Probity and Planning in Brent

 

With the far-reaching new Brent Local Plan now in place until 2041, Brent enters a new period of multi-million pound developments in its growth areas that will change the face of Brent, as well as the more routine planning applications that are often delegated to officers.

With its quasi-judicial role the Planning Committee is supposed to be free from any specific political interference although it operates within the Council's Local Plan and Planning Guidance.

There have been questions raised in the past about indirect political interference in Planning Committee, especially when Labour members who do not conform the expectations lose their position (and their additional allowance)  in one way or another.

It is important then that in order to ensure the public see the proceediungs as fair and above board that there is probity in the Planning Committee's structure and proceedings.

The Local Government Association has published advice on probity in planning HERE. They say:

Probity in planning is about ensuring that decisions on plan making and planning applications are undertaken, on behalf of communities, in a fair, impartial and transparent way.

What appears to be missing from this in the context of  a mainly one-party council is how the members of the committee are chosen.  In Brent the proportion of places allocated are on the basis of the local election outcome and there are seven Labour members of the Committee and one Opposition member.  Currently this is a Conservative. Cllr Michael Maurice. There is no Liberal Democrat although concern over new developments in the borough was one of their main campaigning  issues.

Labour members are appointed to the Committee by the leader, and perhaps deputy leader, rather than elected by the Labour Group.. 

It is important to note that there is no overt political whipping  of the Labour committee members on planning matters.

This adminstration's Planning Committee is listed above.  It is worth noting that the chair, Cllr Matt Kelcher, is the partner of the new Deputy Leader of the Council, Cllr Mili Patel.The  new Vice-chair is Cllr Saquib Butt, brother of Muhammed Butt, leader of the Council.  Both were on the previous Planning Committee.

New members of the Planning Committee include Cllr Ajmal Akram, who I understand is Muhammed Butt's brother-in-law, and Cllr Arshad Mahmood, widely alleged to be Cllr  M.Butt's cousin.

These connections, if true, would constitute half of the Committee, although they all, of course, may be fiercely independent with no family allegiance.

 

Cllr Saqib Butt

In addition to his position on the Planning Committee Cllr S. Butt has also been appointed to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee that has planning and regeneration as part of its remit. He is also a member of both the Audit and Standards Committee and its advisory body.

New Wembley Hill councillor  Ajmal Akram goes straight into office as a member of both the Planning Committee and Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee. New Kilburn councillor Rita Begum is on the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee as well as Planning.

Brent has two wholly-owned subsidiary housing companies First Wave Housing and I4B and Saqib Butt has been appointed the councillor director on both.

 

From First Wave Housing accounts

 

 

From I4B Holdings Accounts

 

Both companies report to the Audit and Standards Committee.

 

Labour leaflet's ambiguous claims over sources of funding to help residents

 

Under the headline 'Your Labour Council is reducing the cost of living in Queensbury' the Labour Party is distributing the above claims in its election leaflet distributed in the ward.

Some are at best ambigous and suggest help is from the council rather than via the council.  Take for example the £150 refund on Council Tax. The Council's own website is very clear this this comes from the government:

A Council response to a Freedom of Information request by Paul Lorber lists all the Covid-19 grants that have been available and is a valuable source for cross-checking claims over the forthcoming period.

You will note that the Brent Council appears to have been unsuccessful in spending some of the grants available for business, while the Schools Department has, rightly, spent to the full.  Overall the 'repayment' column, totally £70m is concerning - is this unspent money that the council had to pay back to the government?

NEU urges Butt to follow Labour Party policy and act on Village School academisation

The Brent National Education Union passed the following resolution unanimously at their meeting last night:

Brent NEU note that The Village school is still a Local Authority school and that Brent Labour Party policy is to urge LA schools to remain within the LA family of schools. We further note that the overwhelming majority of staff and the community have called for the school remain in the LA family of schools. 

Brent NEU also note that the Labour Party Conference in September 2018 agreed the following.

“That in government, the Labour Party will bring all schools back under local democratic control including academy and Multi Academy Trusts. Therefore, proposals to wind up MATs and turn over control and management of schools to local democratically controlled structures should be developed urgently.”

Brent NEU therefore call on the leader of the council Muhammed Butt to urgently;

1. Write to the Chair of Governors and the Governing Board at The Village urging them to withdraw their proposal to become an academy as part of a Multi Academy Trust and remain as an LA school. 
2. Write to the Secretary of State for Education to urge the Government not to proceed with the proposal due to the difficulties accompanying this proposal to join Woodfield in a MAT.

Brent Labour Group punish John Duffy, outspoken Brent councillor - Labour whip removed

Cllr Duffy

In a dedicated meeting of Brent Labour Group held on Monday maverick councillor John Duffy  was deprived of the Labour whip for an indefinite period.

In what one informant described as an ugly meeting reminiscent of a kangaroo court, Duffy was accused of  bullying and bringing the Labour Group into disrepute.

Cllr Butt's allies ensured that a compromise proposal, for a shorter period, was defeated. Duffy's recent criticism of Brent's CEO, Carolyn Downs, appeared to have played a part in the move as well as his revelations concerning Brent's management of its waste services. LINK

Duffy, who was not selected by Labour for the May 2018 elections, has just only six months left as a councillor.

I do hope that this does not prevent Cllr Duffy continuing to speak 'Truth to Power' despite "Power' trying to silence him.

Should Brent Labour have a council funded premises as its election campaign HQ?

A message has gone out to members from the Labour Party asking, 'If you're free to volunteer on polling day, let us know which campaign centre you will join.'

One of the centres listed is:

Campaign Centre - Brent (Peel Precinct)
21-23 Peel Precinct,
NW6 5BS

This address, on the South Kilburn estate, is in fact that of the South Kilburn Community Alliance which is part funded by Brent Council.

Surely it is wrong for a premises associated with the Council to be used for party political purposes. The call to Labour Party members says the campaign centre will be open from 9am to 10pm.

NOT NOW, BERNARD

Will Bernard be given the chance to climb Labour's mountain?

The crowded field of Labour hopefuls for the Brent Central parliamentary has been joined by yet another runner. Fresh from winning a council candidate place for the Willesden Green was, Bernard Collier has now set his sights higher, and has announced he wants the Brent Central seat.

After last week's flurry of letters to the Brent and Kilburn Times (and Zaffar van Kalwala managed it again today)we can look forward to the Thoughts of Bernard jostling for a place alongside those from the other candidates.

Meanwhile here is what he wrote about himself: LINK

I have lived in Kilburn and Willesden since 1986. Bringing up two children in Brent, using local schools, GP’s and hospitals, has given me a thorough understanding of the issues that affect people locally.

I began my working life teaching independent living and advocacy skills to adults with learning difficulties. Since then I have run voluntary organisations and worked with community groups (Refugee, Pre schools, Senior Citizens) for the last twenty years. I have gained experience of promoting their collective voice and influencing social policy at local, regional, and national levels.

My varied experience, including managing Sure Start outreach teams and facilitating Community Networks for example, means that I bring both a passion for social justice and a range of strategic and management skills to “make it happen” in Brent Central.

The Labour party in Brent Central has a mountain to climb after losing a nominal majority of 19% in 2010. It is vital therefore that the candidate we choose has experience of representing, influencing and negotiating on behalf of local communities. Someone with a good grasp of policy and also a history of standing up for communities and fighting for social justice.

I believe Brent Central deserves to have an MP who has lived a life outside of the political bubble. Who has experience of the local area and the problems facing local people. A fresh face untainted by some of the negative issues that have dogged our party in recent years. Someone to represent all the communities of Brent Central.

This is why I am putting myself forward to be the candidate for selection by Brent Central CLP.

Butt 'excited' about 'dynamic,energetic and talented' new Executive

In a statement released this morning following the Brent Labour Group AGM, Group and Council leader Muhammed Butt said:

I want to thank the outgoing Executive Members for the dedication to Brent and commitment to public service that they have shown. I am incredibly excited about starting work on Monday morning with our dynamic, energetic and talented new Executive. 

The Government has caused a recession, a dramatic fall in living standards for our residents and are implementing cuts to welfare that will devastate our community. We still have a lot of work to do to protect the people of Brent from this onslaught and I am confident that we have the best possible team to do so.

The new Executive now has 50% of its members from a Black and Ethnic Minority background compared to 30% previously and the average age has reduced to 46 from 60.  However three women lost their posts in the election and only two gained posts.

It is unclear whether there will be any political change of direction as a result of these changes and Muhammed Butt's statement concentrates on dynamism and energy rather than policy. It does appear to be more of a generational change than a shift to the left. However some Labour sources hope for a more robust approach to children's centres,  free schools and forced academies from Michael Pavey and a more proactive and sympathetic engagement on housing issues from Margaret McLennan. Michael Pavey will be talking to parents and carers at Gladstone Park Primary school tomorrow who are fighting forced academy status in a meeting arranged before Saturday's AGM.

Labour 'Young Turks' may challenge for Brent Executive positions

The challengers are probably too young to remember this!

The Brent Executive may have a more youthful profile following Labour's Annual General Meeting in May. AGMs of any organisation are an occasion for elected positions to be open to challenge and part of that process is for members to assess the performance of the incumbents and consider alternatives.

According to my sources among the incumbents under particular scrutiny this time round are Cllr Lesley Jones, Cllr Mary Arnold and Cllr James Powney. 'Alternatives' that have been mentioned include the very able Cllr James Denselow who has a background in journalism; Cllr Michael Pavey, energetic Barnhill by-election winner, who is  a school governor and has launched a high profile campaign to safeguard Children's Centres; and Cllr Roxanne Mashari who yesterday announced she was not standing for the Brent Central parliamentary selection. Presumably experience as a member of the Brent Executive would stand her in good stead in any future parliamentary bid. I have heard that Cllr Lincoln Beswick is not expected to carry on but Jim Moher, contrary to weekend reports, is to stand again.

Meanwhile Cllr Butt himself has contributed a new blog on the Council website which calls on residents to campaign on cuts to the fire service and on the A&E closures. This adopts a slightly harder line than previously.  LINK

Following my posting yesterday on the front runners for the Brent Central selection I have had somewhat conflicting information. There has been a suggestion that Cllr Ann John has joined James Powney in backing Catherine West but others claim that West is seeking nomination in another constituency.

Apparently there has been some disquiet that members of the short-listing panel, who it is claimed should remain neutral, have been involved in backing particular candidates. Meanwhile I have let all the  prospective candidates I am aware of  that in the interests of an informed public I am happy to carry their Guest Blogs on this site.

Tanks at Brent Town Hall on Monday?

 

It is likely to be a busy and rather tense weekend in Brent Labour circles as final figures are totted up to see whether a potential plan to topple Muhammed Butt has enough support.

Action now would enable a new leader to take over before the final decisions are made on the 2013-14 budget with controversies remaining over the level of Council Tax, the London Living Wage and departmental budgets.

As I write it seems that the threat to Butt's has diminished slightly over the last few days but the arithmetic is very tight. He defeated Ann John by only one vote last May so in theory it only requires one vote to switch.

Rather than a left/right division it appears that this is almost a generation split with reports that the move has been spearheaded by a senior councillor and ex-member of the Executive who had a reputation as a left-winger in the 1980s.

During his period in office Muhammed Butt has promoted younger councillors such as Krupesh Hirani and Michael Pavey and built up a team of younger supporters whilst at the same time retaining the support of some Labour heavyweights.

As Brent Town Hall witnesses the last of its dramas (or will it all fizzle out?) the new Civic Centre awaits the triumphant entrance of the Leader.

Watch this space...

Meanwhile the battle for the Labour nomination for parliamentary candidate for Brent Central is hotting up with up to six names in the hat according to reliable sources.  Cllrs Val Kalwala, Choudry and Mashari have all been mentioned. The latter would benefit if Labour decides on an all-woman short-list and she would be pitted against Dawn Butler.

Brent Council to 'vigorously' pursue free schools

The middle of August is often the time when controversial proposals are published and this August is no exception. The Brent Executive on August 20th will be discussing a major report arising from a comprehensive review of educational provision in the borough.

The issue of free schools has divided Brent Labour Party and the report attempts to satisfy both sides of the debate.

Officers recommend that the Council should 'vigorously pursue' partnerships with free school providers as well as academy providers and notes that any new schools arising from Section 106 agreements with Quintain in Wembley (Fulton Road) and in Oriental City, would, under the current national framework, have to be academies or free schools. Such schools will be necessary because expansion of existing schools is not sufficient to meet anticipated demand and in order to utilise this funding stream to remove the need for prudential borrowing. They say  that the Council would have to be 'extremely careful' about identifying preferred providers and propose the following partnership commitment from potential free school and academies providers:

Academies and free school providers working with the Council will be expected to demonstrate:

1. An absolute commitment to the ethos and values of inclusive education for all Brent’s children and recognition of the positive role schools should play in the wider community.

2. A commitment to a close working relationship with the local authority in order to maintain an appropriate focus on borough-wide priorities, including local authority nomination of a member of the governing body and a commitment to sharing performance information.

3. The ability to deliver school improvement in an urban context.

4. That the establishment of the proposed education provision would be supported by demonstrable parental demand and with a genuine commitment to providing school places for local children.

5. Appropriate staffing arrangements to ensure high quality teaching and learning from qualified staff and good employment practices, including in relation to support and contracted staff.

6. A commitment to meeting the needs of Brent’s diverse community.

7. A commitment to ensuring the future employability of young people (in particular in secondary and 16 to 19) through links with business, industry and higher education.

8. A commitment to community access and use of facilities through agreed extended opening and lettings policy.

9. A commitment to good pupil nutrition and healthy eating.

10. A commitment to inclusive practice and fair access to the school for all pupils as governed by the Admission Code of Practice and the Authority’s Fair Access Protocols.

The partnership commitment clearly addresses concerns over issues such as the employment of unqualified teachers,  working conditions, poor quality school meals and selection. However, Conservative academy and free school advocates are likely to see this as an attempt to get academy and free school funding for 'local authority schools in disguise' - lacking the 'freedoms' that such schools are supposed to enjoy.

Brent Labour desperately seeking council candidates for 2014

Brent Labour Party is looking for people to stand as Labour councillors in 2014. They are possibly a little desperate so I thought I would give them a hand by publicising the invite. Note you do not have to be a member of the Labour Party to attend:

The Brent Labour Party will soon be starting its selection process for Brent Council elections in 2014. With this is mind, the Brent Labour Party is holding an event on the 4th of July for people interested in becoming a Labour Councillor.

If you are interested in putting yourself forward, this is a fantastic opportunity to come along, and learn a bit more about what being a councillor really entails, and how to go about applying.
The meeting starts at 7pm with presentations by current councillors talking about their experiences of getting started and what it’s like to be a councillor.

There will then be a chance to ask questions. This will last approximately 45 minutes – 1 hour. After the presentations you will be able to talk to the councillors informally.

If you know someone that might be interested in coming along but isn’t on this email list please pass this information on – everyone is welcome to attend, even if they’re not a Labour Party Member

The information for the evening is the following::

Wednesday the 4th of July 2012 – 7pm

The Stonebridge Hub, Hillside, NW10 8BN (10 minute walk from either Harlesden or Stonebridge stations)

Let us know if you would like to attend by emailing brentlabour@live.co.uk

I will be happy to publish any suggestions from readers about questions that could be asked after the presentation.

Believing James Powney...

I wrote recently LINK that in my experience Cllr James Powney, despite our differences, has always posted my comments on his blog, but it seems that others have not been so fortunate.

Pete Firm, who is secretary of Brent Trade Union Council and a Labour Party member, posted a comment on the leafleting licence issue some time ago. The comment was about James Powney's suggestion that the campaign around the issue had been 'invented'

Cllr Powney had written:

The mischief started with the Willesden and Brent Times leading with a story that gave the impression that this was an entirely new set of rules, and glossing over the exemptions.  What is striking is that I personally spoke to the reporter and told her that "political purposes" meant a variety of political campaigns, not just political parties

Firmin's comment pointed out  the  Editor's note in the subsequent WBT , at the foot of a letter from Michael Read clarifying exemptions to the licence requirement, which said:

Brent Council's communication team has issued an apology to the Times for issuing an inaccurate statement on which our original report was based.

In other words, as I have also pointed out, LINK the Willesden and Brent  Times story was based on an e-mail from the Council itself.

 The comment was never published on Cllr Powney's blog and Pete wrote on April 30th asking why.

James, Can I ask why you haven’t published my comment (submitted last Thursday or Friday) to you blog post “How To Invent A Campaign”? Pete Firmin

 Firmin has has received no response.

 Coincidentally the latest post on James' blog is pertinent. LINK He is concerned that people don't believe him:

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. 

Pete Firmin and I have both pointed to the 'documentary proof' in the Council e-mail and the Editor's note, that Cllr Powney's accusation about an invented campaign was wrong.

Time to publish Pete Firmin's comment, James?

Why Labour should not embrace free schools - by a Labour MP

As Brent Labour ponders whether to set up a free school with a partner in the borough they may be interested in this article in the New Statesman by Lisa Nandy, Labour MP for Wigan.

Andrew Adonis’s argument in the New Statesman last month that Labour should embrace free schools is selective, outdated and, in part, simply wrong.

In reality, free schools do not have the comprehensive and inclusive intake he claims. The catchment areas of the first 24 free schools tend to favour the better off, and consequently are populated by "middle class suburban people” according to research by the market analysts CACI. All of them take fewer children on free school meals than surrounding schools. At the West London Free School, for example, 23 per cent of pupils are eligible for free lunches, compared with 32 per cent in the five neighboring schools.

This is not an accident – it is inherent in the free schools model. The pattern has also emerged in Sweden, which pioneered free schools, where evidence suggests that free schools increase social segregation because they are, according to the Swedish Education Minister “generally attended by children of better educated and wealthy families making things even more difficult for children attending ordinary schools in poor areas.”

This backdoor selection is sanctioned by the Secretary of State, who says free schools must adhere to the admissions code, but allows "agreed variations", which have only been made public in response to freedom of information requests.

The problem with focusing only on free schools, as Adonis has done, is that schools are not islands. Tony Blair said a school “belonged to itself, for itself.” But schools are part of their community and what happens in one has an impact on children in another. Adonis ignores the enormous impact free schools have on other children, based on a model of surplus places, where good schools flourish and expand while others wither and die. This is great news for children, unless you happen to be stuck in a school with spare places and reduced funding while it is allowed to wither on the grapevine.

Similarly, the amount spent on free schools cannot fail to impact on other children. The amount spent per pupil in the first free schools is well above average, in part because the schools are smaller and because they are running at reduced capacity for the first few years. The West London Free School, for example, received £12,416 per pupil in its first year, compared to an average of £7,064. In addition, the set up costs are huge.
 The first round of capital funding amounted to £50 million which included £14 million for just one school building. Total capital costs for just the first 24 schools will range from £100-£130 million whilst nearly 100 civil servants are working on the free schools initiative in Whitehall. At a time when other schools are facing a real terms cut to their budgets over the next 3 years this seems shockingly unfair.

Adonis rightfully acknowledges the importance of teachers, as most politicians do, but is anyone actually listening to them? He argues for more centrally driven change, but visit any classroom across the country and teachers will tell you they are sick and tired of central reform.

The international evidence is clear, that autonomy and accountability work. But that points us away from Michael Gove’s free schools model which has taken away local accountability in the form of the local authority and centralised power in the hands of the Secretary of State.

We should be handing more power to teachers, not to Gove, increasing, not reducing local accountability and improving collaboration, not competition for places, so that children – particularly the most disadvantaged - are not left behind.

In practice this would mean teachers having more flexibility to decide what, how and when they teach. They might, for example, choose to teach by ability not year groups, and other forms of innovation that should be possible in any school, regardless of structure. It should be coupled with investment in lifelong learning and serious thinking about what happens to children outside the classroom, which matters above all to the children who most need our help.

Adonis looks to Singapore for lessons, but on a select committee visit to the country this year, ministers told us they were keen to learn from Britain about how to better equip their children for life and for the workforce. Similarly, Finland, which we visited last year, succeeds because of the status, pay and conditions of teachers, yet free schools can use unqualified teachers and are not required to adhere to national pay and conditions agreements. Michael Wilshaw, who Adonis cites as a champion of this model, was critical of the use of unqualified teachers at a recent appearance before the education select committee.

Adonis seems to have bought into Gove’s vision – that introducing competition, taking away "bureaucracy" and pursuing a relentless academic vision allows the brightest young people to do well, regardless of background. Gove ignores - and indeed has removed help for - the enormous practical barriers that exist for those children.

Free schools are part of that vision. To paraphrase Andy Burnham, it’s a vision for some children, and some schools, not all children and all schools. Labour can do better than that.
Lisa Nandy is the Labour MP for Wigan.

Seven questions for Michael Pavey

A couple of weeks ago, one of Barnhill's Labour councillors stopped me outside the Town Hall to urge me to join the Labour Party.  I told him that I had left the Labour Party 47 years ago  and couldn't rejoin as I still had some socialist principles. He told me that I was wasting my time with the Greens and should join up so I could help change local Labour from within.

I am afraid I guffawed.

There are decent people in Brent Labour Party, and I count some of them as friends, but I don't respect the lack of democracy that is evident in their policy making and decision making. With an all powerful leader, acquiescent Executive, backbenchers limited to ward working and a browbeaten rank and file membership, the party has become separated from ordinary people.

Michael Pavey, Labour's candidate for Barnhill, dropped me a friendly note earlier this week and I am sure that he is a fine fellow: 'I think most people who have dealt with me, think I'm a pretty straight sort of guy and I am..' as Tony Blair said. Having talked to councillors from various parties I recognise that most of them started out as local community activists who wanted to see improvements in their area. Often the choice of party when they decided to stand for the Council was almost incidental, depending on who they bumped into and who asked them, but it is what happens once they are elected that concerns me.


Cllr Ann Hunter remarked recently that she put her ward before party and it is clear that she has had her disagreements with the Lib Dem leadership, and was of course a Labour councillor until she resigned from Labour over Iraq.  She said this openly while some backbench Labour councillors have let it be known privately that they are opposed to library closures and some of the other council  cuts, and there are persistent rumours that in the Executive George Crane has his reservations and Jim Moher is more aware of the contradictions than many.


Despite all this, not one Labour councillor, Executive or backbencher, has come out openly to question any of the policies apart from Cllr Claudia Hector who made her opposition to the demolition of the Old Willesden Library public in a message to the Keep Willesden Green public meeting.  Once enmeshed in the part machine the activist becomes another rubber stamping, silent and privately resentful, automaton.


So given all that I have some basic questions for Michael Pavey:


1. If he is elected, what will he do if there is a clear difference between the interests of people in Barnhill and a particular Council policy?


2. Will he urge his fellow Labour councillors to initiate a London wide Labour Council resistance against the cuts demanded by the Coalition government?


3. If this does not happen and the cuts are clearly damaging local people, at what point will he vote against implementation?


4. Does he support the way Brent Council has ignored the thousands of people opposed to its library closure programme and more recently the regeneration of Willesden Green Library?

5. What will he do to restore the credibility of Brent's consultation system, criticised by many residents, campaigning  groups and our respected local newspaper?

6. Where does he stand on privatisation of council services, council sponsorship of a free school and academy conversions?

7.. What are his policies for Brent Council action (apart from support for the 'back to work scheme'.)  Like the Labour candidate in Wembley Central his literature only refers to GLA and Government issues, and not to what Brent Council have done or will do.

Brent Labour's poor geography

Comments are closed on the Brent Labour blog LINK otherwise I would have posted a correction on the site.

They state that Labour Barnhill by-election candidate, Michael Pavey is 'the Chair of Wembley Primary School in Barnhill'. In fact of course Wembley Primary is not in Barnhill but in the heart of Preston ward. Michael lives in Kilburn.

Fund school places not free schools, Twigg urges

The following news report from the BBC should be of interest to Brent Labour Councillors and the local Labour Party who are currently debating whether the Council should go into partnership to promote a free school:

The government should tackle the growing crisis in primary school places rather than building more free schools, says shadow education secretary Stephen Twigg. The equivalent of 2,000 primary schools' worth of children - some 450,000 - need to be found places in England's schools by 2015, he says. Cash should be allocated where it is needed the most, he added.

 The government says it will spend £4bn on easing the pressure. This sum includes £1.9bn already announced for 2011-12 and an extra £600m announced in the autumn. It also includes a further £800m for the coming two years, which the Department for Education is expecting to be allocated. Mr Twigg accuses the government of "ignoring" what he says is a growing crisis. He highlights the fact that much of the money promised for new places has been ear-marked for free schools - the majority of which are secondaries where pupil numbers are falling.

 As free schools are parent-promoted they do not necessarily emerge where the population pressure points are. Mr Twigg says it would make more sense to spend the money on tackling the shortfall in primary school places, but that this could include some free schools. He says: "Across England we need nearly half a million more primary places - the equivalent of building an extra 2,000 primary schools between now and the general election.

"At the moment, the government has only promised an extra 100 new free schools, many of which will be secondaries. The government seems oblivious to the problem, preferring to focus on pet projects rather than real need. If we are to improve the number and quality of our primary schools, the government needs to start rolling up its sleeves."

 Mr Twigg is not saying that 2,000 primary schools need to be built, and readily acknowledges that many of the children could be accommodated in expanded primaries. But he urged ministers to address the issue head-on in the Budget, "allocating all its education capital to meeting real need, not salami slicing some off for pet projects".

He added that if the government did not address the real need the effect on pupils' education would be dramatic, with many "squeezed into temporary bulge classrooms in Portakabins".

The problem is particularly acute in London with 100,000 places required by 2015. Extreme measures are being taken to tackle the problem. In Barking and Dagenham, where an extra 8,000 places are needed, the council are proposing to rent out an empty Woolworths and an empty MFI store. And in Sutton, the council leader has asked for permission to end the infant class size limit of 30. In Brighton, where 2,000 more places are required, there are plans to teach children in a football stadium, a bingo hall and redundant churches. And in Lancashire alone a whopping extra 14,000 places are needed and predictions show 11,000 places are needed in Birmingham, Leeds, Hertfordshire and Hampshire.

 Hannah Richardson BBC New March 20th

Rage against these cuts

The Budget document going to Brent Executive is a massive and dense tome with pages of technical information and is unlikely to be read in its entirety by any of the councillors or commentators, let alone understood by them. The most you can do is try and glean some kind of overview on the financial plight of the council and some detail (from Appendix D) of where the axe is going to fall but there are major headings with no elaboration. I have covered the latter in previous postings.

Cllr Krupesh Hirani in a letter to the Brent and Kilburn Times this week asked 'Is it fair that Brent has to make cuts in the region of 27 and 28% of our controllable budget whilst other councils are not being hurt as badly as Brent? Brent is losing out on £73 per resident whereas Guildford faces a cut of £10 a person and Richmond £5.39 a person'.

The answer is of course it's not fair but the next question is, 'What is the Labour council doing about that if they recognise a cut of this magnitude is going to seriously damage local people and threaten the Council's ability to provide effective and efficient services?'

That is where the answers so far have been unsatisfactory and often contradictory. Despite Ann John telling people at Area Consultation Forums that the situation is dire,  her consultation, to the frustration of the audiences, did not contain any details of the cuts her administration are going to make - only the global figures. They were available on the council website in time for the Kingsbury and Kenton ACF but I doubt that many had accessed them. At the same time the cuts are dressed up in the misleading guise of 'transformation', 'savings', 'One Council' and 'efficiencies' and do not contain any details of their actual impact on real people. We need to be honest - a cut is a cut and cuts hurt.

If the cuts are as horrendous and as unfair as some Labour people claim then surely we should not 'be going gentle into that good night'. We should be standing up for the people of Brent, combining with other councils in a similar position, and taking on the Coalition. Instead Labour nationally, under the leadership of the two Eds. seems only to be concerned about what happens in 2015 and not the damage that will rip the heart out of many families and ruin the lives of the young, disabled, the mentally ill, the homeless and the elderly before that election takes place. Labour councils are left to find their own way through the maelstrom with no national leadership.

As Dylan Thomas went on 'rage, rage against the dying of the light'. Is Brent Labour so frightened of the shadow of the old 'loony left Brent' stereotype that they cannot see that they must rise up, enraged, at the injustice that is being perpetrated against its citizens?

Okay, after the rage some bare statistics from the Budget Report beyond 2012-13

Savings required 2013-14 £9.3m   (Cumulative £9.3m)
                             2014-15 £11.6m (Cumulative£20.9m)
                             2015-16 £5.3m   (Cumulative£26.2m)

This includes no allowance for price inflation but assumes a Council Tax rise of 3.5% in 2013-14 and 2.5% each  in the following two years. If council tax is frozen then further savings will be required.

How did we get there and what is being cut?

Service area Budgets (reductions in red increases in black)
 

Service Area	2011-12 £’000	2012-13 £’000
Children and Families	57,831	51,402
Environment and Neighbourhood	42,567	34,073
Adult Social Services	92,165	89,552
Regeneration and Major Projects	21,974	33,277
Central Services	12,543	10,074
Finance and Corporate	13,864	22,256

 

Brent Labour takes on fight for community schools as secondaries consider academy options

The academies battle field

It was a busy day on the academies front in Brent yesterday.

At lunchtime a joint meeting of unions at Alperton High School voted unanimously for strike action if the school's governing body decided to apply for academy status. They called for the governing body to support the unions' opposition to academy or trust status. If the decision was to consider academy status they demanded a fair public debate and a secret ballot of staff and parents.

In the evening the Alperton governing body decided not to go ahead with academy conversion at this stage but instead agreed to invite the Cooperative Trust to handle a consultation process with five options:

1. Seek other partners to become a Cooperative Education Partnership which would require no change in the school's status.
2. Become a single school Cooperative Trust School which means that the school would remain maintained but change from a Foundation to a Trust school.
3. Become a Cooperative Trust in partnership with other schools (eg neighbouring primary schools). The schools would remained in the maintained sector with one Trust Board bur separate governing bodies.
4. Become a Cooperative Trust as a lone school or in partnership with others with a view to moving on to Cooperative Academy conversion. This would gain the 'benefits' of academy status but embed Cooperative values and ethos.
5. Maintain the status quo, maintained Foundation school.

In the South of Brent, Queen's Park Community School governing body, is concerned that it will be the only secondary school not looking at academy status, but has made it clear that it would like to stay as it is - a community school in the Local Authority. Though they are keeping abreast of the Coop moves in the borough they will have been heartened to hear that Alperton has not decided yet whether to go down that route.

While the Alperton Governing Body was meeting, down in Stonebridge, Labour Councillors and Labour nominated governors were meeting with some local teachers to discuss the current issues in school organisation with particular reference to academies. I attended at the invitation of Cllr Mary Arnold, lead member for children and families.

Melissa Benn, who is the parent of a child at a local community secondary school, gave an over-view of the current situation and some of the contradictions of Coalition policy. Academies had been able to boost their results by using vocational qualifications but Michael Gove had criticised such qualifications. By changing the rules to convert 'good' and 'outstanding' schools to academy status, the government had made academy results look better. Michael Wilshaw had been appointed as an independent chief of Ofsted but was also linked with academy provider ARK. She suggested the long-term aim was destruction of local authorities with a substitute unelected 'middle tier'. Academy chains were likely to move in to fill that space with 'for profit' schools not far behind. Labour had been stuck for 18 months, failing to react. She quoted an overheard conversation between Labour MPs 'we don't have an education narrative any more'.

Mary Arnold said that they had to recognise the pressure for academy status for short-term gain. It was important to recognise the impact on the whole Brent community of schools of fragmentation and the financial loss to the authority through top-slicing of the budget. The latter would affect the LA's ability to provide viable services. She said that present academies cooperated in the Brent 'family of schools', one less so than the others. She said that the role of the LA was essential and needed to be publicised by governors. These included:

• strategic planning of school places
• tackling underperformance of schools and particular groups of pupils
• meeting the needs of vulnerable children including looked after children, those with special education needs and those who had been excluded from school

In a key passage in her briefing paper she said:

The local authority believes that there will be overall adverse effects on children and young people if strong collaboration and collective responsibility is not maintained and if the LA education function reduces to the extent that statutory responsibilities cannot effectively be fulfilled.

Cllr Arnold said that she expected a good take-up of the council's traded services for schools in 2011-12 . (Schools 'buy-in' these services but can also go to other providers). I pointed out that it was hard to back-up calls to remain with the local authority when they were cutting their services and staff reductions were making them less efficient. The campaign against academies and campaign against cuts were part of the same struggle.

Hank Roberts said that the issue was one of democracy and the right of staff and parents to have a secret ballot on academy proposals, with the unions taking strike action if the demand was not met. I added that schools did not belong to individual headteachers or even governing bodies, but to the whole community. In a sense academy conversion meant that our schools were being stolen from us. The need to involve parents and inform them of the negative issues association with academies was stressed by a number of contributors with calls for joint meetings of parents and governors. I asked if the database of parents held by Brent Council could be used to initiate ballots of parents if schools refused to hold one.

Among the suggestions to make Labour more proactive on the issue were:

1. Support for the right to hear a balanced debate pro and anti-academy and a right to an indepenent ballot, for and against, or parents and staff. Governing bodies would be expected to take the result into consideration. There was also a sugegstion that student actionm such as that at Kingsbiry High, hould also be supported.
2. A leaflet about the issue for distribution to parents.
3. Lobbying by councillors of schools where there was no nominated Labour governor if they were considering conversion.
4. Promotion of the services offered by the education authority.
5. A Brent Governors' One Day Conference on the academies and free schools issue with a 'for and against' debate and information available.
6. The relaunch of an Association of Brent School Governors
7. The formation of a broad-based campaign to defend community schools in Brent.

Thinking of leaving Labour? Go Green

A timely article by Peter Cranie who has moved from the Greens to Labour and is now back with the Green Party  LINK to his blog:

So the disappointment has begun. Ed Balls and Ed Miliband, both in this together. We've been here before, or more specifically I have.

I was a member of the Greens from 1989 to 1991, but didn't renew my membership. Back then there was a lack of organisation or actual politics in what appeared to be a friendly, but slightly disorganised social club. It was my natural political home in terms of the global issues that faced us, but in the 1992 election, I reverted to the party I had been brought up to support, Labour.

In Scotland, supporting Celtic and Labour was seen as a constant. They were your team. Celtic represented your heritage, Irish Catholic. Labour represented you, as a member of the working class. Ignoring the fact that my mother was in fact, English and Protestant, I was pretty much expected to follow this tradition, and my membership of the Greens was a "youthful error".

Like most people, I went to bed on the 9th April 1992 expecting to wake up with a Labour government, the party I'd voted for. Like many others, I was stunned by the result. When John Smith became leader, I joined Labour. While my uncle disagreed profoundly with John Smith's politics, he essentially said he was a decent man. After the death of someone I believe would have made a good Labour leader, I didn't vote for Blair, but I stayed in the party.

As a young activist, working in a marginal constituency in London in the run up to the 1997 election, I met Blair and Brown. I listened as they explained how it would be different this time. While they pledged that they would match Tory spending plans in opposition, I convinced myself that when Labour did win the 1997 election they would look at the needs of everyday folk around the country and realise that we needed to transform our society. Once elected, with an overwhelming mandate, the timidity and the fear of change quickly left me disillusioned. I didn't renew my membership and I'm glad that I was not still in the Labour Party when a Labour leader decided to side with the most right wing American president in history to invade Iraq.

2010 was the closest election since 1992 and for me there are similarities. Many people who had left Labour in the previous 13 years, for a variety of reasons, were angry and frustrated by the return of a Conservative to 10 Downing Street. Some rejoined Labour, quickly forgeting the mistakes and the anguish of seeing what was once the party for working people. Just like in 1997, those good people are trying hard to ignore that the Labour Party increasingly takes for granted the very many good Labour activists, supporters and voters who still try to hold true to Labour's roots.

I rejoined the Greens in 1999 after returning from a year of travelling and seeing Greens elected in Scotland and to the European Parliament. It is the best decision I ever made. I became an activist after George Bush became US President. Since then I've put whatever I could into the party, in terms of my personal efforts in Liverpool, the North West and our national party, and I am proud of the progress we've made across the country.

While I recognise my party is far from perfect (nor am I), there is not a week that passes by that I don't look at the work done by our local Green councillors in Liverpool, the North West Green Party, our leader and first MP Caroline Lucas and by the very many Greens doing great things around the country.

The Greens are a party that is making progress. We stand for something different. We are the last party standing against the cuts and the last party that advocates radical redistribution of wealth in a country that grew increasingly unequal during 13 years of Labour government.

A few ex-Labour people are joining us. For now it is just a trickle, but there will be many more to come in the next decade. Leaving Labour is not an easy thing to do for people. There are feelings that you betraying your side or your corner, but for many people in Labour, it the party leadership that has left them as a residue from a previous era, taken for granted but no longer respected.

Leaving Labour is also hard because people who you have worked alongside and socialised with stop being your friends. If your whole life and your whole social network is tied to a political party, that makes it very hard. But it can be done and in fact, life after Labour can be even better. The Greens are the redistributionist social democratic party Labour used to be. We still have a way to go in finance and campaigning capability, but each additional activist makes our work easier.

Thinking of Leaving Labour? Then think about Going Green.

The issues behind Mistry's resignation

According to some Labour Party insiders Cllr Jayesh Mistry's resignation, although ostensibly for 'personal reasons', was because of his disillusion with the lack of power and influence of Labour councillor backbenchers and disquiet about the extent of the cuts the Council are making.

If this is indeed the case, the resignation should ring alarm bells as it reflects broader concerns about attracting  committed and independently minded people into local politics, reducing the age profile of councillors, and addressing the democratic deficit in Brent Council's  current political structure.