"I missed the Labour Party piece about not supporting the new Executive..and something to do with Cllr Lynch. What was that all about? I missed it."JimI'll try to help, although trying to make sense of New Labour's collective train of though is not an easy task.The Labour Group opposed the election of Andrew Morgan-Watts to the post of Mayor because "there are certain people we do not support", or words to that effect. I didn't realise before tonight that Councillor Morgan-Watts was one of such people, or what he has done to incur the displeasure of The Great Ones.However, although they did not support the nomination of Councillor Morgan-Watts they didn't actually oppose it either. They abstained. They could have availed themselves of the opportunity to nominate another candidate. They could at the very least have explained what their problem with Councillor Morgan-Watts was. But they declined to do so.Then it came to the vote for places on the Executive. Again the Labour Group abstained. Apparently they did not have a view as to whether the proposed Executive should be supported or opposed. I pointed out at the meeting that the names submitted for Executive were the same as those which had been unanimously supported last year, other than for the fact that Councillor Paul Lynch had been added to the list. Therefore one was obliged to conclude that the Labour Group had a problem with Councillor Lynch, although the nature of said problem was not explained.Councillor Ruth Cadbury then informed Borough Council that they had in fact intended to abstain last year but "there is no means of doing so", which is why they had not abstained but had voted to support an Executive which they were to declare their lack of confidence in less than a month later. This rather stupidly ignored the fact that they had quite successfully managed to abstain this year!What you need to understand here Jim is that there is a point of principle here which, being the very principled people that they are, only the New Labour councillors are prepared to pursue. So complex is that principle that even the Labour councillors themselves didn't understand it on 23rd May 2006, when they approved the election of the new Executive. It took those even more principled people, the K££ns, to explain it to them, which is why in June last year they called for the resignation of a member of the Executive whose election they had all supported just a month beforehand.Even I Jim am genuinely confused. New Labour's objection to me being a member of the Executive is by all accounts down to the fact that I was a member of the National Front in the 1980s. Which is fair enough in itself. But apparently it wasn't a problem in May 2006, it just became one again a month later when I assumed the Housing portfolio and began my thorough Review of the Hounslow Homes operation.New Labour's objection to Councillor Morgan-Watts was, I am guessing, related to his choice of Deputy Mayor. But Caroline has never been involved in extreme politics of any kind, and didn't even meet me until several years after I had ceased to be involved. So are the sins of the husband not only carried forward into the next millennium but also transposed at a later stage onto the wife? A rather sexist view if this is the case, methinks. The fact is that New Labour have gotten themselves into a muddle over this. A principled stance could have been respected, even by those who do not share it. However it has become so ludicrously obvious that their actions are motivated by nothing other than the quest for cheap political advantage that they have long lost any claim to the moral high ground. They have become a laughing stock - a joke - and they are the only people who still fail to realise it.I can assure you Jim that Andrew and Caroline will give it their best shot and will make this a year to remember. I hope you will lend them your support.
Phil Andrews ● 6586d