"Yes - but its politics isn't it?"SteveAt one of the first Borough Council meetings of the new administration there was a debate about political parties (well Labour, let's say it how it is) knowingly making false claims about opponents in their election literature. Defending her party's policy, Councillor Ruth Cadbury responded with something to the effect of "you call it dishonesty, we call it politics" (I can't remember the exact wording but it is there on the webcast somewhere).Neither I nor the ICG accept the existence of any kind of exemption from ethical standards which are generally accepted in other walks of life under the justification of "politics". Of course we all pitch our election material in such a way that highlights our own successes and our opponents' failures, but we do not make claims (actual or implied) which we know to be contrary to documented fact. Therein lies the essential difference in approach and morality between the two of us, and I like to think that our results in the last three local elections reflect a preference on the part of the electorate for a more honest approach to political issues."From all recent reports, following last week's defeat in Scotland, it would appear that Labour are gearing up and preparing for a term in opposition in central government so that they can regroup under a new leadership. If they only intend to remain in opposition for one term they have to act now to woo back local government seats."Not only is this fair comment, but it makes absolute common sense. If you read my blog (sorry, another shameless plug!) you will see that, far from wanting to see the Labour Party destroyed completely, I would actually welcome a resurgent Labour Party in Hounslow. But for that to happen any "regrouping" would surely have to involve an honest analysis of how the Party came to find itself in its current sorry predicament in the first place?A local electorate which rejected a party because it had become tainted with cynicism, dishonesty and nastiness is unlikely to be anxiously awaiting the emergence from the same quarter of a political force which is more cynical, more dishonest and nastier.It genuinely and sincerely does depress me to say that there is no evidence whatsoever of Labour in Hounslow having even begun to learn the lessons of 2006, any more than Labour in Isleworth has learned the lessons of 1998, 2002 and 2006. Instead the conclusion which would appear to have been drawn is that it was the electorate that got it wrong and that the solution to their predicament lies in an intensification of all those negative practices that local people already find so distasteful about their organisation. The name on the bottom of the West London Rose is that of a man for whom I have a lot of time and respect, a decent man whom I have met, shared a pint with and discussed local issues in an intelligent and constructive way. One would have hoped that this intelligence and constructiveness might have been applied in such a way as to change the way in which the local party thinks and operates. Instead, from the evidence of this leaflet, it would seem more the case that the local party has changed him. There are others locally of whom I would say the same.If Labour is going to regroup, locally as well as nationally, then the ball is firmly in Labour's court. Just telling more porkies to the electorate strikes me as not so much of a regrouping exercise, but more the desperate last throes of a dying animal which still insists on clinging on for dear life.I really am looking forward to the day when I can give this all up and get a proper job, but today that day seems to me to be as far away as ever.
Phil Andrews ● 6209d