Forum Topic

Maybe he'd had a couple of hot todies?Seriously though, this extraordinary motion, proposed by independent councillor John Connelly and supported by the Labour members on the CHAC, answers a lot more questions than it asks.Most curiously, it announces a withdrawal of co-operation from the Executive in response to a motion passed by Borough Council, thus revealing it to a cynical and politically motivated manoeuvre.Its purpose, presumably, is to allow Councillor Connelly to demonstrate to those sections of our community who habitually disregard planning law that he is prepared to turn even more of a blind eye to their activities than is the Labour Group, and that they should therefore vote for him instead.  He is a canny operator and would have calculated, as Councillor Sharma and his colleagues would appear not to have done, that any resultant backlash will afflict New Labour and not himself.As soon as this resolution was passed I found myself wondering how Vanessa Smith, one of John's most loyal supporters and a frequent contributor to this forum, was going to spin her way out of this one, bearing in mind she is on public record as having berated the administration for not having come down hard enough on those councillors who tip the wink to planning abuse.  To her credit, she has not attempted to do this and seems to have stuck to her original position.The introduction of race and ethnicity into an argument in which it does not feature is not only hugely irresponsible, but also typically New Labour.  We have seen time and again that these people's alleged commitment to good community relations is never permitted to stand in the way when it is a perceived that there is political mileage to be made.  Anybody who has witnessed their antics during election campaigns in Isleworth and Hanworth Park will have seen instantly that they inavariably place what they believe to be their party interest before the greater well-being of the community.  To me this makes them, as an organisation, the lowest of the low, and is what stands them apart from all the other political parties and groups in the area which recognise that there are basic minimum standards below which one does not allow oneself to fall.  If you witness them at the Council Chamber and during debate, they give an appearance of being immensely proud of their uniquity in this department.This particularly unsavoury feature of this resolution effectively levels allegations of racism not only against the Executive and the two parties and groups which comprise the administration, but also against the Liberal Democrats and John's two very recent former colleagues who now comprise the West Area Independent Group and who supported the temporary withdrawal of enforcement powers from the Heston & Cranford Area Committee.That it emanated from Councillor Connelly for me demonstrates two things.  Firstly that in spite of his now quite sustained absence from the ranks of the Labour Party he has failed to shake off the cynical and opportunistic mentality which characterises that organisation in its present-day form, and secondly that he is in all likelihood angling for a return to its ranks.  It will not after all have been lost on some of the Labour Group's newer and more ambitious members that he was prepared to make a stand where their own leaders would have appeared impotent.I have asked for a legal opinion as to the implications of the motion passed by CHAC.  I would assume that a withdrawal of co-operation must involve as a matter of principle a refusal to accept administrative assistance in the form of meeting facilities, officer input, agenda preparation and financial support.  Whether the committee remains competent to make robust decisions of a quasi-judicial nature without such assistance is a matter for conjecture.The new administration is determined that the "nudge nudge, wink wink" practices of the old administration will not continue to be a feature of life in Hounslow.  Standards in planning, as in all other matters, will be applied uniformly irrespective of the allegiances or voting preferences of those concerned.  Those who, as we have seen, do not like it are going to have to get used to it.  We do things differently now.

Phil Andrews ● 6449d

Anyone new to this thread will have a tough old time trying to work out what's it all about!!  It's a subject that requires slow reading especially as so little information is available to members of the public ..like myself.So, for the benefit of members of the public is there anyone who can clearly and transparently describe what the story is?Imagine you were answering an exam question on the subject..not gabbling to the missus..or your mates.As I understand it, the matter basically refers to behavior by the Cranford and Heston Area Committee in 2004/2005. According to a booklet I have here..all 12 Councillors on that Committee in 2004 were Labour Party members..the same as it is today.  But there have been some personnel changes..voted by the ward electorates.---------------------------------Cranford and Heston Area CommitteeCranford 2007 Mohammed Chaudhary, Poonan Dhillon,  Sohan Sangha.2005 Sarbjit Gill        Parmod Kad      Sohan SanghaHeston Central2007 Gopal Dhillon      Mohinder Gill    Peta Vaught2005 Gopal Dhillon      Mohinder Gill    Peta VaughtHeston East2007 Shivcharn Gill      Gurmail Lal      Amritpal Mann2005 Roger Clarke        Gurmail Lal      Amritpal MannHeston West2007 Rajinder Bath      Sukhbir Dhaliwal Elizabeth Hughes2005 Rajinder Bath      John Gray        Mohammed Chaudhary------------------------------------------------------So that let's us know who was who...and isn't it interestingthat the whole Area has been represented by a full house of 12 Labour Party members for at least 6 years. I wonder who the Co-opted members were..or are?So, David, you must be well versed in the matter..can you clearly explain to us "keen to learn about what goes on" members of the public?  What happened next?

Jim Lawes ● 6451d

Dave - As I understand this knowing a little about it - the Heston & Cranford Area Cttee. have been suspended following criticism of some of the decisions they have made. This whole business could and should have been sorted out at least 4 years ago, when there was a Scrutiny Panel looking into matters, that Scrutiny Panel sorry to say - bottled it - even after getting in an independent consultant whose report I still have and who took the trouble to talk to quite a few of us at that time who had experience of planning matters on area committees and sustainable development cttee. The best the Scrutiny Panel could come up with was recommending 'more training' when it was as plain as the nose on the proverbial face this went way past that. Both Pat Nicholas and I took the trouble not only to attend the Scrutiny Panel, talk to the consultant and write to the Scrutiny Panel Chair, Cllr. Carey, only to be brushed aside as if our evidence was the product of a fevered imagination. Basically they did not have the guts to name names or take any disciplinary action preferring to take the one-size-fits-all approach which is both cowardly and unfair to the people not involved. This latest hoo-ha again is sledgehammer and nut time, a lot of the people involved way back are no longer on the council, so why are people new to the council who had no involvement being suspended?  Had this been handled properly at the outset and the people who were not carrying out their duties properly been pulled up, this could probably been avoided, the failure to be honest and up front are what has brought about this current fuss. I personally don't think accusations of racism are particularly helpful and will only serve to muddy already murky waters.

Vanessa Smith ● 6452d