Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Front page article re. area planning committees | |
Posted by: | Phil Andrews | |
Date/Time: | 04/06/11 12:22:00 |
An excellent post Francis, but I regret that I do not share your sense of surprise at the lack of reaction from opposition councillors. During the previous administration there was a division of opinion within the Conservative Group as to whether Area Committees should be retained or abolished. My feeling is that, by the end of the term, the abolitionists were in the majority. It was the presence of the ICG within the coalition that made the idea of abolition a non-starter. As far as I can tell the case for abolition rested solely on the desire to save some money. Saving money would appear to be central plank of Conservative "ideology" locally. I do not necessarily condemn this. If saving money is what you are most interested in then the Conservatives are the party to vote for. However those of us who were of a more aspirational bent found this whole outlook dreary and uninspiring. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the impetus for this latest change will have come from within the Environment department at senior officer level. For the last 12 to 18 months of the previous administration this department engaged in open warfare with the ICG-led Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee, frustrating every initiative that it tried to take. Our coalition partners stood back and watched, other than on those occasions when they actively intervened in defence of the department. We tried to identify outstanding S106 monies, get work done in specific localities that had been authorised at Area Committee level, pass resolutions as a way of moving the line piecemeal towards the goal of progress. Environment would send the wrong officer to meetings, or the right officer with the wrong information, or no officer at all. Other than the solitary Lib Dem on the Committee, nobody really supported us in our efforts and when we encountered resistance it came as frequently and as vociferously from our coalition partners as it did from our opponents. I can find few examples of the Conservative Group taking on the Environment department, in power or in opposition. I am sure the Chiswick Area Committee has done some excellent work, but I don't feel the opposition in general has the motivation to resist the inevitable drift away from local democratic structures. As long as it can be sold as a cost saving, they are likely in my view to be generally supportive. The local election of 2010, held as it was on the same day as a general election which undoubtedly skewed the "natural" outcome, has in my admittedly biased opinion created a very unhealthy democratic deficit. We have an administration comprising one party with an authoritarian personality opposed by another party with very limited aspirations based solely upon economic considerations. The borough is crying out for third party representation - almost any kind of third party representation will do right now - that will give the community fresh options. The people of Chiswick should think well on this. You are as likely to be victims of the current malaise as anybody, possibly more so in the light of the fact that you have no representation within the present administration. |