I have had a few comments on my post on Fryent Country Park. My point was that people seem to take the most outlandish suggestions and believe them without giving any thought to their plausibility. Martin Francis suggests that this is because of the Labour Party, which tends to be his default position on anything he thinks bad. The example I gave of Hazel Road Open Space predates Labour taking over the Council. I think it is rather a generalised paranoia about any manifestation of authority, and Councils tend to be in the firing line precisely because they are much more local and accessible than many other authorities _ private companies, the NHS, even government ministers.
I would also suggest that every time I see a newspaper report on a local government issue, the local Council is always blamed even if it appears not to have anything to do with it, or even if it is the only agency actually engaged in sorting the problem out. The policy of government ministers like Eric Pickles to attack local government can't help.
All this helps to create an atmosphere where anything that a Council officer or councillor says is disbelieved. I have had this many times over the libraries issue, when I have pointed out that an assertion is not true, only to be told that it must be, and to have my interlocuter refuse to believe me even when I refer to documentary proof. For instance, I frequently get told that Brent Council rejected proposals in April 2011 to allow various libraries to be volunteer run when they were at no cost to the Council. This claim continues to be repeated when it is simply wrong, and proof is easily available to that effect. There seems to be a point when people have repeated a point to each other so many times that they can no longer accept that it might not be true.
This is damaging to democracy, but also to any kind of rational decision making.
2 comments:
James, my position is not to blame the Labour Party as such for everything. As the actress said to the bishop, "some of my best friends are Labour Party members". It is rather that the particular way the Labour ADMINISTRATION operates and treats local people breeds distrust. I have seen successive groups of campaigners attend Executive meetings and put their case calmly, who end up seething with resentment, not so much because the Exec disagrees with them but with the way they feel fobbed off, ignored or patronised with key questions remaining unanswered.
Then there is the case of consultations. It would be better for all concerned if the purpose of particular consultations was made clear so that there was not over-expectation that a particular policy would be dropped if the majority of respondents are against it. The outcome parameters of such consultations woudl then themselves be something we could debate.
We are entitled to be informed about local issues. I have had a Freedom of Information request asking for information on possible privatisation of the Brent Parks maintenance refused and I am still waiting for information also being treated as an FOI request on the amount of playspace that will be available per child as a consequence of several school expansions.
I agree with you that distrust is damaging to local democracy but disagree that it is all the fault of your political opponents.
What is claimed is that when subsequent 'no cost' proposals to run a library were put to the council they were rejected without reason to those putting them forward, apart from a questionable blame being put on the 'demands' of All Souls College (and it is not clear what the truth of that assertion is, other than everyone else has got it wrong or is dishonest or blameworthy except for the council). Your 'rational' kind of 'decision making' is incredibly hard to follow. No doubt you have repeated to yourself so many times the mantra that your 'vision' for the library service is 'correct' that you fail to be able to consider differing points of view and hide behind 'a council's right to make decisions' as if this 'right' justifies you riding rough shod over a community that has dared to disagree with you. You seem to know nothing about what engagement or democracy involves.
Post a Comment