Mark Steel has them rolling in the aisles at the People's Assembly

Dawn Butler backs General Strike at People's Assembly

Poster for the General Strike in Oakland, California 2011

I understand Dawn Butler, former Brent South MP,  surprised Brent Labour Party members at today's People's Assembly by appearing to back a General Strike against the Coalition's anti-welfare and austerity measures.

Intervening in the workshop on 'The economics of anti-austerity, jobs, investment and tax justice', at which former Brent East MP Ken Livingstone was one of the speakers, she apparently asked the audience for a show of hands for a General  Strike, and despite catcalls from the audience,continued to press her case and state categorically that she was justified in disagreeing with the Labour leadership.

This swerve to the left by one of the candidates for the Brent Central Labour nomination surprised many present. One of her potential opponents for the  candidancy is Kate Osamore, Tottenham activist and member of Unite, who is said to be backed by Livingstone and, if she agrees to stand, likely to be the candidate of the left in Brent.

Osamore was present at the Assembly chairing the workshop 'Immigration is not to blame - countering racism, Islamophobia and the far right'.

Patrick Vernon who is actively campaigning for the nomination managed to combine attendance at the People's Assembly with an appearance elsewhere to press the case for June 22nd to become a public holiday,Windrush Day, to celebrate multicultural Britain.

Local authorities must be allowed to plan and build more community primary schools

This was my response to Boris Johnson's call for educationalists to drop their 'ideological'  opposition to free schools in order to solve the shortage of primary places crisis as reported in the Evening Standard this week. Johnson said, “There’s a lot of prejudice against free schools on the part of the education establishment and they need to lose it and need to build more.There’s a huge demographic crisis looming in London and we need to fund the schools. At the moment we’re worried there’s some kind of ideological foot dragging about free schools. They’ve got to blast ahead and make space."

It is truly shocking that 118,000 children will be without a school place by 2016 and Boris Johnson's solution of 'more free schools' will not answer the problem. Free school provision by its very nature is ad hoc, depending on a group coming forward often with unproven back of the envelope plans (just look at their websites)and there is no guarantee that they will be sited in areas of need.

The Coalition's insistence that any new schools should be academies or free schools means that local authorities cannot carefully plan the construction of new community schools across their borough ensuring that there is equal distribution and access.  The fragmentation of the school system under present government policies alongside the undermining, politically and financially, of local authorities means that LAs have the statutory responsibility to provide a school place for every child but not the powers to do so.

This is forcing them to adopt sticking plaster short-term solutions including bulge classes and expansions of present buildings which result in over-large schools, with in some cases more than 1,000 5-11 year olds in one building, loss of play space and cramped conditions. This worsens the quality of provision of all children order to cater for the additional numbers.

If we put children first, and not Michael Gove's ideology, we will restore a local authority's right to build new community schools with all the quality assurance provided by a properly planned and  funded, democratically accountable, local school system.

Reclaim St George for multicultural Britain - Patrick Vernon

Guest blog by Patrick Vernon, first published in The Voice. Vernon is one of the contenders for Labour's parliamentary candidate for Brent Central.

AS THE BNP, EDL and UKIP party activists, candidates and sympathisers huddle around their campfires to review their misinformed campaign tactics for the upcoming May local elections in England and the European elections in 2014, they will take comfort from their inspiration leader and symbol of Great White Hope: St George.

Yes, folks, St George’s day is upon us again! The far right and certain members of the coalition government will be tooled up with passion in their hearts, renewing their vows against black and minority ethnic people, gay and lesbian community, feminists, trade unionists, socialists and democrats who are destroying the so-called ‘English way of life’.

The English patron saint St George represents medieval tradition and the role of the Crusaders who ‘fought the good fight’ in the advancement of Christianity and morality in an uncivilized and heathen world. In today’s society, Islam, the hip-hop/hoodie generation, refugees, people on benefits and gypsy/traveller communities are seen as the new public enemy where a new moral crusade is required for them to be ‘civilised’.

One of the greatest inspirations of the right and fascists to justify their policies and convictions around immigration and citizenship has been the values and principles around the virtues of the patron saint St George.

Namely that St George represents the genealogy of Englishness and British family history and heritage as a pure race with undiluted bloodlines.

And that St George represents the tradition of fair play, respect, tolerance, diplomacy and values of an England where people lived harmoniously and where multiculturalism and integration was not an issue.
Well, I have news for the BNP, EDL and David Cameron, what they promote is either incorrect or full of contradictions. It was back in 2003 while researching and developing the 100 Great Black Britons campaign and website (www.100greatblackbritons.com) that I found St George or, to give him his correct name, George of Lydda was actually of black and African descent.

Contrary to public opinion, St George never came to England to slay dragons or save princesses but was born in Cappadocia, then in Asia Minor what is now Turkey. He was persecuted and died at the hands of Roman Emperor Diocletian on 23 April, 303 AD in Nicomedia, Bithynia, on the Black Sea.

St George’s life and the lives of other African people during this period of ancient history have not been recorded and documented in a systematic way by European academics. However, black scholars such as J.A. Rogers in the three-volume book called Sex and Race in the 1930s have traced the black presence during the Greek and Roman periods. The impression that is given in public debates and the recent bicentenary slave trade events is that that black people did not exist until the slave trade.

St George and Septimus Severus, another Great Black Briton who was the equivalent of the Prime Minster of his day, and many others played a key influential role during the Roman Empire.

Unlike Septimus Severus, George of Lydda was a successful Roman Tribune who turned his back on the Roman political system and converted to Christianity. His commitment to religion and his subsequent torture led to his iconic status by the Crusaders when they travelled to the Middle East and North Africa. St George was subsequently adopted in the 14th Century in England as our patron saint.

It is 20 years since the murder of Stephen Lawrence and as a society we still have not fully grasped and acknowledged the nature and the impact of instutionalised racism and the legacy of Empire. Michael Gove’s social engineering of the national curriculum and Eric Pickles’ integration strategy reflects an ill-conceived and rose-tinted vision of Britain.

The recent cuts in public services, spate of deaths and mass unemployment of young black men is a major concern which is part of the wider legacy of post-Empire and its impact on social exclusion, inequalities of wealth, class and the status of black and other minority ethnic communities in Britain today.

It is a sad fact of history that victims of institutionalised racism over the years such as Orville Blackwood, Colin Roach, Smiley Culture, Roger Sylvester, Rocky Bennett, Mark Duggan, Sean Rigg and many others reflect the symbolism that St George is really the patron saint of black men, oppressed people and the maturity of our multicultural society.

I hope the BNP/EDL hierarchy and supporters will continue to honour George of Lydda but recognise that they are supporting a black role model.

Over the past 20 years, mainly through sporting achievements such as the Olympics, boxing and representation in national team sports such as football and rugby, there is a growing acceptance and ownership of St George being adopted by black and minority ethnic communities.

I also hope the 2015 General election will focus on celebrating and focusing on the achievements, benefits and opportunities around immigration and migration.

So let’s continue to reclaim St George’s day and make it symbol of our multicultural society and a rallying cry in the fight against racism and fascism.

1,000 Mothers March for Justice next Saturday

From Taxpayers Against Poverty - your support will be welcomed

At 11am on Saturday April 13th, 2013, London Mothers and their supporting friends and family will march for justice in opposition to the economic hardship being forced upon them by the government’s decision to make low income mothers the prime target for cuts, and they will march for a change to fair and just polices. 

The march is organised by Taxpayers Against Poverty with the support of the Haringey Trades Council, Unions, the  Anglican, Methodist, Roman Catholic Justice and Peace, United Reformed Church, the National Pensioners Convention, the Turkish, Kurdish and Congalese communities and many local organisations,  

“Mothers claiming benefits suffer for their children. They go without food to feed them and struggle with the misery of rent, council tax and utility arrears. The coalition has added to their financial hardship. There is nothing fair about the current welfare policies. " said the Rev Paul Nicolson

A high proportion of people affected by coalition's welfare policies in Haringey and other parts of London are from black and ethnic minority communities. The policies could lead to greater feelings of powerlessness, alienation and greater social tension which were some of the underlying reasons for the 2011 riots. 

Mothers on the march will be campaigning for justice. It is part of a continuing unrelenting campaign to inject economic justice into the policies of political parties by demanding affordable housing, rent controls, the living wage, benefits linked to prices, full benefits and rights for disabled people, and the recognition of mothering and caring as work. 

No one can understand why families are under attack in this way at the same time as millionaires and corporations are getting tax cuts.

Caroline Lucas: Time to nail Coalition's biggest lie-TINA

Barnet springs to the defence of local services despite rain, sleet and snow

Despite battling with wind, rain, sleet and snow,the indefatigable campaigners of Barnet marched to tell their Tory Council and the Coalition government  that they must go.

Barnet Council, as Cameron's flagship borough, is attempting the out-sourcing of most of its services on long-term contracts. Campaigners see this as the death of local democracy and the handing over of local assets to private profiteers.
march, recognising that if the Tories succeed in Barnet the 'Barnet strategy' will be implemented in other towns and cities. Brent Fightback were there as were the Whittington and Lewisham hospital campaigns. A speaker from the Anti Academies Alliance drew attention to the privatisation of local authority schools.
Fittingly the march finished at the occupied Friern Barnet library where one of the library campaigners made it clear that volunteer run libraries are not the answer. She told the people crowding into the library that the demand should be no closures and no cuts and for properly resourced local services.

Green Council says no tenant to be evicted if they can't afford bedroom tax

Source

A council has declared that none of its social tenants will be evicted if they cannot afford to pay the government's forthcoming bedroom tax.Brighton and  Hove City Council has become the first local authority in the country to take such a stance.
 

Councillor Liz Wakefield said: "The so-called 'spare room subsidy' is yet more immoral and harmful legislation from this morality-free coalition government.

"As Greens, we cannot throw people out onto the streets just because they're unable to pay it. I will therefore be bringing proposals that seek to ensure no household will be evicted from a Brighton and Hove City Council owned home as a result of ‘spare room subsidy’ rent arrears accrued solely from that household's inability to pay this unjust bedroom tax."

She added that steps would be taken to ensure that tenants don't take advantage of the proposals, and that officers would have to be satisfied that those pushed into arrears by the bedroom tax were doing everything they could to pay their rent.

Brighton Pavilion MP, Caroline Lucas, is also backing the proposals. She said: "The so-called bedroom tax legislation is not only morally wrong and a cause of great potential hardship, it is also unworkable in a city with a long waiting list for smaller properties.

"The council cannot downsize households on the scale required by the government, nor would we want it to, and we should not be prepared to evict hard-pressed families, the disabled and other vulnerable people purely because they are unable to pay this unjust levy on a home they either cannot or should not have to leave.”

Chair of Brighton and Hove Green Party, Rob Shepherd, said: "This government is willing to see people thrown out onto the streets purely because they can't pay their bedroom tax.

"They can be sentenced to homelessness simply for trying to maintain a normal, liveable family home. The Conservative and LibDem coalition government should be ashamed of itself and, as Greens, we will have no part of it.

"I congratulate the party and councillors who are taking such a principled stand. We call on the other parties to support us in protecting, in this way, some of our most vulnerable residents."

Lib Dem councillor speaks out on benefit cap 'disaster' for families

It is refreshing to hear that one of our Liberal Democrat councillors spoke from the heart recently, rather than from the party script, when asked about the impact of the housing and other benefit caps and benefit cuts.

In response to a question from a member of a visiting delegation of Swedish councillors and council official  last week, Cllr Barry Cheese (Lib Dem Brondesbury Park) said.

The benefit caps and cuts will be a disaster for families and in particular children who will be forced to leave their schools. This will cause anxiety to the child who will feel insecure and it will have  a serious impact on their learning ability.   The Government created the Pupil Premium to help these very children and now the children it was meant for won't be there.

Parents and children take on DfE bullies

Parents and children from schools threatened with being forced to become academies joined teachers today in a march to the DfE to protest against Coalition education policies. Marching to chants of 'Whose Schools? Our Schools!', 'No forced academies! Save Our Schools', 'Michael, we want you: OUT!' and 'No more bullying!' they braved wind, rain and snow to make their point.

Michael Gove should be warned; these are determined people who won't give in easily.

Bullying DfE Brokers - key points from yesterday's debate

Yesterday's Westminster Hall debate brought the attention of the Government to the many complaints about the forced academy process. Here are some key extracts:

John Pugh (Lib Dem Southport) Throughout the land, brokers are appearing in schools when the opportunity arises to hasten things on and ensure that the targets are met. They show up when a school suffers even a temporary decline in standards. A recent article in The Guardian by George Monbiot—not a man I ordinarily agree or see eye to eye with—compared them to mediaeval tax collectors. I happen to think that mediaeval tax collectors performed an important social function; I do not necessarily feel the same way about brokers.

Brokers appear to come to governing bodies with threats and an academy contract in hand. The threats are, “Sign the contract, or you, the governors, and possibly the head teacher, will be replaced”, or “Choose a sponsor, or if you don’t we’ll choose one for you, which we may do anyway.”

Bill Esterson (Labour,  Sefton Central)

To add to the hon. Gentleman’s examples, a Department for Education adviser said to a school in my constituency, “You lost your autonomy when you went into an Ofsted category. Either you sign the papers to become an academy, or we will put in another interim executive board to do it for you.” I wonder whether he has had similar experiences.

John Pugh

I have had very similar experiences, but they are not just my experiences. Reports are coming in from up and down the land, and there is a kind of similarity that makes them wholly plausible.

There is a hurry to get on with things. Schools are basically told, “Get on with academisation now, or we will do it for you anyway.” They are also told—this surprises me—“Don’t tell the parents or the staff until it actually happens. Consult with them afterwards.” To sweeten the pill, cash is sometimes promised, in the form of a changeover fund to accommodate change. Relief from inspection or the school’s current status is also promised: whatever pressure Ofsted or the LEA apply will disappear when academy status is established. More worryingly, I have evidence that sponsors have been recommended, particularly school chains, with whom individual brokers have prior connections.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield, Labour)

Can I take the hon. Gentleman back to what he said before? I have had a number of schools that have received not only that suggestion, but the message, “Don’t talk to the parents before everything is signed, sealed and delivered.” Is it not also strange that ministerial policy is that Members of Parliament should be told about academisation only after the funding agreement has been signed, thereby removing any chance for democratically elected Members of Parliament to advise, consult with the school or have any say in what is about to happen?

John Pugh

Yes, that is distressing. The hon. Gentleman is a witness to the fact that we have moved from a situation in which parents were allowed a vote to one in which parents do not have a voice.

I would like to draw attention to the well documented fact that some of the brokers’ behaviour is markedly aggressive. One governor of fairly robust temperament described a broker as “seriously scary”. I find the process appalling. Regardless of what one feels about the academy programme, I find it distressing that people who have the interests of children and their schools at heart feel that they have been put in that situation. It strikes me that it is bullying. The intention is to close the contract and sign it there and then, which is the worst kind of sharp salesmanship, if I can put it like that. It is obviously wide open to corruption; it is about making offers that people cannot refuse, straight out of the Vito Corleone textbook. I see absolutely no reason why we who wish to stop bullying in schools allow the bullying of schools.

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West, Labour)

Fortunately, we have the Minister with responsibility for bullying here, so she can deal with any accusations of bullying.

Surely the hon. Gentleman is being completely unfair to the Government. Did he read the article by Warwick Mansell in The Guardian yesterday? It quoted Tim Crumpton, a councillor in Dudley, who said that after he made accusations of bullying, he received a letter from the Department saying:

“We carried out a thorough investigation and found no basis in the claims.”

John Pugh

I am sure that the Department took the broker’s word for it. What I am describing has been told to me by people I have known for some time, who have no axe to grind and whom I trust.

I feel particularly aggrieved about my area. Under previous regimes, not a single school in Sefton ever opted out. We had two ballots, both of which were lost. There were good reasons. Sefton was one of the first LEAs to give schools true financial independence to pioneer; in fact, I was on the local authority at the time. It has kept its central costs low. It has always prioritised education and schools. It stands favourable comparison with other LEAs. Its schools are good and, better still, there are good relations between the LEA and the schools, which themselves cluster together harmoniously and supportively. There is a genuine communitarian spirit, accompanied by good results. To make things more acutely painful, Sefton has a good record, praised by the Schools Minister, for improving its schools; it is in the top five of LEAs.

One—I think that is all right—might suppose that what is crucial to the success of education is the independence of the school. That is an understandable view. It is a simplistic and probably wrong view, but I can understand people taking it and it providing them with the motive for feeling that academies are an all-sufficient solution.

Another interpretation might be that there is an unstated plot to reorganise schools into private chains rather than in LEAs; if so, we could legitimately debate that at some point. It is likely that many primary schools, if they become academies, will form part of chains. There is nothing particularly wrong with chains, and there have been great ones in the past: Blue Coat schools, Merchant Taylors’ schools, the Woodard foundation, Haberdashers’ Aske’s schools and so on; and, in the state system, organisations such as the Christian Brothers, or the Salesian or Notre Dame schools. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with chains; they are often founded for the poor but usually end up serving the rich. The model is particularly in favour with the Minister responsible for academies, Lord Nash, who I understand supports a chain of some sorts himself.
In the past, however, huge gains to the educational system were not achieved by virtue of the state handing people 125-year leases; normally, it was done by philanthropists digging deep into their pockets. If there is a real agenda, and such motivations are genuinely behind the strange set of phenomena we are seeing at the moment, I am happy to debate that. Let us not, however, have this forced choice, with underhand persuasion and inducement.

In my years as a teacher, the worst sort of bullying was not the stuff that one saw and could stop but the stuff that was not seen and took place away from view. If nothing else, through this debate I hope to bring the bullying of schools, rather than in schools, to people’s attention.

Rose Cooper, (West Lancashire,  Labour)

All the evidence points to a Department that is ideologically wedded to the promotion of academies for all, rather than the best education for all. In our education system, only 10% of all state schools are academies and free schools, and the figure for primary schools is only 5.3%. Yet one third of Department for Education staff are assigned to the academies and free schools programme, which accounts for 18% of the Department’s revenue and capital budget—a level completely disproportionate to the size of the programme. 

Then we come to the £1 billion overspend. No doubt that money is being taken from the budgets for non-academy schools, many of which most need that investment.

The whole situation is compounded by the Gove army of brokers. Given that they earn up to £700 a day, some might suggest they are more like mercenaries. I would suggest they are conflicted mercenaries, because many are alleged to have connections to academy chains. These conflicted mercenaries—these brokers—are running round the country offering inducements of £40,000, plus£25,000 for legal costs. That approach to academisation is deplorable, and it is all being done because of the ideological war being waged by the Education Secretary. 

Our ambition and aspiration should always be to ensure that our children have access to the best possible standards of education from the start to the end of their school life. Simply forcing schools to become academies is not the solution. We know that one-size-fits-all policy making does not work. In our schools, we need good, strong leadership from the head teacher and governing bodies, with investment in schools buildings and school resources, irrespective of whether the school is LEA controlled or an academy. There should be a consensus among parents, teachers, governors and the community about the type of school they want; that decision should not be forced on the community.

I agree that we need to ensure that all schools reach the required standards. However, we should do so based on the needs of the individual school and its children, not on the imposition of a one-size-fits-all model driven by ideology. I am sure the Minister has come here today replete with the usual lines about school improvement, education for the 21st century and investment, but I remind her that we are talking about the forced conversion of schools into academies.

My message to the Minister is this: nobody believes you. As each day passes, fewer and fewer people believe you.

 David Ward   (Lib Dem, Bradford East)
 
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mrs Main. I thank my hon. Friend John Pugh for initiating the debate.
It is not too much of a secret, certainly in some quarters, that I am not a great fan of academies. I opposed them under the previous Government, and I oppose the academy regime under this Government. Within a few months of coming into the House of Commons, I voted against the Academies Bill. That was for a couple of reasons. First, many supporters of academies, who want to push for academy status, are seeking to control admissions. For them, it is about who goes into the school, not what goes on in the school.

In a private meeting with the Secretary of State, I said, “You should be far more radical and make every school an academy in terms of some of the freedoms that are proposed.” However, for those who support
academies, and who are pushing for them, that would not really work, because the secret of academies is that some schools are academies and some are not. Alongside freedoms in relation to conditions of service and so on, there would need to be some control over admissions, which would defeat the purpose of going to academy status for many sponsors, and the same applies to free schools.

I am opposed to the academies also because there is an overemphasis on the impact that the structure will have on raising achievement and attainment in schools. It is interesting that many of the new academies have not taken up some of the new freedoms: they have taken the money and stayed, rather than taking the money and running with the new freedoms. Another reason for my opposition is that I always want, as Stephen Covey said, to“Begin with the end in mind.”

If something works, generally speaking it is okay. I do not feel that there are too many strong, politically different issues or matters of principle. Most of them are about what works in a situation, with some fundamental underpinning of values. I am not clear where the evidence is for academies. In a sitting of the Education Committee a few weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State whether he believed in evidence-based policy and he said that he very much does, but I do not see any evidence for that.

The success of the academies project seems—my hon. Friend the Member for Southport referred to this—to be judged by how many academies there are. That has almost become an end in itself. There has been much talk about needing to convert. A school is in a particular situation, and the idea of need is always introduced; but it does not mean the school will benefit from a conversion. The evidence base is not there. The idea is that the school needs to convert because it meets the criteria; but it is the Secretary of State who sets the criteria. It is like saying, “I will decide when it is raining, and I will decide what to wear in the rain.”

He is doing the same, because he is saying, “I will decide the criteria and whether they have been met.” That is the same idea as, “There is a need to put on a coat when it is raining; it is raining so we need to put a coat on.” The false logic behind the whole academies programme is: “An intervention is needed and an academy is an intervention, so you need an academy.” It is all false logic. Using a coat when it rains is an intervention, but it is not the only form of intervention and there is no evidence that that intervention is the one that would work.

There are all sorts of interventions, which could include setting up an academy—but where is the evidence? Local authority support would be a possibility: many authorities are not, as has been suggested, dreadful, and are effective at providing support. The intervention may be a new head for the existing school. It may be an integrated post-inspection plan, or an interim executive board to turn the school around. There is evidence to show that all those interventions work in certain circumstances. They all have an evidence base, but there is no evidence that the academy structure works. It is false logic.

In my constituency in Bradford, there are two schools that are going through intervention academy conversions. My two sons went to one of those schools many years ago. If someone went to a local estate agency 10 or 15 years ago, the window would have adverts stating that properties were close to the school.

The school was one of the largest and most successful in the Bradford district and it was why people moved into that area, but it has had a difficult time. It was not so long ago that the head teacher of that school, before retirement, was the executive head of another school that was failing and has now become successful. I was chair of governors at a school that was in special measures, and it became the first secondary school in Bradford to be rated as outstanding. All that was done without academy status and on the basis of interventions by an extremely good head teacher, who was able, through a new management team, to turn the school around.

In Bradford, a secondary partnership has been established. The whole principle behind it has been to offer support to other schools and negate the need for academy conversions. The partnership was formed about 18 months ago and all 28 secondary schools from the district are involved and pay an annual subscription to join. It involves developing a rigorous system of performance review. It will provide effective school-to-school support and deliver school-led professional development. Those schools do not need to be academies. There are other ways forward that do not require a change to a school’s structure.

Ideology has been mentioned a few times, but I do not think that is the issue. It is about ego. All schools can be improved, but it takes time and requires hard work. It is not glamorous and a slog is involved. It takes 18 months to two years to get the right people in place to turn a school around, but where is the glamour in that for a Secretary of State who needs to be seen to do dramatic things? Where is the glamour in that hard graft that happens day in, day out up and down the country in turning around schools that need to improve?

The problem is that that egocentric project comes with a cost. The House of Commons Library briefing shows the actual cost involved in investing in the schools and bribing them to take up academy status, as well as the opportunity cost of the money that is not available for other schools. It is frankly sickening to see schools in Bradford unable to afford basic repairs while a bottomless pit of money appears to be available to support the free schools and academies programme. That programme is a costly distraction—devoid of evidence—from the principal concern of an authority, which is to raise educational achievement and attainment through the well-established methods that already exist for turning schools around and providing the quality education that pupils need and deserve.

Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith, Labour)

We had a £33 million investment programme—at the moment, that is quite a big programme—over two years for primary schools, yet all that money was directed to voluntary-aided schools, free schools or academies, for new build, refurbishment, conversion or expansion as may be, despite the fact that very successful community schools also wish to expand and see investment put into them. I object to those double standards and to not having a level playing field. I have to ask who the ideologues are in this case, and I am afraid that they are particularly centred around the Secretary of State for Education.

None of that would matter if there were no adverse consequences, but let me explain some of the consequences. First, there will be a perception—it may be a reality, but it is certainly a perception—that we are creating a two-tier system in education, in which academies are the preferred type of schools. Parents will therefore gravitate, reasonably and understandably, towards those schools, because they believe that the schools will be preferred—with money, resources or simply the attention that they receive from local education authorities and the DFE. That then leads to a form of separate development. A number of academies are now for pupils aged three to 18, and they therefore monopolise children within an area. 

Equally, I have noticed a trend whereby secondary academies will select—particularly if they are in the same group—from their primary feeder schools, so it may be that there is no longer an interchange between primary schools in that way. I am beginning to get a lot of complaints from parents of children in community primary schools who might want to send their children to secondary academies, and they find that they are refused or are a long way down the waiting list.

I also fear that there is a possibility of politicisation of the academy system down the road. There is a strong association between the academy system and not only Conservative local authorities, but Conservative funders, peers and so on. Lord Nash has been mentioned. Lord Fink, who I think is still the Tory party treasurer, was the chairman of ARK, and he is the chairman of one of the schools in my constituency. Both of those gentlemen are very substantial funders of the Conservative party. One of them, Lord Nash—or rather, his wife, Lady Nash—was the principal funder of my opponent at the last election. It is a free country. Anyone can do as they wish, but the association of particular schools, chains of schools and individuals with a particular political party is not healthy in education. I see that as another branch of the politicisation and there is the real prospect of our moving—with every pronouncement that comes out of Government or those close to Government—to profit-making schools. If another Conservative Government were elected, we would see that trend continue, and I think that would be extremely regrettable.

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West, Labour)

Last year I visited a group of schools that had formed an education improvement partnership. One of the primary school head teachers in it was desperate to tell me about her experience with what some people locally have described as gauleiters being sent out by the Department for Education. What she told me made my jaw drop. She told me that when the adviser from the Department turned up, she was told that she had to meet them and that no one else was to be present. When she objected to that, she was told that perhaps at a stretch she might be allowed to have the chair of governors present with her for part of the meeting. She wanted to have, and in the end she insisted on having, the head teacher of the local secondary school, which was part of the education improvement partnership, with her for the debate, but she told me several stories about how she was leaned on—that is the only way it can be described—and told that there was no alternative to her school becoming an academy, despite the fact that the governors did not want that, the parents did not want it and it was clearly an improving school. In the end, having taken legal advice, they were able to fend off the adviser who had come from the Government, using those bullying tactics, but I am told that as she left she said, “I’ll be back”, Arnold Schwarzenegger-style—no doubt after further efforts have been made to undermine the efforts being made by the school to operate as part of an education improvement partnership to raise standards in the school. That is happening around the country. I have also been told that in the same area, one head teacher has seen a gagging clause put into their contract, having been forced out of a school as part of this process. 

It is all very well, under the cloak of standards, to go around to schools and offer them an opportunity to consider academisation—the sponsored academy approach. That can be entirely appropriate on many occasions, but the bullying behaviour—we are hearing, and I am receiving, more and more accounts of it—is very worrying. I therefore want the Minister to answer a few questions about that. How many schools does she know of that have successfully resisted forced academisation procedures? How are the academy advisers recruited? How are they rewarded? Is it true that they are on a payment-by-results regime? I hope that the Minister will answer this question particularly. Is there any code of conduct for those people as to how they should behave? As the Minister with responsibility for the issue of bullying, will she give us an absolute assurance that if there is one, she will publish it, and that if there is not one currently, she will ensure that one is available? I ask that because some of the behaviour that is being described—

Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk, Conservative)  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (education and childcare)

We are encouraging all schools to convert to academy status, so that good and outstanding schools can use the autonomy that the status provides to drive up standards. Where schools are underperforming and leadership and management need improvement, however, we cannot just stand by and allow that to continue. The cases that hon. Members have raised in the debate are about schools in which performance is not good enough. We are not talking about schools in which performance is already good. There are good schools under local authority auspices and there are good academies, but we are talking about underperforming schools. We look for two indicators of underperformance to determine which schools we should approach and work with to deliver sustained improvement: low achievement over time and whether the school is in Ofsted category 4. 

Many schools agree to become sponsored academies, because they know that academies are achieving dramatic improvements in results, particularly where new sponsors have taken on formerly underperforming schools, as I have seen that in my county of Norfolk. Sponsors bring outside influence and a wealth of experience. They challenge traditional thinking and have no truck with a culture of low expectations.

…...We should bear it in mind that intervention takes place where schools are underperforming—where there is a problem. At meetings with governing bodies, where schools are in Ofsted categories of concern, a broker discusses sponsorship options and aims to agree a schedule of actions. As is necessarily the case in an underperforming school, that can sometimes appear challenging—of course, it can. We are saying that what is happening at that school is not delivering for the children. It is important that they receive the best possible education.

Butt challenges Teather to 'pick up the phone' and make a difference to Brent residents

 The early start to the campaign to win marginal Brent Central following Sarah Teather's sacking from the Government and her pledge to devote herself to her constituents,  was confirmed today when Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt wrote her an open letter accusing her of not standing up for Brent residents.

Writing on the Labour List website LINK today her said:

Dear Sarah,

As Leader of Brent Council, I was somewhat surprised to read in our local paper this week that you have been “working with the Council” on the issue of welfare reform, and are leading our efforts to mitigate the impact on our residents.

I was surprised because I don’t remember your help in preparing residents for the cuts in Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit that are going to devastate our community. Surprised because I don’t remember your help while everyone at the Council was refocusing their efforts on getting as many residents as possible into work and increasing local wages to minimise the impact.

Nor do I recall you standing up for residents by supporting our stance on the Living Wage, or helping reduce residents’ bills through our bulk energy buying scheme. I don’t recollect your offer of assistance in tackling slum housing and rogue landlords or in persuading landlords to accept lower rents rather than throw residents out on the street.

I can’t remember you lobbying Eric Pickles not to strip over £100 million from our funding or to give us the money our residents deserve for underestimating our population by over 60,000. Nor do I remember your help in supporting Brent’s food bank as they broke their own record for the number of vouchers given out in a single day over Christmas.

That’s because unlike the other MPs in Brent, you haven’t helped us or our residents with any of these issues – so far. 

If you really want to help our residents, instead of writing press releases claiming undue credit, why don’t you pick up the phone and ask what you can do to actually make a difference?

Our residents need someone to persuade this Government that they simply can’t take any more pain, they need someone to stand up for them in Parliament on a regular basis and they need help bringing together all partners in Brent to work together to protect them.

I look forward to your call; there is a lot of work to do.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council

A video for all teachers suffering under government education policies

Don't watch this if you are offended by the F word and other obscenities. Do watch if you feel current education policy justifies such language use. The video pre-dates the Coalition and so applies to the target culture of the three main parties.

General Election campaign starts early in Brent Central

 With Sarah Teather pedalling furiously leftwards to distance herself from the Coalition the Labour Party has named Brent Central as one of its target seats with a claim that they would need only a 1.5% swing to Labour to win the seat. LINK

Dawn and friend

 Brent Central Labour Party will be starting the selection of their General Election candidate soon. As, unless the Coaliton falls apart, the next General Election is not until May 7th 2015,   we can look forward to a long-campaign of press releases and photo-calls over the next two years or so.

Former  Brent South MP Dawn Butler has made sure she is seen at high profile events in the constituency and told the Evening Standard in October that she would stand to 'exonerate herself' over the expenses row she was invoved in when  an MP. LINK

Zaffar Kalwala

There have been rumours that thrusting young councillor Zaffar Kalwala is interested. He has certainly concentrated his fire on  Sarah Teather consistently over the last two years from his Stonebridge base as well as the council chamber LINK

It is generally thought that Teather's campaign last time was to the left of Butler's and some Labour Party members are opposed to her reselection, not least because of issues over her expenses when she was an MP and even the controversy over an endorsement of her by Barack Obama on House of Commons notepaper LINK although at the time she was stoutly defended by James Powney LINK  Her current website leaves a lot to be desired.LINK  However others dismiss Kalwala as a light-weight and rumours that James Powney is interested, having proved his mettle in making cuts, have been discounted.


It  looks as if the net will be cast wider and there is always a possibility that Labour nationally will sponsor a 'big name' candidate from outside of Brent.

Meanwhile locally it is unclear whether the twin strategies of Teather's rebellion and the local Lib Dems posing as anti-cuts activists and avoiding being tainted by the Coalition cuts will keep Labour at bay. There was some recent press coverage that suggested the Lib Dem vote in local by-elections was holding up despite the Coalition and that voters were separating local from national issues in their voting intentions.

Perhaps it is time for Brent Lib Dems to put that to the test in the two council seats where their councillors no longer live in Brent.

Butt under pressure but sticks to strategy of acquiescence to cuts

There was a lively discussion yesterday evening when Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt met with members of the Brent LRC (Labour Representation Committee) which is a group of left-wing Labour supporters. Cllr Butt was accompanied by his political adviser.

Butt reiterated his commitment to setting a 'legal' budget although observers pointed out that it was not illegal to set a needs based budget and no surcharge is involved under current legislation. All that would happen is that council officers would implement the Coalition imposed cuts.

He said that there would be an additional 2% of cuts on top of those in the three year budget plan but that in 2013-14 the overall cuts are  likely to be less than in the last 2 years. Although figures must have been drawn up by now he gave no details to the audience. More cuts are in the Coalition pipeline for 2014-15 and onwards.

It was unclear what, if any, public discussion or consultation would take place about the budget despite requests (including mine at the Budget and Finance Scrutiny Committee in December)  that the period be used to build support for a needs led budget. This would be used as campaigning tool backed by  the Brent  public so that pressure, alongside that of other councils could be put on the Coalition to reduce or reverse cuts in local government funding.

LRC members were disappointed by  what they see as the council's acquiescence in Coalition cuts. One commented, 'They lack any concept of, or confidence in, a class fightback. At best they can see the need for modestly ameliorative policy measures. Even that takes a struggle with the right wing. That's how bad things are.'

Further disappointment came when Cllr Claudia Hector, who has previously been critical of cuts, said according to one source that the public were not in the mood for a fightback so that the Butt programme was all that could be done. Another source, who attended the meeting,  felt this wasn't an entirely fair summary of her comment stating,.  'When someone compared the situation to that of fighting the Poll Tax at the end of the 1980s, Claudia  said that there wasn't the same level of public awareness on the issues'.

Asked if paying employees the London Living Wage, which is Council policy LINK,  had been written into the multi-million Public Realm contract covering waste, recycling and parks maintenance that is currently being procured, Cllr Butt said it had not - leaving his audience somewhat puzzled.

On a slightly more optimistic note Muhammed Butt  made it clear that he opposes academies and free schools and would issue a statement on the issue if there was any local action.

Greens call on MPs to vote against 'mean and miserable' Welfare Bill

Together we shout (We are Spartacus)

As the Commons debate welfare benefits and ex Coalition Sarah Teather wields her new found conscience the Green Party has called upon all MPs to reject the coalition’s Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. 

The Bill, which has its Second Reading in Parliament today, would raise benefits by 1% per year until April 2015. The current policy sees benefits rise in line with inflation, and so welfare recipients will have a real-terms cut. 

In the debate Caroline Lucas said that this was 'mean and miserable legislation' by a 'mean and miserable' government.

Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party, said::

MPs are being asked whether they are prepared to deliberately, with all of the facts before them, choose to significantly reduce the living standards of millions of their voters.

 

We can start with the one in five UK workers paid less than a living wage – who either as parents, or as householders, will have been receiving state support to enable them to continue to live. The responsibility should being lying with their employers - if they all paid a living wage the net benefit to the government would be about  £7.5 billion - but the government is showing no inclination to lift the minimum wage to a liveable level, ending the past decades of corporate welfare payments. 

We can also add in the hundreds of thousands of people surviving – not living, but surviving - on the measly sum of £71/week or less in job seekers’ allowance.

And we can add in millions of children. As the Child Poverty Action group says, the Bill can “only increase absolute child poverty, relative child poverty and material deprivation for children”.  Its figures show that having slowly got the rate of child poverty below 20%, the rate is set under this regime to leap back to 25% in a decade.

Not only is the cut immoral, but it is economically illiterate - facing the clear risk of a triple-dip recession, the government is planning to pull millions of pounds out of the pockets of people who, had they received it, would certainly have fed the money back into the economy in buying food, buying energy, and buying services.

The Green Party argues that the only ethical and effective way of reducing social security costs is to create jobs - not slash budgets. 

Natalie said: 

What we need to do in the longer term is change the direction of the British economy – bring manufacturing and food production back to Britain, restore strong, diverse local economies built around small businesses and co-operatives paying decent wages on which their staff can build lives and communities.

That’s a longterm project – but today we can think about the British people – the nurses, the soldiers, the teaching staff, the local government workers, and yes, the unemployed – and say no to the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.

That’s what Green MP Caroline Lucas will be doing in Westminster today. What’s your MP doing?

Greens give 'shambolic' Coalition a fail for mid-term review

The Green Party has criticised the government’s mid-term review today for failing to acknowledge the coalition’s mistakes after two years of shambolic policy making - or to offer a coherent vision for a better future.

Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion, said:

 The unsightly spectacle of Cameron and Clegg renewing their political vows for the cameras today can't mask the reality that this is a government dangerously bereft of ideas.

With its reckless austerity programme having failed miserably to get the economy moving or reduce the deficit, and the harsh consequences of unfair and incoherent cuts to welfare and services being felt in communities across the UK, the only grade possible for this mid-term report is 'fail'.

Serious measures to address climate change and the environmental crisis remain conspicuous by their absence. The government is ignoring the huge opportunities for job creation and economic security that a nationwide investment in new green infrastructure would create.

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett said :

With many pensioners living in poverty, what we need to do is institute a ‘citizen’s pension’ of £164 for single pensioners and £289 for couples, which would immediately lift all pensioners above the government’s poverty line.

We have sufficient resources, if multinational companies and rich individuals pay their fair share of tax, to ensure all of our older residents have a decent quality of life. We owe it to the people who’ve contributed throughout their lives through paid and unpaid work.

On the childcare funding proposal, Natalie said:

The cost of childcare is a huge problem for parents, with the cost burden weighing far more heavily in Britain than it does across the rest of Europe.

An acknowledgement of the problem this presents is welcome; we’re going to have to wait to understand the detail of how this system will work to see if it will fairly help parents without undue paperwork and complications.

However, there’s cause for concern in proposals to reduce the quality of childcare by reducing caring ratios and loosening quality regulations – children need good quality care for their health and development, and parents need to be confident that their children are being well looked after.

Misconceptions about welfare

Brent fails to connect with residents on budget

In January 2012 Ann John and Muhammed Butt toured the Area Consultative Forums to speak about the Council budget. LINK One year on, after Muhammed Butt ousted Ann John promising greater openness and engagement with residents, no budget discussion has been included on the agendas so far published for next month's forums.

Pleas to formulate a needs based budget as a campaigning tool to challenge the Coalition's unequal slashing of local government expenditure have been ignored. An opportunity to engage with local residents and mobilise them in defence of vital services appears to have been rejected.

Now known as Brent Connect Forums they meet on the following dates. I include the agendas that have so far been published. 

Brent Connects Kilburn and Kensal
08.01.13 7pm Kensal Rise Primary School, Harvist Road, NW6
Brent Connects Harlesden 
09.01.13 7pm All Souls Church, Station Rd, NW10

• Update from representatives of TfL, Network Rail and London Overground (LOROL) on the planned improvements for Willesden Junction Station approach

• The latest news on the Willesden Energy Recovery Centre (incinerator in Ealing)

• Plans for the development of a Neighbourhood Forum covering parts of Stonebridge, Harlesden and Dudden Hill

• Proposed improvements to parts of the Brent River Park (Phase 2)

• Local Policing update

• Doing more locally with Residents' Association Groups

Brent Connects Wembley
15. 01.13 7pm Pattidar House, 22 London Road, HA9
Brent Connects Willesden
16.01.13 7pm College of NW London, College Road, NW10

• Government welfare reforms (including Discretionary Housing Payments) - how this will affect you and the benefits you receive

• Customer services at the civic centre - what's on offer

• Local policing update

Brent Connects Kingsbury and Kenton
06.02.13 7pm Kingsbury High School, Princes Avenue, NW9