| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re: Gunnersbury Park | |
| Posted by: | Phil Andrews | |
| Date/Time: | 03/11/08 00:48:00 |
| Bela What political views or affiliations you may or may not hold are of absolutely no concern to me. Debate is a good thing, I do not begrudge any New Labour member or supporter their opinion or their right to express it, and the views of such people are no more or less valid than my own. As those better acquainted with me than yourself will know, my issue is not about affiliation or political ideology or belief but about basic honesty. Nothing more. We have heard it suggested in recent debates at Borough Council that the wilful use of untrue allegation and rumour is simply "politics" rather than dishonesty. I and my colleagues disagree. Therein lies the essential difference between us. If you follow this forum you will have witnessed many examples of this "politics" that some consider to be a valid and legitimate form of activity for publicly accountable, elected officials who are the beneficiaries of the public's trust to engage in. To cite one of countless instances one Dave Hughes, a regular user of this forum and a close colleague of the Member of Parliament with whom you are working on the Gunnersbury Park campaign, announced some while ago to readers that I planned to use the Management Review of Hounslow Homes, which I was chairing at the time, in order to bring about the privatisation of the local authority's housing stock. As he is a prominent member of the Labour Party in Hounslow and a former councillor, and as none of his colleagues stepped forward to disassociate themselves from this allegation, it can reasonably be assumed that this particular story was being peddled with the blessing - indeed probably at the behest - of the Party itself. As is usually the case with Mr. Hughes the story was completely without foundation. From day one of the Review I had made it clear that the only options on the table, in terms of the future management of our housing stock, were either a continuation of Hounslow Homes (the "half-way privatisation" introduced and oddly preferred by New Labour to complete in-house provision, though not so oddly if you understand the set-up) or a reversion to full local authority management. So it subsequently proved, yet to this day no apology for misleading forum readers has been forthcoming either from Mr. Hughes or the Party. Other similarly wild stories have been disseminated on here through Mr. Hughes. Then there was the old Conservative deselection saga in the local press, the Hanworth Park leaflets, the press-deadline "Reichstag Fire" during the Isleworth election campaign - the list is endless. But I digress a little, so let us go back to Gunnersbury Park and your own handling of this particular issue. The Lead Member, Councillor Adrian Lee, told you categorically that there were no existing plans to build anything on Gunnersbury Park. He assured you personally that any future proposed developments in the Park would be the subject of full public consultation. He explained to you that he has as deep an affection for Gunnersbury Park as you do, having lived in its vicinity all his life and used it since childhood. Finally, he explained that whilst there were no proposals for the building of a housing estate, he had to realistically investigate the possibility of bringing sums of private and/or Heritage Lottery funds into the Park or else we would risk losing all of the Georgian buildings. You thanked him for his assurances and then brought Ann Keen along to the Park who did a party political press conference and continued circulating the same old lies without any mention whatsoever of your lengthy correspondence on the matter. Can you not understand my point about trust? Is the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf entirely lost on you, Mrs. Keen and those others who continue to peddle misinformation about the administration's management of the Park? Let me stress that I am neither the ward councillor for Gunnersbury Park nor is it within my portfolio area. My intervention in this debate was simply to point out that the stories emanated from a local source with a proud history of deception, misrepresentation and general lack of interest in the truth or otherwise of the stories it peddles. If there are those who, in consideration of all the facts and of the track record of those behind the campaign, still wish to consider it the work of altruistic and concerned individuals like Mrs. Keen with no political axe to grind then that is absolutely their right. But at least now they are able to do so whilst in full possession of the facts, and as such my role in the discussion is done. |