The problem where people like David, and his Labour equivalents, are concerned is that to them the whole thing is essentially a game. Each team has a colour and the object of the exercise is to get as many members of the team elected to office as possible. The first team to get 31 members sporting the requisite rosette into the Civic Centre wins the game. "Issues", and the discussion and resolution thereof, are a means to an end, but essentially the objective is to be elected to office for the purpose of, er, being in office.In this borough planning issues are increasingly being addressed by residents themselves in the absence of any meaningful input from politicians. The Group of 15 residents' associations and amenity groups (so called because there were 15 organisations involved when the group was named, although there are 19 now) has been actively and tenaciously campaigning for transparency in planning, and has already scored some modest successes.Although G15+ is a strictly non-political organisation, certain of its constituent groups (ICG included) have intervened in the political process when a wider community interest is deemed to have been served by so doing, and with the abdication of the politicians from tackling some of these problems it is inevitable in my view that independent community groups across the borough will take on an increasingly important role in this regard.This is why I disagree fundamentally with David's scenario, which for some bizarre reason he seems enthused by, of local community life being an eternal battle between two rigidly defined party tribes in which 99% of the population are destined to be mere spectators. The evidence of recent events would seem to suggest that the game is very nearly up for both of these parasitical outfits, and I for one thoroughly rejoice at the prospect.
Phil Andrews ● 4395d