Forum Topic

The death of local democracy

We have all been so happy to finally see the peaceful transfer of power in the USA this week; the removal of a fanatical tyrant who ignored the interests of the people he represented, with often fatal consequences; and the commitment of the new leader to represent ALL the people of the country, including those who didn’t vote for him. Contrast this with our own local government and their continued anti-democratic denial of the right to have our views listened to and acted on by those who would pretend to represent us. Our local councillor is remarkably candid in admitting that the Streetspace / LTN roll-out will continue regardless of the massive continued opposition by the majority of those who’s lives have been affected – he has said he is happy to engage [forum 27/11], but that is clearly a politician’s promise – unless he is referring to the secret meeting just before Christmas that only 3 residents were able to find out about. He compares these changes to the fight against drink-driving; as though there is any comparison between a law that saves lives and the continued attack on freedom of movement that will probably cost lives – does he think we will be persuaded by such childish arguments? Ealing is pressing ahead with its own war against its electorate – this is despite a massive 77.5% negative feedback – two councils working together to heap misery on those who need to travel to work, shop or care for loved-ones. They would have us believe that these measures are pro-cycling and pro-pedestrian – was there ever a problem walking or cycling down the roads that have been closed? Would not a more pedestrian-friendly option be to reinstate school crossing patrols to protect our children on the way to school – there is plenty of money sloshing around to build cycle lanes – could some be diverted to safeguard children? But, of course, this policy was never pro-pedestrian – it’s simply anti-car. We might aspire to have Biden-like representation in local government, but we’re clearly stuck with mini Trumps building their walls and dividing communities whilst denying the obvious and real opposition of those who’s lives have been blighted by their pointless vanity project.

Graham Thorpe ● 1662d23 Comments

I agree and I think it would be more open and democratic, accountable and pleasant. The current model wastes the talents of most of our group and the whole of the opposition, it breeds patronage and faction.  A committee model would encourage a more collegiate approach better suited to our mix of cultures and personalities.Labour Group agreed a proposal I moved with Tony Louki last month to establish a working party to look into the option ahead of drafting the 2022 manifesto.  I don’t think it could have been more timely.

Theo Dennison ● 1650d

I agree with you - but there is no doubt - the committee system provides ongoing scrutiny involving ALL members with all committee Chair and other positions up for election annually. It provides much more inclusiveness and allows members a good overview of issues across the borough and not just on their patch. As has beeen demonstrated the cabinet seem to think that some members are more equal than others, and as for this single member decision nonsense, it really is anti democratic. Committees if they so decide can always delegate certain decisions to the Chair in between cycles of meetings, but at least they will have been part of taking that decision.

Vanessa Smith ● 1650d

The leader and cabinet model includes an overview and scrutiny function to balance the concentration of executive authority, but while scrutiny members have taken their role seriously, the cabinet’s recognition of the need to stand accountable for their decisions seems to have evaporated.  If this model cannot be made to work then it needs to be replaced.

Theo Dennison ● 1650d

Oh Alex! That is exactly the kind of mind-set that people are in. The only way to change things is to be active in doing so. I am definitely in the 'never vote Tory' camp - but given the performance of this supposedly Labour council - I am also having grave doubts about voting Labour in the local elections I can tell you. That is not to say that one independent in every ward - if that were even possible would change things overnight, but it might allow some light to be shone in dark corners and might influence the way the council works. The current 'cabinet' system is fatally flawed, it's all very well banging on about scrutiny but that needs to be across the board not just on certain issues, and the committee system is designed to provide that. Every single position on the council majority group should be up for annual election, certain councillors being elected to positions for four years leads to the recent displays of hissy fits being thrown, because people think they are infallible. You know none of this is rocket science or even new, this governance model we have now has been tried, and has  been found wanting.

Vanessa Smith ● 1650d

Mick, I agree with you and Vanessa... in theory. Unfortunately the outcome of the vote I expect will be:Labour - 35%. Many voters in Hounslow vote Labour 'no-matter-what'. And many 'never-vote-Tories'.Conservative - 25%. In addition to the usual Tory voters (who are a minority in Hounslow) it will include some voters who see the problems created by the current regime, want it changed and think that Tories have a better chance to win.Libdems - 15%Independent/others - 25%. If that. This will include the potential 'our-independent' candidate, whose share will be higher than usual but unfortunately not high enough to beat historically important party politic. And this will also include other independent candidates and the likes of UKIP, Green, etc.Result - we remain where we are now.

Alex Shpinkov ● 1650d

I agree with Vanessa. I don't believe that simply voting Tory instead of Labour would improve the situation - after all it was Grant Schapps and the Tory government who provided the tainted trough of 'active travel' money for unprincipled Labour Councils to slurp from. A delusional Boris Johnson himself claimed in a recent speech that there was a 'strong appetite' from the public for extending 'active travel' schemes. Independent councillors, perhaps in alliance with 'rebel' local councillors of both parties, might ensure that council decisions reflect the wishes of the electorate and not the ideological dictats of national political parties.

Mick Brent ● 1650d

I would recommend all who have in interest in this topic to view the proceedings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (follow the link in Theo's post).The performance and actions of the Lead Cabinet Member for Finance were as shocking as they were arrogant, and displayed contempt for the members of the OSC and for the public. You will have to watch the video but, basically, he threw his toys out of the pram and peremptorily left the meeting.The Cabinet's proposals had very significant implications for the poorest households in our community. The arguments and the data are complex but these, and alternative approaches, should have been thoroughly aired and consulted upon. I understand, in any case, that the delaying effect of the call-in is such that the proposals for changes to Council Tax Benefit cannot now be implemented in 2021/22.

Jim Storrar ● 1650d

Despite IT difficulties, Hounslow’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee holds the Cabinet to account for its proposal to cut £7.5m from Council Tax Support for the borough’s poorest residents.https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=211&MId=12073Best to start at minute 54 when it finally gets going ...

Theo Dennison ● 1650d

I only served four years as a councillor for the Isleworth Ward and although it was extremely rewarding trying my hardest with my colleagues to improve the Borough I do not think I would ever stand again though I would be happy to pass on any help or advice I could offer to anyone tempted

Paul Fisher ● 1655d

Yes, I served on Hounslow council for sixteen years with some of the most knowledgeable and committed people I have ever known. Although I am retired now I don't think that's necessarily a bar to standing for election, although I think I've done my share and it can be a pretty thankless task at times, and I am very involved with other things locally now. It saddens me to see the state we're in now, but with the stirrings of some councillors finally feeling their way and asking probing questions, there may yet be some hope. A good hard look at the system of governance is needed, you cannot run as an autocracy, which is the case now.

Vanessa Smith ● 1655d

Vanessa, I believe you were once a member of the local Council.  Whether you were or not, you seem pretty knowledgeable so why not put yourself forward or are you well over retirement age?

Jennifer Selig ● 1655d

Yes, I think Raymond is being extremely pessimistic, the only way things change is if people are prepared to make the effort. We can all sit around having a whinge but sooner or later enough people need to get up and get involved on different terms.

Vanessa Smith ● 1656d

"Change is so needed but It will just be more of the same in a different packet."This is exactly how many totalitarian regimes in the world get to rule for long long time. Their propaganda says: "Why change if the it will continue same way anyway?"

Alex Shpinkov ● 1656d

Long overdue.  Party politics has done so much damage in these oversized Boroughs. It matters not which party it is, the same old nonsense rides on.But I don't think anyone with the right abilities to make a difference would go near politics or have to deal with the culture so deeply embedded in administrative organisations.Change is so needed but It will just be more of the same in a different packet.

Raymond Havelock ● 1656d

This is a personal view and not one I ever imagined I would think. Given the unhappiness and dissatisfaction with various policies from this council. LTNs, cycleways, planning decisions etc. Seems to me that rather than just having the alternative of the Tories who do not inspire much confidence - make that no confidence - the local communities in each ward should put forward their own independent candidates focussing primarily on a local issue that people find particularly irksome. There is still plenty of time to do it - it doesn't have to cost a fortune, and if people managed just to get one person in each ward to challenge, who knows what could happen? You know none of this is rocket science - and with local forums and media platforms - communicating couldn't be easier.

Vanessa Smith ● 1657d

Perhaps whoever has the best chance to beat the Labour candidate at the particular election?

Alex Shpinkov ● 1657d

'Perhaps someone different?'Yes, but who?

Vanessa Smith ● 1657d

"Local elections May 2022 - but what is the alternative do you think?"Perhaps someone different?

Alex Shpinkov ● 1658d

The Council has just published the names of those councillors challenging the Cabinet's decision to change the Council Tax Support Scheme. This will be the second call-in inside a week and the third in three months – highly unusual. It shows some backbench councillors are demanding to be involved more by Council leader Steve Curran and his Cabinet. They want to be consulted before decisions are formulated rather than told to rubber-stamp them afterwards.Five councillors support both call-ins – Theo Dennison, Mohammed Umair, Kamaljit Kaur, Bandna Chopra and Adriana Gheorghe – which is a measure of their determination to be heard.The latest published agenda for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee states the reasons given for the call-in over the Council Tax proposals:• Inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision• Inadequate evidence on which to base a decision• The action is not proportionate to the desired outcome• A potential human rights or equalities challenge• Insufficient consideration of legal or financial advice• Contrary to the budget or policy frameworkAt the meeting the changes are likely to be strongly defended by Cllr Shantanu Rajawat, Cabinet member for finance.The other call-in concerns the Cabinet's decision to purchase affordable homes in developments at the Homebase site in Brentford (considered premature as it has yet to get planning permission) and in Hounslow High Street and Feltham, at a cost of £82m. SCROLL for details. The meeting can be watched online tomorrow Wednesday.Agenda for Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday, 27 January 2021, 5:30 pm (hounslow.gov.uk)Agenda for Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday, 2 February 2021, 6:30 pm (hounslow.gov.uk)

Vanessa Smith ● 1658d

Local elections May 2022 - but what is the alternative do you think?

Vanessa Smith ● 1658d

yes the USA are so fortunate to have rid itself of Trump and Co. How long do we have to stick with our despots Curran, Lambert and Co.?

Steve Taylor ● 1662d

There are some small rays of hope on the horizon - see below.One of the problems as I see it is the 'cabinet' style of governance adopted by local councils instead of the previous committeee system - whilst although perhaps more bureacratic was also more inclusive and involved ALL elected members. Power now is invested in the Leader an omnipotent being, who, like Trump and Johnson will pick a 'cabinet' generally of those sympathetic to them, but not necessarily the brightest or best for the job. The questionable 'single member decision' authority is another anti democratic move. In any healthy democracy people must be able to ask searching questions and hold people to aacount, not only from the offical opposition, who are pretty feeble around here, but also from your own colleagues.Are we now seeing some of these elected members getting fed up with this ? We live more in hope than expectation. te2S0S Jeuafaaponumnmsaeryo ratmho 1oec2mh:rns4d0  · AGAIN LABOUR COUNCILLORS BREAK RANK AND CHALLENGE CLLR STEVE CURRAN AND CABINET. This is the third time in three months – unprecedented since he took over.Two groups of councillors have called in Cabinet decisions to be examined by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.The first call-in – next Wednesday – is supported by the 12 councillors below, with the lead being Cllr Unsa Chaudri. It concerns the Cabinet's decision to purchase affordable homes in developments in Brentford, Hounslow High Street and Feltham, at a cost of £82m.The second call-in – to be heard one week later – concerns the Cabinet's decision regarding Council Tax Support. It is led by Cllr Theo Dennison and proposes consultation on cuts of up to £7.8m in support for the Borough's poorest households. Fuller details of this call-in are not yet available.These follow one last November regarding traffic changes – when Cllr Richard Eason called for the resignations of two Cabinet members, Cllr Katherine Dunne and Hanif Khan.Details of next Wednesday's call-in became available today and are as follows:What Decision is to be Called-In: Council Housing Building Programme Update “ ...approved the following purchase schemes to be included within the approved Council Housing Building Programme:1. 50 homes from Network Homes in Fern Grove, Feltham.2. 55 homes from Barratt Homes at High Street Quarter, Hounslow.3. 164 homes from Berkeley Homes/St Edwards at the Homebase site in Syon, Brentford.”Whose Decision is being called in: Affordable Housing Committee (Councillor Steve Curran –Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Corporate Strategy, Planning and Regeneration)Reason(s) for Call-In (Continue on a separate sheet if required):1 Inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision;· This item did not appear on the Forward Plan for a clear 28 days.· There has been no consultation with ward councillors in respect of majorproposals likely to impact the immediate area.· The Ward location of one site was incorrectly stated.· The status of at least one of these sites is otherwise described in the LocalPlan and consultation does not appear to have been considered to begin to resolve this.2 Inadequate evidence on which to base a decision;· The report contains assumptions of outcomes from a yet to be decided planning application.· The decision allows for procurement, agreeing terms, associated costs, without detailing or showing these costs.· The report does not refer to any agreement for future costs and charges to the authority or potential tenants should the report be agreed.3 Contrary to the budget or policy framework;· This decision does not adequately explain the financial implications of these proposed purchases.· There is insufficient shared Background Information to explain processes, unit costs, specifications and the appropriateness of the mix of purchase being sought.A key decision but not treated as such;With an estimated cost c.£81.9m plus transaction costs and ongoing revenue costs this must a key decisionInsufficient consideration of legal and financial adviceThe report contains no information on future financial implications (revenue costs) of purchasing leasehold properties within a larger development There is no evidence of any legal advice on the implications of making this decision prior to the authority making a decision on Planning Permission

Vanessa Smith ● 1662d

I rather liked the quotes from the Mayor of London yesterday on the rather poor rates off vaccination in London - He's only 3 weeks late in noticing.He quoted " Pernicious Deception" by the Government.Well he would know, His office and TfL use this method all the time, as do Local Councils who increasingly have contempt for residents and interfere far too much in things they should not be involved in.  Yet cannot do anything about things they really ought to be pro active in.

Raymond Havelock ● 1662d