"I find myself somewhat troubled by the recent ‘blogs’ by Councillor Sitkin, particularly in relation to last Wednesday’s council meeting. Despite a few days having passed since then, I still feel compelled to respond.
"It strikes me as rather disingenuous to promote a selective and inaccurate account in a forum such as this. Such politicking insults the intelligence of your readership (what, both of them?) and borders on propaganda.
"You see, I was in that room, without a hint of political bias, on behalf of the Pinkham Way Alliance. I was part of a group of impartial observers, optimistically awaiting a mature bipartisan response to the motion in hand – a much warranted cross-party objection to the NLWP and Pinkham Way.
"What unfolded was nothing short of tragic - a significant opportunity to ‘do the right thing’, squandered by the Labour contingent, in a pathetic clamber for chief lackey!
"Your public rhetoric belies your actions in private, Councillor Sitkin. In the cloistered confines of the Council Chambers, you (and your fellow Bowes Councillors) spectacularly failed to uphold the promises you had made to your constituents.
"It seems you had left your principles at the door, and voted contrary to your convictions, in a dogged display of determined obstinacy. Dissent for its own sake, a herd mentality all too apparent, toeing the party line in spectacular fashion.
"Despite your protestations to the contrary, I find a greater measure of truth in Councillor Pearce’s retelling of the events of Wednesday evening. It concurs rather more with my own experience of the meeting. The Enfield Independent’s journalist, Tristan Kirk, also reported a similar version of events.
"Had the will been there, the outcome could have been very different. You could have negotiated an amendment to the sections you found objectionable in the 'Sequential Testing' section of the Conservative-led Motion - there was ample opportunity to do so.
"You could even have abstained from the vote to reject it (which would have been preferable to throwing it out entirely). You did neither.
"On matters of great importance it is imperative that political divisions are put aside. Throughout history, even vehemently opposing factions have worked together for the greater good. This was not a trivial matter; this proposal will affect us for generations to come. I fear the gravity of the situation was lost on your fellow Councillors. It was incumbent on you to ensure otherwise, but you failed in this regard.
"True political integrity demands defending one’s principles in spite of all opposition. In words as well as in deeds, it requires courage and steadfastness at all times. That the Bowes Councillors latterly lodged an objection to the NLWP provides but a small comfort. I am glad of it, nonetheless.
"If only they had demonstrated the courage of their convictions within the Council Chamber, where it truly mattered. Now that would have been inspiring.
Irene Sallas
(Southgate Green resident and member of the PWA)
(Southgate Green resident and member of the PWA)
"If you are the lady with whom I spoke, before and after the Enfield Council meeting, I'm sorry that you misunderstand what was actually happening there. As I was trying to tell you on the night, and as indicated in your recent comments, we Bowes Labour councillors have, true to our word, lodged an objection to the NWLP regarding the Pinkham Way proposal.
"Why you suggest that this provides only 'small comfort', given that it's exactly what the Pinkham Way Alliance wanted, I don't know. It seems a little churlish, and I know that several of your colleagues have reacted entirely positively to our work. I tried to tell you that on the night that we were heading in that direction, but you didn't believe me and/or wouldn't listen.
"The whole premise of your comments is that you wanted us to sign the Conservative motion, as if there were no other way for Enfield to oppose Pinkham Way. To us, that premise is wrong. There are other ways to oppose Pinkham Way. For instance, there is the path that we, the Bowes Labour councillors, have followed.
"Instead of impugning my character, I'd ask you (like I did on the night, while you were unfortunately yelling at me) to concentrate on the strings attached to the Conservative motion, i.e. the betrayal of Edmonton.
"Because you speak about convictions, please note that mine are that ecological and social justice must go hand-in-hand. If you do not share them, if you feel that it's okay to sort oneself out, without caring about what happens to other communities, then fine, you are being true to yourself, and I understand you better.
"My values are different, and I will be sleeping very well with them, now and in the future. They are also shared by the overwhelming majority of our constituents, with whom we've spoken. We do not let our opposition to Pinkham Way interfere with our moral compass, or with our ability to come up with reasoned and creative alternatives. These must optimise outcomes for as many parties as possible, instead of simply shifting burdens to those who may be less able to defend themselves.
"In the hope that you might again become as independent as you claim to be, I'd like to point out that there is nothing preventing you, or the Conservative councillors, from supporting our representation to the NLWP. We all agree to oppose Pinkham Way, and to repeat: it is churlish and quite unworthy to pretend this isn't the case. There are disagreements, however, about the alternative (Edmonton vs. Barnet) and I'd be delighted to have that discussion. The rest is just character assassination, and actually quite nasty. It's also fluff.
"I'm not a professional politician with career ambitions - just a civic-minded guy from the community. I am trying to step into the breach, and do good work for as many people as possible, for however long I have the privilege. If idealists like me are subjected to gratuitous attacks like this, is it no wonder that most people don't want to be councillors. Can we stick to the facts the next time, please, instead of casting unwarranted aspersions?"
Alan Sitkin
13 July:
Response to Councillor Sitkin’s, er, Response
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my recent post. So as avoid confusion and simplify matters (it’s a long one folks, sorry!) I think I should address it on a paragraph by paragraph basis.
Paragraph 1: "If you are the lady with whom I spoke, before and after the Enfield Council meeting, I'm sorry that you misunderstand what was actually happening there. As I was trying to tell you on the night, and as indicated in your recent comments, we Bowes Labour councillors have, true to our word, lodged an objection to the NWLP regarding the Pinkham Way proposal."
Yes, I am she, ‘Bandana Woman’. And you are right: I did misunderstand what was happening there. I thought you were going to lodge your objection within the council meeting, not outside of it. Foolishly I assumed that you were going to push for Enfield Council to vote against Pinkham Way. Silly me.
Paragraph 2: "Why you suggest that this provides only 'small comfort', given that it's exactly what the Pinkham Way Alliance wanted, I don't know. It seems a little churlish, and I know that several of your colleagues have reacted entirely positively to our work. I tried to tell you that on the night that we were heading in that direction, but you didn't believe me and/or wouldn't listen."
Yes, you’re probably right again, I should just be content with that really, shouldn’t I? ‘Small comfort’ is better that none, I suppose. It’s a bit greedy of me to want the ‘big comfort’ of a unified cross-party response. An actual whole Council objection. How ridiculous, sorry!
Oh, and I apologise about the not listening part, I’m afraid I lost you a bit after your “slums of Manilla” speech….
Paragraph 3: "The whole premise of your comments is that you wanted us to sign the Conservative motion, as if there were no other way for Enfield to oppose Pinkham Way. To us, that premise is wrong. There are other ways to oppose Pinkham Way. For instance, there is the path that we, the Bowes Labour councillors, have followed."
Er, no, actually. I believe I said “You could have negotiated an amendment to the sections you found objectionable in the 'Sequential Testing' section of the Conservative-led Motion”
That is “another way”, isn’t it? That could have saved the day, couldn’t it? Made things more agreeable for the Labour contingent. Incidentally, why didn’t you argue the case for a revision to the motion? I’m dying to know.
Paragraph 4: "Instead of impugning my character, I'd ask you (like I did on the night, while you were unfortunately yelling at me) to concentrate on the strings attached to the Conservative motion, i.e. the betrayal of Edmonton."
Er, no again, actually. Wasn’t it the other way around? Yes, I’m quite sure it was. (In fact, your yelling was commented on by a number of people - one of whom suggested I complain! Actually I wouldn’t dream of complaining though, it was rather entertaining.)
Re: ‘the strings attached’ – please re-read my response to Paragraph 3.
Paragraphs 5: "Because you speak about convictions, please note that mine are that ecological and social justice must go hand-in-hand. If you do not share them, if you feel that it's okay to sort oneself out, without caring about what happens to other communities, then fine, you are being true to yourself, and I understand you better."
Would it help you to understand me better if you knew that I have spent my entire working career helping people facing disadvantage and prejudice on a daily basis? Working, hands on, with the elderly, disabled and mentally ill. Providing real and tangible assistance so that they can improve their quality of life and engagement with society. Direct practical support, not just words.
Do not presume to know who I am Councillor Sitkin, you do not have a monopoly on social justice.
Paragraph 6: "My values are different, and I will be sleeping very well with them, now and in the future. They are also shared by the overwhelming majority of our constituents, with whom we've spoken. We do not let our opposition to Pinkham Way interfere with our moral compass, or with our ability to come up with reasoned and creative alternatives. These must optimise outcomes for as many parties as possible, instead of simply shifting burdens to those who may be less able to defend themselves."
Actually our values are not so different, but I suspect our actions probably are. The ‘creative alternatives’ you have published involve a proposal to locate the site at Staples Corner. Isn’t that nimbyism, Councillor Sitkin?
As I said to you on Wednesday, Staples Corner is an area of high population density too. And an area of high poverty and unemployment to boot. Statistically, the wards surrounding Staples Corner score very highly on the Indexes of Deprivation and are some of the most disadvantaged areas in England. Isn’t that “simply shifting burdens to those who may be less able to defend themselves”?
Paragraph 7: "In the hope that you might again become as independent as you claim to be, I'd like to point out that there is nothing preventing you, or the Conservative councillors, from supporting our representation to the NLWP. We all agree to oppose Pinkham Way, and to repeat: it is churlish and quite unworthy to pretend this isn't the case. There are disagreements, however, about the alternative (Edmonton vs. Barnet) and I'd be delighted to have that discussion. The rest is just character assassination, and actually quite nasty. It's also fluff."
Quite. There is nothing preventing us from doing that. Like I said, I’m glad you did it.
Forgive my oversight, I haven’t yet congratulated the Labour Council on the counter motion they actually agreed. I’m sure they will be quaking in their boots when they get the letter requesting that Barnet “withdraw their proposal to park its refuse vehicles at Pinkham Way” What a coup! Bravo!
Last Paragraph: "I’m not a professional politician with career ambitions - just a civic-minded guy from the community. I am trying to step into the breach, and do good work for as many people as possible, for however long I have the privilege. If idealists like me are subjected to gratuitous attacks like this, is it no wonder that most people don't want to be councillors. Can we stick to the facts the next time, please, instead of casting unwarranted aspersions?"
Did you cut and paste this above? Let me guess, Churchill? Lincoln? No, wait a minute, I know this one…Malcolm X? Oh heck, it’s late. I give up…
Irene Sallas
No comments:
Post a Comment