Muhammed Butt accused of tricking Labour councillors on Scrutiny

James Powney, ex Brent Labour councillor, has returned to the matter of the changes in Scrutiny voted through by the Full Council on June 4th with no comments or questions from Labour backbenchers.

Here is an extract from his hard-hitting posting about the Labour Group meeting LINK:

Neither Cllr Butt nor anyone else chose to mention the drastic changes to the Council Constitution which he at least must have known about.

Why therefore did the entire Labour Group simply nod them through?  I asked a councillor this, and was told that no one in the Labour Group had chosen to read the changes and therefore they did not really know what they were voting on.  If true, that statement is a fairly damning comment on the thoroughness with which councillors prepare for meetings.  When the Tories pointed out the content of the rule changes, the inevitable partisan instincts kicked in and the Labour councillors all voted for them.

Had I been there I would have argued for deferral on the grounds that most of the councillors didn't understand what they were being asked to vote for because parts (eg describing scrutiny arrangements) are just obscure, and parts have sersious implicationms which new councillors simply won't understand until they are given some sort of grounding in Council governance.

Cllr Butt has effectively tricked his colleagues.  I hope they return to the issue at a later date, when they have had time to think about it.

The claim that 'no one in the Labour Group had chosen to read the changes' is interesting. The day before the Full Council I emailed a selection of councillors from all parties with the following message:

Dear Councillor,

First of all congratulations on your election as a Councillor for 2014-18.  With a Council returned with a large majority it is important that there is effective scrutiny in place with backbenchers playing a full part. Effective scrutiny protects against bad decision making and also protects against the damage to the Council's reputation that could be caused by poor decision making.

There has been extensive coverage on Wembley Matters of the proposed changes tabled for Wednesday which have not had full discussion, tabled as they are just two weeks after the election and with many new councillors elected.

Effective scrutiny is a matter for all political parties on the Council and I suggest that you read the pieces below and consider referring back the proposals to allow for the provision of more details and to allow for proper discussion.

Martin Francis

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/powney-calls-for-councillors-to-give.html

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/powney-blasts-scrutiny-proposals.html

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/brent-scrutiny-proposals-elaborated.html

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/scrutinising-brents-scrutiny-proposals.html

The only councillor who really questioned the changes and pointed out the issues was John Warren, leader of the Brondesbury Park Conservative Group.

I understand that disquiet is now developing in the Labour Group with newly elected councillors complaining about the lack of discussion beforehand. A source suggests that there is a possibility of a review although there may be some constitutional impediment to the reversal of a policy recently adopted by Full Council.

Save Our NHS for the Common Good

‘Letter to Brent Council? That’ll be £6.40, please.’

(And a reply? Priceless)

Guest blog by 'Elvin Impersonator' 

On Wednesday this week letters were sent to Brent Council nominating, under the provisions of the Localism Act 2011, the extensive green space of Copland’s playing fields as an ‘asset of community value’. The Act requires local authorities to maintain a list of sites and amenities which are used by the public and are part of local life. The letters were signed by representatives of local residents and Copland staff and students.

When it came to posting the letters, however, the bill came to £25.60, or £6.40 per letter, extortionate even by privatisation standards. Why so much? Well it’s the price of experience really. Last year Brent claimed to have no knowledge of a petition posted to them by first class post and signed by hundreds of Copland students opposing the forced academisation of their school. As a result, another petition opposing the Ark takeover was signed by over 400 students and copies posted to all 63 Brent councillors. Again it appears that up to 60 of these must have been lost in the post as replies were received from only three of our elected representatives. Dozens of additional letters written on the subject and sent to those looking for our votes on May 22nd have similarly met with no response whatsoever. As a result it was decided this time to utilise the Post Office service which registers the sending of the letter and effectively tracks it to its recipient. But at a cost.

Whether it was a price worth paying will soon become clear. But if Brent Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives had sat down and tried to plan how to alienate this group of ordinary voters and drive them into the arms of Farage and the Fruitcakes, they couldn’t have done a better job than they’re doing already. Interesting to see whether the strategy changes over the next few weeks.

Meanwhile at Copland a ‘special meeting’ for staff has been called next week to introduce the new school uniform. Whether this will be the students’ uniform or the one the teachers will have to wear (shiny estate agents suits, gel, blusher etc) has not been made clear. Early booking recommended.
 

Teather denounces 'Grubby Osborne's crude opportunism'

By coincidence, following my Saturday post calling for Sarah Teather and Brent Lib Dem's to disown the Coalition, this article by Sarah Teather was published in the Independent on Sunday. It makes a more unequivocal stand against scapegoating than the Opposition has yet managed. 'Divide and Rule' was one of Margaret Thatcher's favourite weapons and its use will live on well after her death unless decent people across the political spectrum take it on.

By the time this column is published, I expect that the commentary on the grubby little intervention by George Osborne on the Philpott case will have moved on. We should be well into post-match analysis of tactics and strategy.


Political dividing lines are de rigueur for modern politics – no one actually pauses to ask whether something is right. We ask instead whether this gamble was an astute reading of the public mood. Somewhere in all the excitement of keeping score we forget entirely that those caught up in the middle of the debate are human beings with real lives and concerns.

There is nothing like insecurity to bring out the temptation to scapegoat. Instead of offering a bit of statesmanlike leadership, Conservative ministers have engaged repeatedly in crude opportunism, capitalising on fear. And so the battle is drawn: good against evil. Those without benefits against those who claim. Strivers against shirkers. The deserving against the undeserving.

Then, just before Easter, all parties chose to reignite that old flame: the immigrant against the local. Demonising successive groups of people makes us less empathetic, less cohesive – a vision, to me, that is the very definition of "Broken Britain". And what of the subjects instrumentalised by this political game? They are placed further and further outside society, less able to change their own lot.

To demonstrate a tough stance against that most hated of groups, so-called "failed asylum seekers", ministers in the last Labour government introduced a series of cards and vouchers to control what they could buy with the meagre rations we gave them. I know, from my work as a constituency MP, the humiliation, shame and practical barriers such schemes impose on those who are unable to return home for a whole host of reasons.

Now local councils are using similar voucher and card-based schemes for today's hate-group, the British poor.

If your empathetic instincts have been too dulled to feel a common humanity with those at the bottom of the hierarchy of public approval, remember this: the abuse that is hurled on to those on the bottom eventually infects us all. Privations imposed on one group quickly become acceptable for others. The marginalisation of immigrants and the poorest is tangible. Silence will only entrench that still further.

Government is an ephemeral business. Whichever party you are in, you have but a brief period to make a difference. This Government needs to decide what kind of country it wants to leave behind. One more cohesive, more sympathetic, more neighbourly? Or one more divided, more brutal and more selfish? That is the responsibility and the privilege of power. Ministers should use it wisely.