as a far-right activist, the local Labour Party will be getting a special chapter all to itself.

Phil Andrews ● 7282d

Jim Very nice of ‘New Labour’ to keep us advised as to how they are spending our money, rather a shame that in doing so they actually can’t give us the true figures. The £100 million that the ‘New Labour’ election leaflets claims credit for is actually less, according to Hounslow Homes own website, reporting as it does, the figure as £90 million.  Where the additional £10 million that ‘New Labour’ claims credit for is actually coming from is anyone’s guess. If and when the extra £10 million arrives, I’m confident that it will be willingly accepted by Hounslow Homes. The £90 million government carrot hides the fact that the government are holding a stick over Hounslow Homes and that a condition of Hounslow Homes getting the £90 million is that Hounslow Homes has to bring its housing stock up to Decent Homes Standard by 2010, less than five years away. The £90 million will improve conditions for tenants and leaseholders alike, all tenants and leaseholders will benefit, to some degree or other. However, as Hounslow Homes manage 16,762 properties, including leasehold properties, the £90 million isn’t going to go too far, as the average sum equates to £5,369.29 per property, before fees are taken out. To meet the ‘Decent Homes Standard’, a property has to meet the following criteria: 1. it must meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing2. it must be in a reasonable state of repair 3. it must have reasonably modern facilities and services 4. it must provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfortGovernment figures state that at this stage a third of all housing falls below the decent home standard set by the government. The law defines the ‘statutory minimum standard’ for housing. A good surveyor should be able to define if the fabric of the building and the property itself needs major works and is in a ‘reasonable state of repair’. As for ‘reasonably modern facilities and services’, if a kitchen was fitted over 20 years ago, or if a bathroom was fitted over 30 years ago, tenants stand a fair chance of having a new kitchen and bathroom. The property should also have effective insulation and efficient heating, that’s the ‘reasonable degree of thermal comfort’, try to define ‘reasonable’ in this case. Take a situation where a new roof is needed, replacement windows are needed, fitting a new kitchen and perhaps a new bathroom – you won’t get all that done for just over four thousand pounds which is what 5,369.29 works out to after fees. Don’t even start me off on the West Middlesex Hospital; it’s something that we will be paying for years into the future, thanks to the private finance initiative. It wasn’t Ann Keen’s party who funded the development of West Middlesex Hospital, it was the taxpayer’s money, as we all know. No doubt the ‘’New Labour’ party machine will blame past conservative governments for mismanagement and under funding of the NHS but I seem to recall walkouts of medical staff and closures throughout the early and late 1970’s, when Labour were in government. Finally, the new building at West Middlesex Hospital looks very nice from a distance and having been treated at West Middlesex Hospital before the new building went up, that’s just how I want to remember the place, from afar. And before anyone jumps on the bandwagon, I’m more than happy for anyone to have received excellent treatment from West Middlesex Hospital, it is after all what you deserve. While I was in there, I fully expected to see a BBC film crew and Rolf Harris preparing to film Animal Hospital.

Gareth Evans ● 7283d