Next pre-election steps for SEC
A question was left hanging in the air after Monday night's packed SEC meeting: how will Ealing's political parties respond to the challenges laid down by the 400+-strong audience in the Victoria Hall? Will their manifestos for the May election reflect an understanding of the deep concerns voiced about the real threats to the town centre?
Vague undertakings made under pressure at public meetings do not always translate into firm commitments. There were several of the former from the platform speakers, but little apparent recognition of the contradictions that have to be resolved within present policy. There are choices to be made, which must be honestly set out before the elections. Electorates are increasingly disillusioned about election promises which are either vague, ambiguous or fudged once the heat of the campaign dies down.
The biggest challenge is that faced by the Conservatives. They could continue to adopt the blinkered vandalism of those like councillor Phil Taylor, who would happily tear the heart out of the town centre for the 30 pieces of silver offered by Glenkerrin or St George, without giving even a hint of understanding either the value of Ealing's heritage or the future needs of the community. Or they could grasp the chance of preserving the special nature of the Queen of the Suburbs with a sensitive but comprehensive plan to reinvigorate it to meet the challenges of the next century.
Labour has its own internal contradiction to resolve. Dickens Yard was after all their initial idea - an apparent win-win gladly adopted by the successor Tory Council, where assets could be flogged off and a contribution made to meeting some of the Ealing's housing needs. In the event, the scheme has produced neither the expected cash nor the intended proportion of affordable housing, and is now under challenge. Will Labour re-examine how the centre should be revived, with a real mix of uses as envisaged in the borough plan?
The Lib Dems are untrammelled by the baggage of past policy, and so are freer to propose ambitious ideas without the responsibility or immediate prospect of having to implement them. Their challenge however is to show that they can convert from being an irritant to the ruling administration into a serious contender for shared power, which could be the case in the event of no other party gaining a majority of seats on the new Council. For them, as for the others, it is a question of showing how the balance can be struck between a visionary plan and the present absence of funds to realise it.
SEC has a continuing role to play in this. The meeting on 22 February was just a start. What its members and supporters have to do now is to keep up the pressure on all parties, and in particular on the candidates for the council wards surrounding the centre. What will these contenders for office commit to as councillors? Their individual answers to the questions posed by the SEC Vision should determine how the votes are cast on May 6.
23 February 2010
|
