Racism, what racism?

For those interested in knowing about the dynamics of racism, Harrow presents a good study:

    • “Harrow Council left with no party in control amid racism row”?” – BBC
    • A local newspaper reported that members of Harrow Borough Council’s Independent Labour group at their press conference (last May) claimed there is ‘institutional racism’ within the authority’s Labour group – Harrow Times
    • Previous chief executive wrote, “Separately complaints have been made in the press by the ILG (Independent Labour Group) about institutional racism”
    • At the Council meeting in November last year, leader of the council announced an independent investigation into an allegation of racism – the above bullet points indicate how ‘institutional racism’ has been perceived and therefore the willingness for the investigation is understandable
    • At the Harrow Council’s cabinet meeting last January, an update regarding the pending investigation into alleged institutional racism at Harrow Council was demanded

This March an announcement has been made that an investigation into alleged racism within Harrow Borough Council will be investigated by an Asian police officer, previously borough commander in Harrow
In setting the background of ‘a Review into Institutional Racism Complaints’, the terms of reference for the review say ‘Harrow Council is aware that a number of members of its staff and some elected members, have made allegations of potentially discriminatory behaviour, based upon their race’ – i.e. racism = ‘discrimination’; also the heading of the investigation is “a Review into Institutional Racism Complaints at Harrow Council“”.
The English language is quite specific about ‘racism’, ‘discrimination’, ‘review’ and ‘investigation’!
The language of the terms of reference and confusions within are enough to indicate that whatever is going to be built on a problematic base, is going to be problematic.
Also, such is the understanding of the institutional racism that the terms of reference say “not to cover Councillor complaints about other Councillors”, ignoring the fact that the councillor to councillor complaints are embedded within the structure and workings of the council and are covered through the Standards procedures which are progressed and implemented by the council, as an institution – can the council process be guaranteed not to harass and victimise?
We heard a councillor describing her experience of the Council processes as “use of Standards Committee where racial and gender stereotyping was used in the description of my conduct””.
Another case in point is the disrespect shown to the first African mayor at the new council meeting last year – we are not aware of any Standards action against those responsible for such an act.
We would not describe any officers “lousy”, as the ILG leader has said, but if someone says that there is a culture of fear after how the previous chief executive left, we might sympathise with that”.
We sympathise with the investigator who has to carry out such an institutionally defined and discredited ‘‘review’, especially in view of the ILG letter published last week (27.3.2014) that argues that his appointment will be neither independent nor professional.
The minority Tory administration had previously said that investigation into the allegations of racism at the council would be “independent””, most probably to keep the Independent Labour Group happy who keep the controversially installed leader of the council in power.
How an investigation could be “independent”” if the political arm of the body that has been accused of racism sets the terms of reference and appoints an investigator of its choice on behalf of the body! Experience tells that transparency, perception of fairness and credibility are crucial in addressing any dynamics of racism, which seem to be lacking in this case.
Many think that this ‘review’, close to the May council election, is no more than a pre-determined illusion to claim fairness and care for the diversity in the borough!

Hypocrisy of the ‘Fairtrade’!

Unlike those who gain publicity through Fairtrade, we have the integrity to address why unfair trade!
Councillor Husain Akhtar writes:
Unfortunately the Fairtrade is cleverly used as a high profile opportunity to show a surface feel for the diversity and empathy for the developing countries by touching on the effects rather than addressing the cause such as unfair tariff or import quota.
In Harrow, many in the two wards are really concerned about the socio-economic plight of the developing countries and have no desire for the superficial ‘fairtrade’ or ‘socialist’ markers.
Fairtrade is about more than trade. It is a test of the credibility of the World Trade Organisation, and its ability to deliver on its promises to developing countries to liberalize trade and secure a fair system of trade rules and practices.
Cotton is a prime example where rich countries’ trade policies depress world prices and cut into the livelihood of millions in developing countries (since cotton is a labour-intensive business) leading to a situation where, for example, the entire GDP of Burkina Faso, where 2 million people depend on growing cotton, is lower than subsidies that US cotton farmers benefit from.
Therefore, the ‘fairtrade’ should not just be promoting the goods and materials produced in the developing countries but must have the capacity to address some of the following issues:
    • Creating Opportunities for Economically Disadvantaged Producers – poverty reduction through trade forms and terms and by enabling producers to move from income insecurity and poverty to economic self-sufficiency and ownership
    • Transparency and Accountability – in management and commercial relations, being accountable to all stakeholders
    • Fair Trading Practices – recognizing the financial disadvantages producers and suppliers face
    • Payment of a Fair Price – that has been mutually agreed by all through dialogue and participation
    • Ensuring no Child Labour and Forced Labour is used in production
    • Ensuring Good Working Conditions – providing a safe and healthy working environment, and good working hours and conditions
    • Providing Capacity Building – to develop the skills and capabilities of the producers
    • Promoting Fair Trade – through honest advertising and marketing techniques
    • Respect for the Environment – using production technologies that seek to reduce energy consumption

Tory budget defeat

Speaking at the Harrow council’s budget meeting on 27 February 2014, independent councillor Husain Akhtar said.
The last budget (Labour) was voted in because it showed some considerations for the borough’s profile emerging from the 2011 census, particularly in terms of the age groups and deprivation factor.
Since then because of the political mess created by some, now we have half baked budgets flying all over the place which have some good points and if put together, could result in best outcome for the residents of Harrow.
Some say and it is true that the Tory budget lacks new ideas because it is based on accumulating money from the perceived ‘unachievable savings’ and reallocating it to either vote grabbing activities or satisfying personal egos. Therefore, the four key components of their budget have several omissions:
For example:
    • under ‘Cleaner’ – no specific reference to setting and achieving carbon reduction targets
    • under ‘Safer’ – no specific reference to tackling prostitution – a well publicised attraction of Harrow
    • under ‘Fairer’ – no specific reference to improving and protecting Arts & cultural heritage of the borough
    • under ‘Effective organisation’ – no specific focus on the relationships with the regional and national governments despite Harrow’s frequent concerns about the allocation of grants etc – and of course ‘it is only the weak leaders who need a chief executive’
Overall, it a very irresponsible budget because it has no measureable commitment for a smooth financial transition to the next year when the council will be saving £25m.
As far as the budget amendments by the independent Labour group (ILG) are concerned, these are unachievable and therefore irrelevant because the group is very unlikely to be on the council after the May election.
On a vote, the Tory budget was miserably defeated. But during the recess granted by the mayor (member of ILG), Tory group made a deal and its significantly amended budget was voted in by the ILG vote.
Interesting that it was ILG vote last September that voted in the minority Tory administration!
Based on all this, a vote for ILG in May, would be a vote for Tories.