Forum Topic

Wanted - New Labour support for ICG policy

No, you did read this correctly!Some users of this forum may be aware that the local authority recently took possession of several properties on Twickenham Road, Isleworth, which had previously been managed by Co-op Homes but which had always been owned by the London Borough of Hounslow.Additionally, we reclaimed another property in Chiswick which had also previously been let by Co-op.  We sold the property in Chiswick on the open market, and used the proceeds of that sale to refurbish the Isleworth properties, and in some cases to convert them into larger properties, so that we could let them out to large families who were currently on our housing list.Now I accept that there will be different views as to whether or not we were right to take these properties back under the wing of the local council, however that is not the issue which I raise here.The refurbished properties in Twickenham Road are now being let out to families which meet the criteria in terms of household size.  As it happens most, if not all, of these tenancies happen to have been allocated to families who are from minority ethnic groups.I have made the necessary enquiries and am completely satisfied that due process has been followed, and that all allocations have been made solely on the basis of the greatest need.However, I have to report that there has been a fundamentally racist reaction on the part of a small number of neighbouring residents to the occupation of these dwellings by these new, incoming families.There exists, of course, in such a climate, the potential for unscrupulous elements to try to take advantage of the situation which has arisen, for short-term political gain.  We have witnessed, during the two most recent local election campaigns, the preparedness of New Labour to stir up racial unrest in Isleworth where it previously hadn't existed in the hope of securing a few extra votes. I therefore call upon all New Labour politicians, past and present, who use this forum to state unequivocally that they support in principle our policy of allocating these properties on the basis of housing need without any consideration whatsoever of the ethnic and cultural background of those residents concerned.I further call upon them to offer me their public assurance, here and now, that they will not seek in any way to exploit the dissatisfaction which has arisen amongst a very small section of the surrounding community as a result of these allocations.Specifically, I seek such assurances from Councillor Ruth Cadbury (TW8 resident and Deputy Leader of the LBH Labour Group), David Hughes (regular Labour Party spokesperson on this forum), Alan Sheerins (ditto), and Vanessa Smith and Councillor John Connelly (ex-Labour Party members and still frequent apologists for the Labour Party both locally and nationally on this forum) that our policy on this matter is supported.In the light of the previous words and deeds of all of these people, no answer will not suffice.  I should state that to any past or present New Labour member responding to my post that I reserve the right to publicly quote any response which might be given.An opportunity has arisen for New Labour to demonstrate that it has some principles, and that its quest for votes is not completely unimpeded by considerations of basic morality.  I look forward to the responses (or non-responses!) of the aforementioned with some interest.

Phil Andrews ● 6333d49 Comments

Forgot To Mention: I am ALL for The council buying back empty properties and placing them back in the Housing stock so please dont think i am judging this.

Simon Anderson ● 6314d

I do not know anything about these houses and who got them i was stating what a local resident on Worton estate told me...but i will pass your message on to this resident and leave it to them if they want to get in contact with you but I really doubt it!

Simon Anderson ● 6314d

SimonSome of the homes were ringfenced either for Isleworth residents or for residents with a connection to Isleworth.  My understanding is that this has indeed been the case.If your outraged resident has any evidence to suggest that this policy has not been followed then please ask him to forward it to me and I will pursue it.  If not, I would ask you what the basis is for his apparent belief that the new residents are not from Isleworth or do not have an Isleworth connection?

Phil Andrews ● 6314d

PhilCan i ask were these Houses advertised in the LOCATA Magazine and also how many of them were allocated to Families in Isleworth?I only ask because a resident in Isleworth told me yesterday that he was outraged because those houses were supposedly for Isleworth residents..thanks

Simon Anderson ● 6314d

Well - I would wouldn't I!

Vanessa Smith ● 6326d

"SteveNo you have the plot other than perhaps to misunderstand, as Vanessa does, exactly why it is I am "bothered" about the prospect of a few individuals (as a political party) stirring up unrest in this community."Priceless! :0)

Tony Wood ● 6327d

Thanks Steve.  And please bear in mind this is the kind of thing you get from all of them, all of the time - not just Mr. Hughes.  Do you see why it is that so many of us are so determined to drive this kind of thing out of our local politics for once and for all?

Phil Andrews ● 6329d

Pathetic

Dave Hughes ● 6329d

Oh well - here we go again!!  its not even close to 2010 and Hughes is already backtracking, running for cover and sewing venomous seeds.  First he catorgorically ditto'd  Cllr Connelly's statement  about Cllr Andrews: "Fortunately you have abandoned your Nazi beliefs and are now committed to a multicultural, mullti-faith community."Within 24 hours he changes the statement to read "One can only hope that you have  abandoned your Nazi beliefs and are now committed to a multicultural, mullti-faith society."I can understand where you are coming from now Cllr Andrews!

Steve Taylor ● 6329d

"what little lack of..."  ?????

Steve Taylor ● 6329d

"Its pretty pathetic attempt to draw others into what can only be described as a slanderous miss-informed rumours being perpetuated by yourself in order to try to absolve what little lack of ethical morals you may have as person"Interpreter...PLEASE!?!

Phil Andrews ● 6329d

"Phil, obviously the seeds of racism that you yourself fostered in Isleworth in the late 1970's and 1980's have developed deep roots."One can only hope that you have  abandoned your Nazi beliefs and are now committed to a multicultural, mullti-faith society.Its pretty pathetic attempt to draw others into what can only be described as a slanderous miss-informed rumours being perpetuated by yourself in order to try to absolve what little lack of ethical morals you may have as person.

Dave Hughes ● 6329d

DaveEven you have quoted a sentence which, I presume, you hadn't intended to quote: "Fortunately you have abandoned your Nazi beliefs and are now committed to a multicultural, mullti-faith community.Still you can always protest later that you don't speak for your party, can't you?

Phil Andrews ● 6329d

Next time try to quote the whole text and not selective comments."Phil, obviously the seeds of racism that you yourself fostered in Isleworth in the late 1970's and 1980's have developed deep roots. Fortunately you have abandoned your Nazi beliefs and are now committed to a multicultural, mullti-faith community."

Dave Hughes ● 6329d

SteveNo you have the plot other than perhaps to misunderstand, as Vanessa does, exactly why it is I am "bothered" about the prospect of a few individuals (as a political party) stirring up unrest in this community.It isn't about voting potential, it's about the damage which is left behind.  Even the dullest of Labour's campaign strategists will have realised by now that these tactics do not pay dividends at the ballot box, yet they use them regardless.  So one is entitled to ask therefore why it is that they still use them, and the only conclusion one can draw is that is quite simply an act of gratuitous, nihilistic spite ("if we can't control this community, then we'll do our damnedest to ensure that you don't have a community left to serve").I am reassured by Dave's comments, and by the support which I received by private e-mail from one of his Labour colleagues.  However it is significant that neither of them is involved in Isleworth, and that those who are and who might be in a position to influence things here have thus far either dodged the question or avoided the thread entirely.Let's see whether anybody closer to home, or more central to the party's campaign work, is prepared to put their heads above the parapet on this one.

Phil Andrews ● 6329d

Phil Please forgive my political ignorance but I have  tried to follow  this thread but still fail to understand where you are heading. You have advised: "there has been a fundamentally racist reaction on the part of a small number of neighbouring residents to the occupation of these dwellings by these new, incoming families." and that you   "seek such assurances from Councillor Ruth Cadbury (TW8 resident and Deputy Leader of the LBH Labour Group), David Hughes (regular Labour Party spokesperson on this forum), Alan Sheerins (ditto), and Vanessa Smith and Councillor John Connelly (ex-Labour Party members and still frequent apologists for the Labour Party both locally and nationally on this forum) that our policy on this matter is supported"  and "after all - let's face it - the whole party in Isleworth has been a standing joke for many years" From what I understand only Cllrs Cadbury and Harmer carry any  weight and tow the Party line; Cllr Connelly has advised that as an independent he "cannot influence the outcome", and the others are humble members of the public who express their views on this forum from time to time and as such whether or not they wish to voice openly that your policy on this matter is supported or if indeed they support the fundamentally racist reaction on the part of a small number of neighbouring residents, is surely a private matter? None of those mentioned were elected to represent Isleworth wards so should they carry the burden of public servants? I believe all interested will have read the article in Hounslow Matters and will have their own views which will no doubt be passed to the Council. The important thing is that the matter has been published so nobody can accuse your administration of any subversive action if you believe it will in some way be used by Labour in the  2010 election.More importantly this Administration will be judged in 2010 on its ability  to fulfil the Council's newly adopted motion to engage with the community it serves  and its undertaking to ascertain and to understand the wishes of the local community, and to uphold them and implement them as a matter of policy. I would have thought this ADministrations job is now to fully understand the wishes of the local community, and deliver them,  rather than be bothered about a few individuals who may wish to stir up  unrest in Isleworth in the hope of securing a few extra votes for......?? Or have I lost the plot?

Steve Taylor ● 6329d

John wrote: "Fortunately you have abandoned your Nazi beliefs and are now committed to a multicultural, mullti-faith community...I am happy to support any action you propose to support residents facing racist abuse today now that you have joined the political mainstream."Dave wrote: "Ditto to Johns contribution."Thank you Dave!

Phil Andrews ● 6329d

Ditto to Johns contribution.

Dave Hughes ● 6329d

VanessaNo number of bitter tirades and personal attacks is going to deflect attntion from what is after all a very simple question.I accept entirely that you are persona non grata with the Labour Party hierarchy.  I also know, and you have not denied, that you retain a close relationship with members of the party in Isleworth ward.What I have therefore sought to ascertain from you is whether, to your knowledge, the Labour Party in Isleworth intends to try to make electoral capital from this small, localised issue or whether it will do the decent thing and support the policy of the council.  I ask this not because I fear criticism from them as you seem to imply (after all - let's face it - the whole party in Isleworth has been a standing joke for many years), but because for the sake of good community relations I am keen to establish whether the people of Isleworth can expect to face a normal political campaign from Labour in 2010, or more of the filth which they encountered in 2002 and 2006.I have already placed on record that one Hounslow Labour councillor has e-mailed me privately and has very decently backed me on this.  However that councillor is unlikely to be in a position to influence the party's strategy in Isleworth and so the substantive issue remains unaddressed.If you want to tell me that you don't know the answer to this question then I will accept that without further ado.  However it is a response which you have thus far avoided giving.

Phil Andrews ● 6330d

Sorry I got lost after the end of the first sentence, as a registered elector obviously I can nominate or propose people wishing to stand for election. However, I have to say I am most certainly persona non grata with the Labour Party, although still have good friends who are members. You still have much to learn about the way things work, casting around innuendos is what you have always done with no proof of even a hint of the truth to justify the lies, what you don't know you just make up or guess at. You were elected, you take the responsibility that's what it's all about, if you think you're right then it really doesn't matter what the rest of us think, you only want opinions so you can justify what you have done in case there is criticism, one day you will learn that you can't be all things to all men and you are bound to upset someone, it goes with the territory.

Vanessa Smith ● 6330d

I do care deeply for your opinion Vanessa.  Despite having left your former party you were still the first person your successors came to for a nomination when they last stood for election.The campaign which they launched into over the ensuing six weeks was depraved even by your standards, and I am not the only person who would be surprised if you had no input into that familiar, not to mention typically successful campaign strategy.I would not for one second put it past the Labour Party in Isleworth, given its nature, to fan the flames of discontent if it felt that there were a few votes to be had by so doing, although quite how you would reconcile "the ICG is giving priority to immigrants" with "the ICG is a front for the National Front" is a challenge which would need to be overcome.I was therefore looking to you for a statement of principle, although I recognise in retrospect that this is probably something of a contradiction.  Thanks anyway for your response, I am now very much the wiser.

Phil Andrews ● 6331d

Why is my support or otherwise an issue? - I am a member of the public, although a very flattered one to know you care so deeply for my opinion. If you have allocated the tenancies in accordance with the legislation it's a no brainer. And that is not a trick answer.

Vanessa Smith ● 6331d

How about because we don't yet live in a Police state? There used to be a financial incentive offered to get people to downsize, but, you also must agree that a lot of people who've lived in a specific area for years do not want to go away from their neighbours and local facilities and that is understandable. If there were smaller homes nearby no doubt many would jump at the chance, but it just doesn't happen like that unfortunately.

Vanessa Smith ● 6331d

VanessaDo you support in principle our policy of allocating these properties on the basis of housing need without any consideration whatsoever of the ethnic and cultural background of those residents concerned?It's not a trick question.

Phil Andrews ● 6331d

I'm avoiding nothing except playing your silly games, you are just trying to be clever and feed your ego - well, you can do it without me.

Vanessa Smith ● 6331d

I can't see the point of being an independent Cllr if attendance at council meetings does nothing to influence the outcome and does nothing to assist the people an independent seeks to represent.If a Cllr can't be bothered to attend Council meetings, how are they representing anyone?  Is voicing opinions in internet forums sufficient?

Steve Taylor ● 6332d

JohnThis isn't just spin.  It is bad spin.The £3m budget reduction under 2002 was presented as a potential budget saving, in just the same way as the current administration presents its proposals for consideration before deciding whether or not to offer them to Borough Council for decision.  After a huge public campaign, in which I and my fellow independent councillor John Murphy played no small part, coupled with some disquiet amongst your own colleagues (David Hughes can doubtless confirm this) the suggestion was dropped and replaced by a "mere" £1m cut.  Yes this was discretionary spending inasmuch as all monies provided by government to be passported to education at that time were discretionary - but it was intended for education and it didn't go into education, simple as.  Whether or not the money was restored a year later in no way detracts from the fact that until this happened the department was £1m light. The simple fact is that budget savings have been made each year by successive administrations for at least as long as I've been a councillor, but you and yours would have us believe that they are something unique to the current administration.  Therein lies the untruth.Your explanation for your non-attendance at this year's budget meeting I'm afraid cuts muster even less.  When I was the sole ICG councillor Labour held 40 of the 60 seats on Borough Council.  Even if only half the party turned up on the night the budget would still be carried.Let us look at the maths.  The current administration comprises 22 Conservative and 6 Community councillors.  On top of this there are two West Area Independents who usually support the administration, although we would never presume to take them for granted.  That, combined, is just half the council.Then there are 24 Labour and 4 Liberal Democrat councillors, one of whom has the casting vote as Mayor.  Plus there is your good self and another independent councillor who votes - well - independently.At the 2007 budget meeting two ICG councillors abstained on a Labour amendment rather than voting with the administration, which could always happen as the Community Group does not operate a whip.  Add to that the fact that the Conservatives were until recently experiencing a few minor internal difficulties, throw in the flu for good measure and absolutely anything could have happened.The other consideration one must take into account when making the comparison is that, unlike yourself, I did not bang on repeatedly about budgets in the run-up to the meeting.  Unlike yourself, budget setting was never my priority and was not a major event in my calendar nor that of the ICG.  The inescapable fact is John that you preached to all who would listen about the life-threatening cuts allegedly being made by the uncaring Conservative/ICG administration then, on the night on which your vote could very well have made all the difference as to whether or not it was carried, you decided instead to go to a football match.The outcome of the budget vote with the present balance of forces being as it is was in no way a foregone conclusion.  If I was to be really cruel, I could point out that the same could not have been said about the result of the Celtic match.

Phil Andrews ● 6332d

Phil, the problem with many of your postings about the past is that you feel the need to resort to untruths to support your case. These are far too numerous and long winded to bore readers with by replying to them.I will offer just one example:-You have repeated the claim that in 2002 I "proposed" to cut £3 million from the education budget. In fact, we consulted on a number of options for budget reductions.You allege we proposed to cut the money the government provided for nursery nurses. In fact, we consulted on a proposal to remove the nursery nurses from reception classes, not the nursery classes. This was HOUNSLOW DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, just like the money cut from the community teachers budget last year. The cut did not go ahead, and Hounslow nows spends more on under fives education than the government formula allows for. Following the logic of your Conservative colleagues this would be deemed to be wasteful over-spending.That year we cut £1 million from the general schools budget, following consultation with headteachers, governing bodies and the general public. This was a one-off cut as we knew the following year the funds would be restored to the schools under new central government funding rules. There was thus no permanent cut.Incidentally, in choosing not to attend council meetings frequently I am following the ICG line when you were their single member. Given that there is a majority block, that neither the ruling alliance nor the main oppoisition are, in my opinion, "robust and honourable", my attendance at council meetings, where I cannot influence the outcome, does nothing to assist the people I seek to represent.If the accuracy of the above information is questioned I am happy to have the facts checked out for the public record.

John Connelly ● 6332d

Some good words there Vanessa, you certainly have put a lot of effort into avoiding this particular issue.  Thank you for telling me all I need to know, and I'll take it as read that you speak also for the people you no longer have any connection with whose nomination papers you sign.I wish you all the best with those roots.  As you know I am a great fan of roots, the more one has the more successful one eventually becomes.

Phil Andrews ● 6332d

Unfortunately I have not had the time nor the interest to 'phone anyone as I put all this down to a manic megalomaniacal episode. I thought a long lay down in a dark room with a copious dose of Valium might help you recover your equilibrium. I have to say I am far more interested in doing my roots and painting my kitchen than engaging in your nonsensical flights of fancy, life is far too short, please though  - feel free to quote that at length.

Vanessa Smith ● 6332d

LOL.  Well, there's no chance of me ever rejoining the National Front!John, I take your point entirely about dealing with the present and not the past (even though it was immediately preceded by references to my own past!), and in principle I would entirely agree with you.However the inescapable fact is that the present has been very much determined by the past.  The Community Group holds the balance of power in the first non-Labour administration Hounslow has had for 35 years.  Why does the Community Group holds six seats on the council?  In fact, why does the Community Group exist at all?  The answer, of course, lies in the injustices of the past.More precisely, in injustices which have never been publicly acknowledged, far less apologised for (unlike my past activities), and which no attempt has ever been made to redress.There is an old truism which says that if things don't change they stay the same.  Well, as the Labour Party has made no attempt to acknowledge mistakes made in its dealings with my community in the past one must assume that it doesn't recognise them and that therefore, given the opportunity, it would merrily just carry on where it left off.We have a new administration.  And yes, that administration will come to be judged on its present and future actions rather than on the past actions of others.  It is only right and proper that it should.However in acknowledging that this is the case I make no apology for repeating the reasons why the current state of affairs has come to pass, and will continue to do so for as long as the state of denial persists.  I do this because I desire to see a robust and honourable opposition, as well as a robust and honourable administration.  I derive no pleasure at all from seeing the Labour Party stumbling around at Borough Council meetings in its present sorry state.Likewise I make no apology, when Labour members past and present try to suggest that budgetary savings are something new and unique to the current administration, for pointing out that this is untrue and giving examples through which to support my case.  This isn't about living in the past, it is about basic honesty.We in the Community Group find ourselves in a position which we never sought to be in and are now charged with taking advantage of that situation, not only to redress past injustices but also to effect positive change for the future.  There is nothing wrong with looking back to past mistakes, provided the object of so doing is to learn from them and move forward.  It is difficult to learn from them whilst refusing to acknowledge that they ever happened, and blaming everybody but oneself for one's predicament.

Phil Andrews ● 6332d

Phil, my membership of the Labour Party is as current as yours of the National Front.

John Connelly ● 6332d

Andrew, I replied to Phil's posting because he chose to name me in the initial post and seek a response. I merely confirmed that I opposed racism when Phil was promoting it and that I continue to do so. I think you will find that I have suggested to Phil elsewhere that he would do better to concentrate on the present rather than persistently referring to the past in his frequent postings. If he were able to do this we could all focus on current problems rather than rake over history.

John Connelly ● 6332d

AndyI am grateful for your kind words and your support, however if John's posting was intended as a personal attack then it was in fact an own goal par excellence.Consider the following:"Fortunately you have abandoned your Nazi beliefs and are now committed to a multicultural, mullti-faith community."and:"...now that you have joined the political mainstream."This is not the Official Line, which still has it that I and other ICG members have a secret NF-driven agenda (when I'm not being a Tory rent boy) which we intend to impose on the local authority at some unspecified future time and in a manner which has never been credibly explained.Of course John is not currently a member of the Labour Party and at present doesn't have to follow the Official Line, but I imagine Vanessa will have been on the blower by now all the same after all the effort she has put in to try to keep the myth alive.  The air between Isleworth and VFR will have a hint of blue about it by now methinks.

Phil Andrews ● 6332d

PhilThat's Fantastic News and I fully support this totally.I just wish you had more powers to deal with those in Properties they dont need it would certainly help other families and the council over crowding situation.Its also about time that those youngesters in Flats who are using or dealing drugs and in arrears Have there properties taken away i know its not the councils fault and there is a legal process you have to take which can take years to evict someone its a shame though.But i fully support all that The Council are doing to encourage people to downsize.

Simon Anderson ● 6332d

Sorry, I should have said underoccupied.

Phil Andrews ● 6332d

SimonI agree that this is frustrating, however it is not within the council's power to "bring a new law in" as, like everybody else, we are bound by the laws of the land.However whilst we cannot compel, what we can do is encourage and offer incentives to overoccupiers to downsize, which as you rightly say would free up larger properties for those in need of them.You may be interested to know that we have identified around 150 properties in the borough which are not only overoccupied, but the inhabitants of which actually want to downsize but for whatever reason have not taken the initiative to do so.  We have identified some funds which will enable us to employ a dedicated officer on a short-term contract to visit all of these people and to assist them to move.I should stress, of course, that this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg and will not in itself resolve Hounslow's acute housing problems.  However I hope you will agree that it is a valuable start.

Phil Andrews ● 6332d

JohnThank you for your comments, and for your support.  Although I suspect that your response was intended to be clever, I actually welcome the observations which you have made, had anticipated them, and consider them fair comment.Whilst I would be surprised if I was personally and solely responsible for the reaction of the small minority to which I refer (which after all includes people who were not resident in Isleworth during my NF days), I certainly do acknowledge the destructive role which I played during that period and am determined to do whatever I can to make amends in defiance of all the obstacles which are continually thrown in my path as I set about trying to do so.It would also be only fair to point out that I have received a very sympathetic and constructive response by private e-mail from a Labour councillor, whose endorsement of the position I am taking was clear and unambiguous, for which I am grateful.Obviously as the comments were made privately I am not able to tell whether they were a statement of the party's position or just the private thoughts of the individual concerned.  It would be helpful to know whether the party itself is with me on this or whether it is reserving its position and evaluating its options.Please forgive what must seem to the outside observer to be an acute case of paranoia on my part, but it is born of bitter personal experience of the party concerned rather than of any irrational prejudice.  I do hope that the Labour Party spokespeople who frequent this forum will find the time to offer me some reassurance.

Phil Andrews ● 6332d

JohnI do not wish to speak for Phil,he is more than capable of doing so himself. He has to my knowledge, acknowledged his past misdemeanours and gave honest answers to every question raised with him, surely he doesn't need to apologise every five minutes does he?I recall that Labour were once a socialist (nearly!) but very soon realised that they had become unelectable, so what did they do....they chanhed it to New Labour and abandoned their socialist principles!I would imagine that the people of Isleworth many of whom were from an ethnic minority democratically elected him and were aware of his past. I don't think that anything can be gained from continually harping on about his past.What we want is a council that listens to us instead of preaching to us, obey the rules and laws (especially planning. I acknowledge John, that you are a very able councillor, and I think this personal attack does nothing to enhance the position you hold.

Account suspended ● 6332d

I have a question if i may:Last week a friend of mines Mum received a letter from Hounslow Homes asking her if she would down size from her 3 Bedroom Maisonette to a 2 Bedroom Property and Receive a Thousand Pound for the lose of the room.My Friends Mum lives in a 3 Bedroom Maisonette, with her son and has a room not in use. She declined for two Reasons:1. she likes where she lives2. Wants the extra Room for Family when they stay.It upset me as people like this are preventing a family in a 2 bedroom apartment in need of a 3 bed property of getting out of overcrowding and if she downsized at least 2 or 3 families could benefit, the family in the 2 bed can move to her 3 bed, then a family in a 1 bed who needs a 2 bed could move in to the 2 bed and so on...There are loads of people out there in Council properties that are to big for them which could go to families who are in need of them and we know there ain't any empty properties out there.My question is this: The Council own these properties why cant they bring a new law in to affect that if you live in a property you dint need you will have to be downsized?Thank You

Simon Anderson ● 6332d

Phil, I would be grateful if you publicly quote me in full.

John Connelly ● 6332d

Phil, obviously the seeds of racism that you yourself fostered in Isleworth in the late 1970's and 1980's have developed deep roots. Fortunately you have abandoned your Nazi beliefs and are now committed to a multicultural, mullti-faith community.I opposed you and supported the victims when you were campaigning as an NF organiser in the area. I am happy to support any action you propose to support residents facing racist abuse today now that you have joined the political mainstream.Now that you have observed that the poison you previously peddled persists in Isleworth perhaps you will be honest enough to acknowledge your own pivotal role in dividing the community there in the past?

John Connelly ● 6332d

Many thanks Matt, I look forward to receiving your comments.Adam, all of the people whom I have named have previously seen fit to comment on the situation in Isleworth, and upon my own private motives as they choose to see them.  In this instance I have simply invited them to confirm that they will support me in my efforts to achieve a level playing field.  I note that there has been no meaningful response as yet.  I will leave you to draw whatever conclusions you may from that.

Phil Andrews ● 6332d

Phil, I'll respond privately in the first instance as I have been dealing with one of the new occupants of which you speak.

Matt Harmer ● 6332d

Hi Phil,To be honest I'm bemused at your original posting, not in terms of its content, but why you've chosen to post it on this website.Obviously any regular visitor to this forum will know that yourself & numerous other Councillors, and ex-Councillors, often engage in 'debate' on this forum, I know such debate occasionally annoys some visitors, personally my view is that it's up to them whether they read such threads and what if any conclusions they draw from them.However, your posting here seems to almost be an official Council motion, yet instead of being put before the appropriate Council committee for discussion etc. has been posted on an external (i.e. not part of the Council) at gone 2am.  And then it goes on to essentially 'demand' that certain individuals respond to clarify their position, as if they don't do then judgement will be passed.  Forgive me but surely this isn't an appropriate way of doing things ?.  I appreciate it's a local matter, and I'm not in any way disagreeing with the 'motion' you've put forward, nor taking sides, but if I was any of the people you've singled out I'd be most reluctant to respond on here, fearing it was some kind of 'trick question', & instead I'd contact you privately and ask it be put forward as a formal Council motion for discussion.Just my thoughts, it just seems abit strange to me.

Adam Beamish ● 6333d

AndyWhether you are right about this or not - and I guess it comes down to personal opinion - eligibility for housing is determined by government, not by local authorities.

Phil Andrews ● 6333d

PhilThanks for your reply. Of course anybody who was born in this country should be treated in exactly the same way as anybody else, not only for housing but for every other service as well. My concern would be that if a large family arrived here for whatever reason, and then received a property because of need, would be grossly unfair to all of those who have been waiting for a very long time which of course would include ethnic minorities, I should like to hear what others think about the current system, and ideas how it could be improved!I am still of the opinion, that the first requirement would be based on the length of time they had resided and contributed here before they are offered permanent housing

Account suspended ● 6333d

AndyI'll try my best.Currently we are on the LOCATA system, under which all applicants are banded according to perceived need, those in greatest need being given an 'A' banding, those in slightly less need given a 'B' banding, and so on.Various criteria are used in order to decide which applicant is given which banding.  These include health factors, overcrowding and many considerations.Within each banding priority is given to applicants on the basis of how long they have been on the list.  However when one is "promoted" to a higher band the time spent in the lower band is disregarded and one is then treated as a new applicant.  Many regard this as unfair, however the contrary argument would be that a person who has just become overcrowded, for instance, should not overtake the applicant who has been overcrowded for years simply because the former applicant had been registered for a longer period of time without previously having had such a high level of need.  I hope that makes some sense, and demonstrates that there is no easy answer to this dilemma.What needs to be understood is that the properties in question are very large properties, with up to seven bedrooms.  It is right that the allocation should suit the specific requirements of the applicant.  For example, my own family and I live in a two bedroomed rented flat and, as our children are ten years of age and of different sexes, we too are considered to be overcrowded (and for the record the dump in which we live is neither decent nor adequate).  However to move us into properties which have five, six or seven bedrooms simply because we have been waiting for a certain length of time would clearly be a waste of a valuable resource, because we are only entitled to move into a property with three bedrooms.In the allocation of the Twickenham Road properties we have, in fact, given additonal priority in some cases to applicants who already resided in Isleworth or who had another connection of some kind with Isleworth.  However those applicants with an Isleworth connection may themselves of course be from any ethnic background.The assumption that these houses have been allocated to "incomers" (which I take to mean recent arrivals to the UK) can only, as far as I can see, have been made on the basis of the ethnicity of the new tenants.  But of course the fact is that we have had Asian and African-Caribbean tenants for decades, many of whom will even have been born in the UK.  Should these people also go to the back of the queue?The are many faults with the LOCATA system and many people, including councillors, take the view that it should be replaced with something better.  An investigation has been conducted by Scrutiny with a view to establishing whether or not this should indeed be done.  The old "points" system likewise had its faults, and was clearly open to abuse.  Maybe there is another way as yet untried.  However, no system should discriminate between applicants, with all else being equal, on the basis of ethnic background, as I'm entirely sure you will agree.The purpose of my posting, made only after a lot of soul-searching and for which my judgement has already been questioned by more than one well-meaning person, was to establish whether I could expect principled support or opportunism from those who routinely oppose me in the course of my local work.  It's early days right now, but thus far the silence has been deafening.

Phil Andrews ● 6333d

""The refurbished properties in Twickenham Road are now being let out to families which meet the criteria in terms of household size.  As it happens most, if not all, of these tenancies happen to have been allocated to families who are from minority ethnic groups.I have made the necessary enquiries and am completely satisfied that due process has been followed, and that all allocations have been made solely on the basis of the greatest need.(At the risk of being called racist for having the temerity to ask a question on this matter I will go ahead anywayIf those who have been allocated a property over ALL other residents on the waiting list, whos' need is perhaps not so great as theirs, but nevertheless have been in bed & breakfast for a considerable amount of time, will they have to watch properties allocated to newcomers because they have a greater need?If that is the case, I believe that it is a totally unsatisfactory system. I believe personally that before being allocated housing, there has to be a residential time limit qualification. It is all very well being compassionate if you are living in decent adequate housing, but what about those who have been languishing in rubbish one roomed accommodation for years with no prospect apparently of being re-housed, if this system continues? Perhaps Phil, you can give the qualifying criteria, that goes along with the "greater need".In Other words will the greater need overide those who have a slightly "lesser need", and ignore the fact that they may have been on the list for many years. I don't know whether this makes sense or not, but if it does I would appreciate a reply! Have I got it right?

Account suspended ● 6333d