20p for 20 minutes reduced parking charge on the cards

Brent Council Executive has agreed in principle to a reduced charge of 20p for the first 20 minutes of parking following vociferous protests from motorists and complaints from small businesses that their trade on local high streets was being affected. Opposition councillors had claimed that the present policy favoured large supermarkets,  which offer free parking,  at the expense of small shops.

Cllr Jim Moher, lead member for Highways and Transportation, had already announced at full Council that Brent was to go over to a 'linear' charging system where motorists get charged by the minute rather than in blocks. The block system meant that there was a steep increase between blocks (£1.50 for 40 minutes and £2.40 for one hour), Moher hopes that the linear system will  be fairer and also  increase revenue.

Officers are now at work to find ways of meeting the £0.8m cost of the reduced first 20 minutes charge.

Apology to Councillors Ruth and Jim Moher

Following correspondence with Cllr Jim Moher I am happy to apologise unreservedly for any suggestion that he and Ruth Moher were involved in a 'conspiracy' against Cllr Ann John. 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. That inevitably means discussion amongst the members, formal and informal, and is part of the democratic process - not a conspiracy.

'Oh Lucky Jim, I don't envy him' - more cuts ahead

In the old days of the Soviet Union there were a select group of journalists called  Kremlinologists whose job it was to analyse Soviet journals, party statements and even the order in which the Kremlin leadership stood at military parades in order to understand the subtle power shifts and policy differences within the apparently monolithic leadership.

I feel sometimes that I am performing a similar role regarding the Brent Council Labour leadership. Ann John, although not a Stalin, does rule extremely firmly, can be fierce to colleagues as well as enemies and takes few prisoners: a cross between the Iron Lady herself and Ann Robinson in her Weakest Link role. Cllr James Powney plays the part of a humourless and insensitive apparatchik convincingly. Neither can be said to have been a great PR success.

On this blog and in the press I have argued that Labour does itself no favours by claiming that the cuts are terrible but they are managing to make them without hurting anyone. That line appears to be shifting and the 'revisionist' Executive member who is leading on this is Cllr Jim Moher. Representing 'Brent Council with a human face' he has been prepared to engage, appearing on the platform at the Brent People's Assembly to debate the Council's cuts and being ready to admit in the Council chamber that there are some streets that are suffering as the result of the street sweeping cuts. His letter on libraries and Sarah Teather in the Brent and Kilburn Times this week is in sharp contrast to the comments about library campaigners that James Powney makes on his blog LINK (can you imagine him being called Jim or even Jimmy?).

Moher says: '... I accept that a lot of people have been upset by this particular cut' but qualifies this by going on to say, '(less so it seems, about the other £41m [cuts] to our services imposed  by Mrs Teather's government)'. Later he states, 'If however, the campaigners get leave to appeal and the Supreme Court overturn those other judgements, the council will have to change the decisions. That is our system of democracy. ' He says he understands why campaigners would want to appeal to the government 'to overturn an unpopular local council decision' but asks the legitimate question whether 'a cabal of ministers can interfere in decisions lawfully and democratically taken, when they are mainly responsible for the expenditure cuts which required the decision?'

My answer to his question would be 'Yes, if the cuts mean that the council is not meeting the requirement of national legislation to provide an adequate library service.'

Moher's change of tone, if it represents internal shifts of emphasis, or even power, within the Labour administration, does lead on to other questions. If the cuts in Brent's budget are so large (and they are enormous) does it mean that the Council is faced with an impossible task to maintain services at an adequate level? One example is that the number of park wardens has been cut from 17 to 5, with only 3 on duty at weekends. The number of park vehicles has been cut in line with staff reductions. Is it possible to lock and unlock parks and cemeteries, provide security, enforce the new Dog Orders, and deal with emergencies with that number of staff. What will be the impact on parks in terms of fly-tipping, anti-social behaviour, rough sleeping and public use if people no longer feel safe? Across the council fewer staff are doing more work and morale is often poor.

If it is an impossible task, what should the Council do about it? Well before the ACF budget presentations they have already ruled out an increase in Council Tax, so that option which would be unpopular but might save some services has gone. They have rejected not setting a budget on the grounds that cuts made by the Chief Executive Gareth Daniel and his team would be worse - although senior officers and the Labour leadership are so much in cahoots there probably wouldn't be any difference. That leaves the option of working with local people on a 'needs led' budget, working out exactly what would need to be spent to ensure quality local services, and campaigning with local residents and organisations for that budget - uniting with other Councils to take on the Coalition government.

Putting to one side the issue of whether the Council could have made different cuts and the particular issue of the new Civic Centre, which now looks rather redundant if the Council shrinks as much as forecast, Labour is faced with the problem that they are getting kicked in the teeth by the public because they are doing the Coalition's dirty work for them.

Cuts get passed down the line and this Spring we are going to see them arrive in the laps of school governing bodies. The Lib Dem PR machine has been busy suggesting that Sarah Teather is giving extra money to Brent schools via the Pupil Premium. It is true that the amount across the country has been increased and that entitlement has been widened, but the problem is that other parts of the education budget have been cut and ring-fencing removed. Brent will be particularly affected because two more secondary schools became academies last year, and there is a possibility that more will go before the financial year end. This will top-slice the education budget. Cuts will hit special educational needs funding, the music service, arts projects and other projects which add the real 'buzz' and creativity to pupils' learning,

Governors will be in a similar position to councillors: under pressure to make cuts to balance the budget but recognising that the cuts will damage the quality of children's education. In addition the staffing cuts will fall on teaching assistants and other support staff, the number of which expanded under the Labour government. They have been trained in special 'intervention projects' for group and 1 to 1 teaching of children who have fallen behind and have done much to raise standards in Brent schools, which are now above the national average in many areas despite the disadvantaged nature of much of the population.

These staff are paid low wages on a term-time only basis, often on short-term or agency contracts,and are mainly women, working class and members of an ethnic minority. They contribute enormously to schools as positive role models from the local community.

Tough times and decisions are ahead.

The range of education services provided by the Brent School Improvement Service and an account of their impact on raising standards can be seen HERE

What should the council do about Coalition instigated cuts? The debate begins.

Today's Any Questions? with Labour Councillors and representatatives of Brent Fightback  was a lively affair.  Janice Long and Jim Moher (with Lesley Jone as a later substitute for Moher) appeared for Brent Labour Councillors and Pete Firmin and Sarah Cox for Fightback. Pete Firmin is chair of Brent TUC.

Janice Long said she was unwilling to refuse to implement cuts as someone else making them would be worse. Cllr Moher said that he was the only member of the Executive to make changes in proposals as the results of representations and had not implemented the proposed cuts to school crossing patrols. He said the Council had protected front-line services but had to exercise the 'judgement of Solomon' in deciding what to cut. In response to ex-Labour councillor Graham Durham, who called on the council to unite with other London Labour councils and refuse to implement the cuts, he said that the situation now was far more difficult than the 1980s when Durham had been a councillor.

Sarah Cox said the Coalition had no mandate for the cuts in the NHS and it was time to resist bad laws. She said the Council should have put together a 'needs budget' and taken it out to the people of Brent as a basis for a united campaign by the council, its workers, and the Brent public against the Coalition's policies. Pete Firmin said that Labour councillors hadn't taken up opportunities when they could have worked with local activists, such as attending the Fightback lobby of Sarah Teather, MP for Brent Central. He said other London Labour councils were backing the public sector strike on November 30th but no such backing had come from Brent Labour council. Labour's  deputy leader, Cllr Butt, had referred a caller who wanted to oppose the overnight closure of Central Middlesex A and E Department, to Brent Fightback. The council itself needed to get organised against such cuts.

Janice Long said with the council having to choose between closing libraries and enabling people to carry on living in their houses she had to say that having a house was more important.  Her statement was challenged as conflating local government cuts and the government's cap on housing benefit.

Questioned by Shahrar Ali, Brent and Harrow  Green Party candidate for the London Assembly, about the cost of the new Civic Centre, Janice Long said the cost to Brent residents was neutral and it would reduce the council's carbon footprint and provide more space. It would  pay for itself over 25 years.  Cllr Moher said that the cost of the interest on the £102m project would be a further £25m but the Civic Centre would save the council £4m a year compared with the current buildings. He admitted that it was a difficult project to justify in the current situation of cuts and recession.

Pete Firmin said the we needed transparency and honesty about the Civic Centre and that another connected issue was the concentration of services in Wembley rather than in the various localities of Brent.

Cllr  Moher said that he was right behind the November 30th strike as an individual but that the council itself wanted to see lower public sector pensions because of their cost.  He supported a pension based on 'career average' earnings rather than a 'final salary' scheme. He justified this on the basis of the immense burden on council tax papers of the pensions of high salaried senior officers but a member of the audience pointed out that this would also affect the low paid - the average salary based on 40 years service was much lower than one base don final salary.

In response to join the NUT and other unions at the Torch, Bridge Road, Wembley at 9.30am on November 30th, Janice said that she hadn't known about that, but the Brent Central Labour Party would be on the march.

There was a brief discussion about whether campaigners should stand an 'anti cuts' candidate in the forthcoming Wembley Central by-election. There were a variety of views on this and it will be discussed at a later Fightback meeting.

Earlier in the day there had been speeches from Chris Coates about the Brent SOS Libraries Campaign and its success in mobilising people, raising money and getting  high profile support form famous authors. Jeremy Taylor, President of Brent Teachers Association and NUT representative at Preston Manor High School, spoke about the impact of cuts on students at his school and how the changes in pensions would affect teachers. He expressed concern both for teachers and students if teachers were forced to go on teaching well into their 60s when the job required so much energy. He demonstrated that the changes in pension contribution represented a wage cut in real terms.

In a wide-ranging speech Kishan Parshotam, Chair of Brent Youth Parliament and a Brent UK Youth Parliament member said that the BYP was campaigning against negative stereotyping of youth and for their voice to heard. He said that they supported the reduction of the voting age to 16 so that politicians would have to listen to their concerns. The cuts in libraries would mean over-crowded study areas and poor ICT access for the most needy students, particularly in the south of Brent, who lacked those facilities at home.

He told the audience that in discussions 8 and 9 year old children were well able to talk about how cuts would affect them and should not be under-estimated.

As well as councillors, campaigners and residents, the meeting was attended by Dawn Butler, ex-Labour MP for South Brent, but she made no contribution during the open sessions. Cllr James Powney trotted past the venue just before the Assembly started but kept his head down and did not come in.

I think a valuable debate and perhaps even a dialogue was opened up during the day. Brent Fightback wants to involve a broader spectrum of people and this was a modest start. We now need to consider how to involve more people at a time when everyone is feeling hard-pressed and those most affected by the cuts are concentrating on day to day survival.

Shahrar Ali's take on the day is HERE

Evidence accumulating on impact of street sweeping cuts

When I suggested that the street sweeping cuts would make Brent 'London's dirtiest Olympic borough' I was accused of exaggerating. Cllr Moher claimed recently that Brent residents would not notice any difference and standards would be maintained. The cuts in sweeping regularity and weekend sweeping have been in place for just a week. This is what I noticed, along with guests attending a wedding at Brent Town Hall, along King's Drive in Wembley and outside Wembley ASDA at 10.30am this morning:

King's Drive, opposite Town Hall library

King's Drive, corner with Forty Lane

Bus stop outside ASDA, Wembley

Asda bus stop

Beside Kwik Fit, Wembley

 I would be interested to hear how things are looking in other parts of Brent.