Here is the latest in the Chronicle.

And, here is the full debate in Hansard (well the order paper).

It is clear how Alan Keen voted by why on earth did he not speak in the debate?  Lets see what he says to the local papers.  I only hope that it is more than the usual “within the rules” etc.  Please justify why the second home is needed.

I once voted for an increase in allowances for Councillors and explained to my constituents why I did so.

I think that it is reasonably well known that I have probably been the least enthusiastic about Area Committees since becoming a Councillor.   It is also known that I am in a very small minority.

However, last night’s meeting was very interesting.  I expected it to finish quite early because the agenda appeared small.  It went on until 10pm.

The briefing from the Chief Executive of the Air Accident Investigation Bureau went down very well.  An extremely technical matter but explained very well.  Most of my colleagues had a much better grasp of the technical issues than me.  Here is a write up from the Chronicle.

The discussion we had with the police was one of the best I have seen, where Members raised some very serious issues of ASB in their wards.  Fortunately, for us in Feltham North, we are not currently having the amount of ASB as is the case in other wards, though Bedfont Lane and Frank Towell Court remains a concern.  I am also concerned about the amount of young people hanging about around Hounslow Road and Feltham Park late at night.

The Borough Fire Commander was unable to attend.

The Small Grant Applications did not deliver a consensus on every application.  I voted against two and abstained on one (lack of information for me).  I voted against two because, on balance, my longstanding concern about focussing on racial groups (I am passionate about integration, good race relations and making it clear to all that *everybody matters*) overrode my respect for those making the applications, one of whom was a constituent.  I thought that Cllr Paul Jabbal spoke very well during the discussion and made some points that would typically be made by a relatively newer Councillor (what a brilliant first year he has had).

I read an article about the above earlier today.

I have already asked the extent to which the Council’s Emergency Planning Section would have been involved and informed none at all.

If you live in Brainton Avenue, I hope you have not been inconvenienced too much!

Last Tuesday, in the absence of the Leader, I put on record the thanks of all Councillors to those 118 Officers that were leaving the Council’s employment under the Voluntary Redundancy arrangements.  Last Friday, I got the chance to pass on my best wishes to some of those who were leaving and worked under my portfolio.

As committed as I am to the Performance Improvement Plan, and as much as this is necessary to achieve the ambitions of the administration, it is of course sad to see good, decent and friendly people leave.  More will leave later this year.

I really wish all those who have left the London Borough of Hounslow’s employment every success!

An interesting article in the Telegraph today.  It is in response to the discrimination plan promoted by New Labour.

When I first read the article about this plan, I noticed the references made to female and “ethnic minority” (am I the only person who does not use that term?) job candidates.

My ethical position is that no discrimination, other than on ability to do a job, should be justified.  I expect with the mentality of New Labour, most in the movement would have little ethical problem were there to be scenarios whereby a middle class non-white lady gets a job over a white working class male.  I could not justify supporting either based on their race or class alone (I could not imagine a scenario where they would be a factor at all).

But have New Labour not yet realised that this goes down very badly with those people that were once the bedrock of the Labour Movement.  Do they care?  I suspect that some, but not enough of influence, do.

Personally, and I think have said so on my blog previously, the 1997 to 2001 period should go down as a damaging period for those of us who believe in good race relations in Britain.  References to “race card” were made at that time on a daily basis and it was a period of incredible intolerance and if you did not agree with the Labour way forward, you could expect to be on the end of an accusation or two or be informed that you were not “inclusive”.  The outcome of those years for too many people has been fear, disillusionment and disengagement from the mainstream.  I have always taken the view that the more politicians, and others, try to partition Britain into racial groups, there is the danger that some “groups” will feel left out.  That has arguably been the case with many white working class people.  I understand in some parts of the country white working class boys are the lowest achievers in their area (I do not remember Labour MPs sharing the concerns of Chris Woodhead when he raised them a number of years ago - if I am wrong, please let me know).

The Conservatives should go in much harder in attacking Labour failures on both race relations and in the outcomes for much of their traditional core vote.

I am pleased that I am part of an administration in Hounslow that loathes racism & discrimination and wishes to unite people as opposed to focus on difference.  I believe that this is the best way to persuade people to buy-in to the mainstream.

Everybody Matters!

This is worth a posting in its own right.  One of the two items on the second agenda referred to in the previous post was to confer the above title to Peter Carey.  A very proud moment for the Conservative Group.  We now have two Freemen within our Group as Barbara Reid was bestowed with this last year.

I did not say anything about him during the tributes as the time was very late and everyone was very tired.

I would have made the point that the vast majority of Councillors become Councillors for one or both of the following reasons:

1. They wish to serve residents;
2. They wish to advance the cause of their political party, community group, independent group etc.

I feel that my commitment to the Council (as distinct from the above) grown stronger since being in administration.  However, and whilst Peter Carey is hugely committed to residents in his ward and to the Conservatives in the Borough, I always felt with Peter that unusual deliberate sense of responsibility and interest in the Council as a Corporate Body even when we were in opposition.  He was always asking about how the Council do better.

Of course, I am not saying all opposition Councillors do not care about the Council but I am confident that most Council colleagues will understand the point I am trying to make.

My particular interest in this agenda was in relation to agenda item 17.  It took quite a while to get there and I do not think that the entire meeting finished until 11:15pm when considering the second agenda.

Any prospect of regret or withdrawal of the original allegation about Institutional Racism did not materialise.  I recommend the webcast for anyone interested in this matter.  Clearly a majority of the Labour Group do not understand just how absurd the allegations are!  Apart from anything else, by not disassociating themselves from what was said by their Leader, they must associate themselves with those who are on the receiving end of his allegation.  At the same time, a minority of the Labour Group are embarrassed with this episode and they will understand the damage that this will cause Labour in the Borough.

Councillor Sharma and his colleagues failed to provide any evidence to substantiate any of their allegations, including the one that some Councillors are putting pressure on Officers to go after people.

All of the Labour Councillors present abstained on the motion.  It is now time for some exposure because residents, including Labour supporters, are just not prepared to put up Councillors making an issue out of race in this way.

Earlier today, my daughter and I attended the Sports Jam, which was organised by Brentford FC Community Sports Trust in partnership with Access Sport, The London Borough of Ealing and London Borough of Hounslow.  It was held at Gunnersbury Park.  The event was brilliant and succeeded in bringing together a variety of sports.  I had the great pleasure of briefly speaking with both John Barnes (formerly of England and Liverpool) and Rachel Yankey (Arsenal and England Ladies).  Both of them were so clearly passionate about sport and went out of their way to be simply really nice and take the time to talk to people, especially the young.  What brilliant role models!

A number of Councillors from both Boroughs were present.  I recall speaking with Councillors Paul Fisher, Shirley Fisher, Matt Harmer, Ruth Cadbury, John Todd, Peter Hills & Linda Nakamura from Hounslow.  I also met Councillors Ian Gibb (Deputy Leader at Ealing) & Ian Green (now Mayor Green in Ealing).  Until recently, I would meet Ian Green at the West London Alliance Housing Lead Member meetings.  Great company, always making very informed contributions and one of the most unassuming people I have met in politics.

More important than my account of how much I like many other Councillors is to stress how much of a fan I am of encouraging young people (and others) to participate in sport.  The benefits are obvious and I only wish I gave my body more time because it does its best to give me 24/7.  I cannot wait for next year and hope that there are other events before then.

The letters page is well worth a read.  Not yet updated online but well worth a read.  Clearly, if this page is anything to go by, a large number of people (including Labour Party supporters) are very angry with what Councillor Sharma said.

Will Labour Councillors back him on Tuesday at the Borough Council Meeting?  We will find out at the end of agenda item 17.

Here!