Forum Topic

The big Labour lie machine comes to Acton

The Labour party paying for a leaflet to be delivered in Acton right now, see next post for picture (this software doesn't let you post a picture in the first post).  Most of what is written on the left of this card are statutory education duties that a Conservative administration would have been doing anyway. Nice of Labour to take credit for the Acton High School 6th Form which was kicked off on 2nd December 2008 by a Tory cabinet I was sitting on. The primary school expansion programme was also kicked off by the Conservatives and it was our group that decided that the primary school expansion programme should go forward with high quality buildings and no Portakabins in playgrounds. Most of the money for this programme has come from the government, not the council. We are pleased that Labour has carried on with this programme where we left off but it is pretty tacky to take credit for the whole thing.Much of what happens in local government is uncontroversial. This kind of dividing lines nonsense is just another big Labour lie.Looking at the right hand box, the local Tories also wholeheartedly approve of the Labour group freezing council tax for four years (like just about every other council in the country). It might be nice if Labour acknowledged the £20 million of council tax freeze grant it has pocketed from the government to pay for it in large part (which is why most other councils also did the same thing). We might have gone further but I am certain that we would not have put up the council tax at all at the very least.The “Tories attack Acton families” logo shows you just who is the nasty, name calling party in this borough at least.Actonians might wish to consider:- it was the Tories who kicked of the South Acton Estate regeneration- it was the Tories who kicked off the Town Hall and swimming baths refurbishment- it is the Tories who are supporting the Acton Arts Centre Project- it was the Tories (Boris Johnson) who put the Oak Tree mural on the Vale- it was the Tories (Boris Johnson) who put the ACTON sign on the railway bridge- it was the Tories (Angie Bray) who have taken the lead on getting the pollution associated with the Horn Lane good yard under control- it is the current Tory-led Coalition (as Labour loves to call it) that is getting on with Crossrail which will keep Acton linked in to a prosperous London.On the other hand it was the Labour councillors on the planning committee, including East Acton’s very own Kate Crawford, who voted en bloc to push through the Oaks scheme in spite of the well argued planning points raised by the Conservative councillors.It is a Labour council that is skimping on Acton’s roads and leaving them looking broken and dirty.No-one is “attacking Acton families” although Actonians might rightfully conclude that they have 9 pretty useless Labour councillors who don’t seem to fight very hard for Acton and are led by a leader who lives in Acton but keeps dumping on it.

Phil Taylor ● 4636d19 Comments

Here is the picture:

Phil Taylor ● 4636d

Wow we have a lot to be grateful for. Back to your housework.

Colin Carroll ● 4636d

Labour spin before the local elections.  How desperate they must be, to think that we will swallow this bullsh*t.  Portarcabins at Derwntwater School, influenced by Kate Crawford, after a tied vote, then the behaviour of said Councillor over the Oaks at the recent planning meeting.  Nothing done over the Horn Ln pollution issue by our illustrious Councillors, then of course there is the CPZ issue over zone MM, what a fiasco that was.  As for the leader of the council, Julian Bell, who made assurances that the pollution issues would be a priority, nothing has been done by him, not even responding to concerns by residents, and that goes for his cronies, as well (9 useless Councillors.)  Remember this thread:Councillor Crawford's Great Betrayal

Nikki Howard ● 4636d

Phil - you really can't both take credit for some Boris decisions and then fail to point out that - though the Labour Council made the original and appalling decision to approve the Oaks Development, it was your very own Boris Johnson who refused then to listen to local residents - or take any notice of our Conservative MP - and allowed the development to proceed because it was "adequate" for Acton - ie crap but we don't deserve any better here. Other than that, back to the party point scoring we all enjoy so much...

Sara Nathan ● 4636d

Probably got an alarm call from Lord Ashcroft. Tories likely to lose by 100 seats in 2015.

Colin Carroll ● 4636d

YupHere's an early doors prediction:1) Conservatives (Angie Bray) to lose at national elections. (Boris really did Angie no favours when he didn't stop the Oaks)2) Conservatives to win Acton Central at local council elections - based on Labour and Julian Bell's pathetic behaviour over the Oaks development.3) LibDems - still nowhere.Of course.... I should add the slight caveat ... I might change my mind about any future prediction as the facts change!

Richard Grange ● 4636d

Sara,The London Mayor was always unlikely to want to use his planning powers to interfere with a local decision.  He has a strategic role and would have been hard pressed to argue that there were London-wide, strategic implications to the Oaks application.  We would all rather things were different but the fault lays with the original, local decision.  That involved 7 Labour councillors voting en bloc and making no good arguments in favour of the scheme.  As for point scoring how would you rather we carry on political debate?  In other parts of the world they gets the guns out.  Here we "point score".  I know what I prefer.  Labour dished out a load of nonsense - I was simply shining a light on it.

Phil Taylor ● 4636d

Shine away you're a busted flush. Go home and prepare for obscurity.

Colin Carroll ● 4636d

Good gracious me! Does Colin belong to Labour then? Not many people know that.

Maire Lowe ● 4636d

Oh my gosh, Colin has resurfaced on W3.  Wasn't W4 bitchy enough for you?  Go crawl back under wherever you escaped from.  Remember, I have a long memory.

Nikki Howard ● 4636d

It's just unreasonable to point out where Boris has intervened on the side of the angels and not to mention when he (like the Labour Council) has let the people of Acton down. So I am redressing that bit of balance.Political debate can be positive. Why choose a Labour leaflet - after all your party and others leaflet too - as a reason to start a rather negative thread here? And it's daft to equate lack of point scoring with deploying guns. They aren't the only alternatives you know.What much of the electorate would like to see is positive arguments for what you do and would like to achieve not slagging off another party's leaflet. However, I agree with another poster who thinks Labour will have quite a challenge hanging onto Acton Central in the Council elections: marginal ward, terrible Oaks decision, a rubbish rubbish contract. But the Conservatives aren't exactly nationally popular either. And I don't even know who the council Lib Dem candidates are. Ho Hum.

Sara Nathan ● 4635d

Can I also add - that I agree with what Sarah has just posted.When I got the leaflet, and then read the posts above, my heart sunk.The Labour leaflet lies by ommission - because it simply doesn't mention its dramatic failure over the Oaks Development when it left everyone feeling like they were abusing the democratic process.And then we get a load of guff from the Conservatives which presents a wholly unbalanced view of Boris's performance in Acton and doesn't mention hiAnd people wonder why the public feels totally disengaged from politics?None of what I am reading feels like it applies to me. Instead it is like some giant partisan, point-scoring and ideological debate which is being carried out above my head.I just end up feeling totally patronised - like politicians think I am stupid, or won't notice that their arguments have got elephant size ommissions of fact in them, ellide the truth or sometimes, just lie.If you are a local councillor, you have to show that you are listening and acting on local people's views where people generally are more interested in competence than ideology.If you are a national politician, then you need to re-connect with the electorate. And that means acting less like a self-serving-elite and instead respecting the office of being a politician as a privilege, not a right. And spending less time listening to lobbyists and more time listening to people.

Richard Grange ● 4635d

Richard,I think you are responding to Sara's comment rather than what I actually wrote.  Your main beef seems to be the role of the Mayor in the Oaks decision. For the most part I was explaining how most council decisions are uncontroversial and take a long time, which is why the Labour leaflet was rather dishonest.  The London Mayor's role is strategic.  It is not his place to second guess every local planning decision.  Although the Oaks development is strategic to Acton, it is not strategic to London.  See more here:https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/planning-london/playing-strategic-role-planning-0In a conversation about Acton I think I was entitled to leave out that unsurprisingly the Mayor did not want to use his powers, given to allow him a strategic role, to overturn a local decision on a local matter.  I haven't heard Sara or you state the strategic basis on which the Mayor could have acted.

Phil Taylor ● 4635d

The fact that it was big enough to HAVE to be referred to him, means that he could take a decision. It is the size that makes it effectively strategic.But the density 30% higher than advised, effect on Acton's town centre and conservation area and on traffic and transport were all pretty good reasons - putting to one side aesthetics and public space.

Sara Nathan ● 4635d

Sara,Nice try.  It was big enough for it to pass his desk but he still needed a strategic argument for getting in its way.  It is set out in the order giving him the powers.  The order is here:http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/archives/Mayor%2520of%2520London%2520Order%25202008.pdfThe order talks about PSIs - ie an application of POTENTIAL strategic importance.  The scale threshold is 150 homes so it isn't as if the Mayor is going to decide everything over 150 homes.  He merely has the power to IF there are strategic grounds.  This is spelt out in clause 6:6.—(1) If the Mayor considers that to grant permission on a PSI application would be—(a) contrary to the spatial development strategy or prejudicial to its implementation; or(b) otherwise contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London,he may, within the period specified in article 5(1)(b)(i), direct the local planning authority torefuse the application.The density was high and a base for rejecting it at local level as was very effectively pointed out by Cllr Reen among others.  Everything you mention is important but essentially local and not strategic having no impact on London more generally. 

Phil Taylor ● 4635d

"Much of what happens in local government is uncontroversial"I wonder what is meant by that.Planning decisions affect our daily lives. How many of those decions are ill thought out and suit the developers and the executive rather than the residents? Plenty of examples of non controversial decisions over the years????The refuse and cleaning contract is a weekly event and has been/still is a controversial disaster. What has happened to the mainteneance of our open spaces heaven alone knows. We don't know how many people are worse off on account of the closure of Day centres and support from Social Services. For all I know there is plenty of controversy there.Each day along roads and pavements we drive and walk ever more carefully due to reduced maintenance because some self appointed twit in the Council thinks it better to spend money to make a high street more sexy. Councils pay millions to outside service providers. Do they pay on time? There are parts of the Borough where to say the least it is uncomfortable each day to be walking. How uncontroversial is that?Our Borough has its notorious beds in sheds. How many years or decades do we have to live with that controversy?Among our politicians we have Councillors who barely lift a finger but take the shilling, we have a Leader who apparently makes himself availble to another influential politican who wants some planning permission. The same Leader does a half time job unlike his predecessor and works for an MP whose body is rarely seen in the borough east of the hospital. We vote politicians out because we are sick and tired of them. Well I am floating for a clean slate.The main point I make is we don't know how much of our money is wasted on incompetetence and poor decisions, because our Council keeps as much as they can uncontroversial by sweeping things under the carpet.

George Knox ● 4635d

Dear me you are a wonderful human being full of hope and joy. Time for a rebalance maybe?

Colin Carroll ● 4635d

But then I'd rather like a Residents' Association group running the council and down with all party politics!It works in Epsom - and probably other places.As the website explains..."Welcome. The local politics of Epsom & Ewell have for a good part of the twentieth century been bound up with an almost unique form of democratic process. With the enormous expansion of housing in the 1930s local residents' associations were formed to give residents a forum for local debate, to organise social activities on the new estates, and to represent local views. At the beginning of the 20th century, many candidates for election to local government stood as independents. With increasing party-politicisation of national and local government, Epsom & Ewell stood out against the tide. The residents' associations themselves put up candidates for election to the Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, and their candidates have been in control for over 70 years.So successful has the R.A. movement been, that today the Borough Council is constituted by 26 R. A. councillors, 3 Conservatives, 3 Labour and 6 Liberal Democrats. Of the 5 county councillors elected, 4 are R.A. and only 1 Liberal Democrat. Epsom & Ewell is one of the few boroughs controlled by independents in the South-East and, because of the R.A.s, needed a special colour to be represented on the latest The Times map of local government!R.A. councillors, although all independents, work closely with their own R.A.s and feed through local concerns into the decision-making process. They remain representatives, not delegates.Most Borough work in done in council committees. There are no shadow political groupings which precede these meetings and decisions are reached after full and free debate. A single councillor can request that a decision is taken by the full Borough Council by making it a "recommendation". Full council meetings are preceded by a private meeting of the R.A. Councillors Group, and other political groupings on the Council hold similar meetings. However, the R.A.-controlled Council has no leader and there is no whipping of councillors. Every one is free to represent his/her and their residents' points of view and vote accordingly. Many debates genuinely sway opinion one way or another with the free vote at the end being the purest form of representative democracy.An R.A. councillor may of course hold political views on national politics. If he/she is to be nominated for election then those views should be subordinated to local concerns. This has led to a Borough Council which better reflects a cross section of political views than one controlled by a particular party."

Sara Nathan ● 4635d

I read this today and thought of Sara's post above.....there are independents, then there are independents and indeed, yet more independents.... Read to the end to appreciate.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-25666678

Iain Muir ● 4631d