Brent Central candidates have their say on the school funding issue

With some hustings cancelled due to the Manchester incident last night was one of the few chances to hear from Brent Central's General Election candidates.

It was a sometime rumbustious meeting but well chaired by Lucy Cox with Labour supporters in the majority. I am afraid my camera work is very shaky as a result from being fresh out of hospital and failed completely when the Ukip candidiate began to speak. My apologies.

This extract focuses on school funding which is very much the question of the moment although of course the purpose and focus of education is also a matter of debate.

I will be publishing more of what Shaka Lish the Green Party had to say on the Brent Green Party blog LINK

Dawn Butler joins Tulip Siddiq in voting against Article 50 and resigns shadow post

Dawn Butler  MP (Brent Central) yesterday joined the 47 Labour rebels who voted against the Article 50 Bill and resigned her position as Shadow Minister for Diverse Communities. She joined Tulip Siddiq  MP (Hampstead and Kilburn) in the No lobby. Brent residents had all three of their MPs in Corbyn's shadow team until the resignations, now only Barry Gardiner remains. Butler's vote followed her meeting with residents at Moore Spice in Wembley Park on Tuesday evening.

Butler tweeted:

Been an honour to serve in shadow cabinet doing a job I love. Can’t let down future generations voting against poor excuse of a bill.

In a statement to constituents Butler said:

In recent weeks I have been contacted by many constituents who have expressed their views with regards to the UK leaving the European Union.

I have heard passionate examples from both sides of the argument and since the High Court ruling last week, where it was clarified that Parliament must give its approval before official talks begin on exiting the European Union, the volume of correspondence to my office has increased.

I feel therefore, it is important I explain my position on this significant matter.

Having served as a delegate on the European Council I have seen first-hand just how important close working relationships are with our European neighbours.  I campaigned passionately to remain in the EU and was disappointed with the outcome of the referendum last year.

However, I respect the decision of the country and as a democrat I do not think that we should be campaigning for another in out referendum. I also respect my colleagues, constituents and the country as a whole and the debate from both sides.

The Labour Party is split on this issue because as a party we seek to represent the views of the whole country- not the 48% or the 52% - but the entirety. As we know, the country are also split on this matter.

Despite this, it is palpably clear that the Labour Party is united on fundamental issues that face our country and we will unite; as you have said many times, around the important issues of jobs, health, security, economy, rights and social justice.

I have made clear on many occasions that if I were given a vote in Parliament, I would vote to remain in the EU. I am proud to represent Brent Central and I am proud that we voted to overwhelmingly to remain in the EU and will vote to reflect the views of my constituency who elected me to be their voice in parliament.

I do not have confidence in Theresa May to negotiate the best deal for the UK.

I place my confidence and trust in Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, as well as Keir Starmer, Emily Thornberry and the whole Shadow Brexit team to hold the government to account every step of the way and I will support Labours amendments as they hold the Government to account.

I understand and appreciate the logic of allowing a second reading in order that amendments can be discussed at third reading and voted on at committee stage - amendments that will hopefully ensure:

• Tariff-free access to the Single Market to protect jobs and our economy
• The protection of social and environmental rights,
• Security for EU citizens currently living in the UK
• A meaningful vote at the relevant stage of the negotiations

Jeremy Corbyn has successfully moved the Government from their position of ‘Brexit means Brexit’ to one that has seen them agree to bring forward a white paper for parliament to properly scrutinise.

However due to my lack of confidence in Theresa May, I have decided that I cannot in good conscience vote for something that I believe will make my constituents worse off.

It is with all of this in mind that I am informing you of my decision to vote against second and third reading.

My position is clear and has not changed since the referendum last year, however I will continue to engage with colleagues and constituents on this hugely important matter. This has been a difficult process which has invoked strong reactions from people on both sides of this debate and it is very important that we heal the division that has resulted from this debate.

Warm regards,

Dawn

Local Labour activist Graham Durham reacted angrily on Facebook this morning:

I feel very let down by my Labour MP Dawn Butler today..she has completely failed to consult local Party members (including any CLP officers and Executive members) before deciding to resign from the Shadow Cabinet and defy the instruction to vote for Article 50 thus adding to the attempts by the PLP rebels (the usual right wingers) to undermine Jeremy. Worse she called a public meeting, packed with Lib Dems, to which many Labour members were unable to gain access to announce her decision. When will Labour MPs realise that they only have the honour of being an MP because their local Labour Party chose them over many other good candidates and worked for them and that they have no right to pander to the voices of opposition parties who seek to destroy our Party?

Fellow activist Michael Calderbank tweeted: 

I respect @DawnButlerBrent and @RachaelMaskell but think they made the wrong call. Labour MPs have to respect how people voted.

Calderbank praised Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) for his 'mature and responsible view' which  had set out on the eve of the vote:

When Theresa May became Prime Minister after the referendum she made it clear that she would not give “a running commentary” on Brexit. The Labour Party demanded parliamentary scrutiny, a white paper, a vote to trigger article 50 and a parliamentary vote on the final deal after it is negotiated. The new Prime Minister refused them all.

The Labour Party in the House of Commons, and the Judiciary through the courts have now secured all these vital elements of democratic accountability.

The Supreme Court made it clear that the referendum vote determined that the UK would leave the European Union; but that it was for Parliament to determine how it should leave. I agree with the Supreme Court ruling. Although I voted and campaigned to remain, I am first and foremost a democrat. That means that I acknowledge that I lost the referendum vote. That means that I abide by its result even though I disagree with it. But I also agree with the Supreme Court that I must now as a Member of Parliament try to shape how we leave the EU in the best interests of the British people. That is why Labour has tabled a number of key amendments to the Bill.

64% of Labour voters across the country voted to Remain. But the majority of Labour MPs serve constituencies that voted by a majority to leave. The Labour Party is therefore presented both with a conflict of interests and a conflict of principles like no other party. In many ways we are much more representative of the divisions in the country over Brexit than any other political party. My view is that we must resolve the conflicts of principle and leave the conflicts of electoral interest to resolve themselves.

It is a uniquely valuable principle of our democracy that MPs have a special duty of care towards their constituents. We hold surgeries to deal with their individual problems and we represent them to various bodies and authorities to demand their rights. But our duty to represent our constituents does not in my view allow us to undermine the principle of democracy as a whole. I have enormous sympathy with all those of my colleagues who have wrestled with their conscience between the principle of democracy and the principle of representing their constituents but I am clear that I will respect the referendum result however much I disagree with it; and then I will try to mitigate its effects to secure the red lines that I and all my colleagues believe are so important.

Only by voting at 2^nd Reading to trigger Article 50 do we move to the position where we can amend the bill and hold the Government to account to ensure: Tariff-free access to the Single Market to protect jobs and our economy, the protection of social and environmental rights, security for EU citizens currently living in the UK and a meaningful vote at a stage of the negotiations where it is still possible to change the outcome. Triggering Article 50 is only the beginning of a long process. We must and will hold the government to account every step of the way and secure an outcome that may not entirely satisfy either the 48% or the 52% but that is acceptable to the 100%. That is how democracy functions.

Finally I would ask everyone to reflect on how they would have felt if their side had won the referendum, but parliament had set aside the result and done the opposite. The anger that would be generated if politicians ignored the outcome would be immense and justified. I believe that leaving the EU will make us poorer. But undermining our own democracy would make us much poorer still.

Tulip Siddiq was backed by her local Labour Party GC:

Great GC last night. Our local party showed solid support for, & no dissent from, @TulipSiddiq's principled stand on #Article50 #ThanksTulip

Caroline Lucas, Green MP, praised the Labour rebels on Twitter:

Big respect for the Labour MPs who voted against their party whip - they'll be proved to be on the right side of history.

Dawn Butler meeting on Article 50 vote

The livestream of Dawn Butler's meeting on the Article 50 debate did not work well but a recording is available on her Facebook site. (Note the camera falls down at one point but is restored and the recording fragments a little at the end).

Dawn Butler's Article 50 residents' meeting tonight in Wembley Park - will she follow Tulip?

Dawn Butler, MP for Brent Central, is holding a meeting this evening on Article 50 at a restaurant and bar venue in a retail park near Wembley Stadium. The event is now fully booked.

On her Facebook she states:

I will be hosting a residents meeting on the Article 50 vote this evening. We are now at full capacity.

However to ensure I engage with as many residents as possible I will be livestreaming the meeting on this page from 8pm tonight. Do tune in, I will also be answering questions taken from the stream.

Her Facebook address is https://www.facebook.com/DawnButlerBrent

Butler's colleague, Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) has resigned from the Labour front bench over the Labour three line whip on the issue.

What will Dawn do?

In a message Butler blamed the high cost of hiring meeting rooms at Brent Civic Centre for not holding this 'incredibly important' meeting at a larger venue.

If this is the case where does that leave any resident who wants to hire space?

Reprieve for Brent sickle cell project

Photo: Kilburn Times

Previous articles on Wembley Matters drew attention to the possible closure of the Brent Sickle Cell project LINK LINK.  The Brent Clinical Commissioning Group met yesterday and heard representaions on the issue. In this guest blog, written in a personal capacity, Nan Tewari reports on the outcome.

An Appeal - There is long-term condition called ‘failure to listen to the public’ that has infected the statutory sector. This long-term condition needs a long-term view and massive reserves of determination to overcome its more deleterious effects. Your time and your determination will help find a cure. Please (continue to) give generously…...

In a real instance of ‘you said, we did’, Brent CCG (clinical commissioning group) listened to patient and public representations and granted a short reprieve for the BSCASS (Brent Sickle Cell Advisory Support Service) project hosted by the Sickle Cell Society.

Brent Patient Voice (bpv.org.uk) has been very concerned about the real danger of existing users and those in the pipeline being left ‘high and dry’ if the CCG were to have gone ahead and closed the BSCASS project without an adequate, culturally specific, alternative being put in place. BPV has been in extended correspondence with the CCG solicitors DAC Beachcroft in the matter.

Brent CVS will be hosting a focus group on Thursday 15 September from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at their offices in Wembley Park (no change of heart on time or venue, unfortunately!). I would encourage anyone with the sickle cell condition or with experience of the condition or in a risk category, to attend and contribute to the discussion.

This will be followed by a meeting between Brent CCG and Brent council’s chair of Health and Well-Being, Cllr Krupesh Hirani on 20^th September.

Brent CCG has pledged to continue the existing BSCASS project until the outcome of the two meetings. The CCG has also said it will give 3 months’ notice of decommissioning to the project which had previously been lacking.

I am hoping the outcome will be one that establishes a sensible, alternative plan. This will need to satisfy the CCG’s concerns over duplication of spending whilst equally satisfying the need for a culturally sensitive support service that can raise awareness in the wider health and care sectors, e.g. GPs, social services and voluntary sector providers, of how people can be assisted to minimise sickle cell crises and avoid hospital admissions.

The huge effort put in by Brent Patient Voice and the weight of public opinion on this blog in the Brent and Kilburn Times on Facebook and on Twitter, has paid off.

Notably, Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent North and Dawn Butler, MP for Brent Central each made strong, written representations to Brent CCG on the matter when BPV raised it with them.

My personal thanks to Martin Francis, Philip Grant, Ann O’Neill (Brent Mencap) Lorraine King (Brent and Kilburn Times) Harlesden Methodist Church and not least, to my colleagues in Brent Patient Voice.

Barry Gardiner's letter is HERE

Fifty quid to spare? Come to dinner with Dawn and Sadiq

Brent Labour's love-in with Sadiq Khan continues. Tempted? Here is the menu and venue"

Click on image to enlarge

Referendum - Brent MPs react

Will Brent Council make a stand on forced academisation?

On March 26th the statement below was sent to Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council and  Cllr Ruth Moher, Lead Cabinet member for Children and Families. I have had no response although other signatories may have done. 

 Statement by Chairs of Governors of Brent Primary Schools

We the under-signed are opposed to Government proposals to force all LA primary schools to convert to academy status because:

There is no evidence that this would improve the quality of teaching and learning in our school

It would remove local democratic accountability of schools through the local authority

It would further destabilise schools already affected by new curriculum and assessment demands and problems of recruitment and retention

The statement was also sent to our three local MPs, Dawn Butler, Tulip Siddiq and Barry Gardiner.

Dawn Butler wrote to Cllr Butt on March 29th: 

Dear Cllr Butt, 

I am writing to you in regards to my concerns about the Government’s proposals, announced in the Budget, to reform England’s schools system by instituting the forced academisation of all schools by 2020. 

The Government are claiming that the academies programme will transform education by helping to turn around struggling schools while providing the freedom for successful schools to build on their achievements even further. 

In practice, however, it seems that there is little substantive evidence to show that turning a school into an academy will automatically raise standards. Ofsted chair, Sir Michael Wilshaw recently criticised seven sizeable academy chains for failing to improve the results of too many pupils in their schools. 

I am concerned forced academisation will bypass consultation amongst parents, schools and communities particularly in local areas like Brent where vital ground-level knowledge is needed.

The Tories obsession with changing the school structure will do nothing to tackle the real problems facing our education system. A flawed teacher recruitment programme and retention crisis added to the widening attainment gap between poor pupils and their peers. Furthermore, I believe forced academisation will cause utter chaos for successful local schools, such as Wykeham Primary, who prove the very point that you do not need to be an academy to be a successful school. 

I want us in Brent to lead a fight back and bring schools back in to local authority control. I will fight the government and ask for money to make this happen. It is important that our schools work together.

Today I have also received letters from the Secretary of State for Education Nicky Morgan MP confirming that two further Brent schools, Oakington Manor Primary and Furness Primary, will be converted into academies, please see enclosed a copy of the letters. I hope you will share my concerns of this continued assault towards taking Brent schools out of Brent control.

Academies do not automatically equate to good schools.

I hope we can discuss this matter further, and I look forward to your reply. 

Yours sincerely, 

Dawn Butler MP

 Tulip Siddiq wrote back:

Many thanks for passing the below email to me.

Needless to say, I entirely agree with the three bullet points and I’ll keep you updated on Parliamentary work I do on this.

 As yet Barry Gardiner MP for Brent North has not replied.

Since then of course there has been a national petition against the forced academisation plans, statements of opposition from many councils, including Conservative shire councils and this weekend the unprecedented threat of industrial action by the National Association of Headteachers.

The Labour Group on the Local Government Association has published the following model resolution for councils that may help Brent coucnil make a stand:

 

Model Motion Opposing Forced Academisation
This council meeting notes with great concern the proposal in the recently published education White Paper, Educational Excellence Everywhere, which will force all schools to become academies, irrespective of each school's wishes.

This council meeting notes that the White Paper’s proposals –

-       would remove the requirement for schools to elect parent governors.

-       would require the transfer of land and buildings of such schools to central ownership by the Secretary of State.

-       do not include any say for parents and local communities over the future status of local schools.

-       would require over 17,000 schools to conduct costly and lengthy conversion exercises at an estimated national cost of over £1billion.

 *OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL COMMENT* In [NAME OF TOWN], the cost of converting the [INSERT NUMBER OF NON-ACADEMY SCHOOLS] non-academy schools would be £[INSERT RESULT OF CALCULATION – NUMBER OF NON-ACADEMY SCHOOLS x £66,000]. 

This council meeting further notes – 

-       over 80 per cent of maintained schools have been rated good or excellent by Ofsted, while three times as many councils perform above the national average in terms of progress made by students than the largest academy chains.

-       the invaluable role of parent governors and the local authority in acting as ‘critical friends’ to both support and hold to account head teachers and schools.

-       the comments of The National Association of Head Teachers that plans to force every school to become an academy presented “a particularly high risk to the future viability and identity of small, rural, schools.”

This council meeting believes – 

-       no single system of school organisation has a monopoly on success, and that a one size fits all model as proposed by the White Paper would not deliver the improvement in school standards and outcomes that this council wishes to see. 

This council meeting therefore resolves to – 

-       ask the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for Education expressing the concerns of the council as set out in this motion about the proposals to force all schools to become academies, asking her to demonstrate how the proposals will improve educational outcomes in [NAME OF TOWN].

-       ask the Leader of the Council to write to our local MPs expressing the council’s concerns and to seek their views on the proposal. 

-       engage with head teachers, school governors, professional representatives, parents, and the wider local community to raise awareness of the Government’s proposals.

Dawn Butler MP calls on Brent to lead fight to bring schools back under local authority control

I was one of 10 Chairs of Governing Bodies in Brent to send a letter to Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt and Lead Member for Children and Families Ruth Moher (copied to our three MPs) opposing the government's new policy of forcing local authority primary schools to become academies.

As well as oppositon from Labour, Greens and Lib Dems, lead members for education in the Tory Shires, the local Government Association and the Conservative Bow Group have also made public statements of opposition.

Dawn Butler, Labour MP for Brent Central has sent me copies of letters she has written to Muhammed Butt amd Carolyn Downs, Brent's Chief Executive Officer calling for the Council to lead a fight to bring schools back under local authoriy control. (I would prefer 'oversight' rather than control as governing bodies are responsible for the strategic leadership of schools).

Brent Council failed to support parents and teachers challenging the forced academisation of Gradstone Park Primary School and Copland High School. In the latter case Muhammed Butt supported the forced academisation claiming that the Council did not have the resources to support the school. He now sits on the governing body of the school which was renamed Ark Elvin when Ark took it over.

Click image to enlarge

Brent FoE meeting on air pollution - its impact and solutions

 From Brent Friends of the Earth

A panel of politicians and campaigners will be discussing air quality at Brent Friends of the Earth's (Brent FoE) monthly meeting at Watling Gardens Community Meeting Room in Kilburn on Tuesday April 12th at 7.30pm.

Brent FoE's meeting will discuss the situation with air pollution - which is a serious health threat for Londoners and is a major problem in Brent. It will be a chance to learn about how air pollution is affecting us and to discuss what we need to do to get cleaner air to breathe. The speakers will be: Cllr Eleanor Southwood - Lead member for the Environment at Brent Council, Navin Shah - Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow, Dawn Butler - MP for Brent Central (to be confirmed), Juhaina Junaid from the Pollution Control Services at Brent Council and Ollie Hayes - Campaigner from Friends of the Earth.

Pam Laurance, a Co-ordinator of Brent Friends of the Earth says, “Poor air quality in London has a significant effect in shortening the lives of many people. In 2010 almost 9,500 Londoners died prematurely from causes linked to air pollution. The main pollutant is nitrogen dioxide, plus in some areas it is particulate matter, particularly from diesel vehicles, that do most of the damage. The principal source of air pollution in Brent is road traffic emissions, though emissions from residential and commercial heating systems also contribute.”

The discussion will start at at 7.30pm till approximately 9pm, and will be followed by Brent FoE's AGM. Everyone is welcome to attend this free event, and stay for the rest of the group meeting. Light refreshments will be available.

The meeting will be at Watling Gardens Community Meeting Room, 97/135 Watling Gardens, Shoot Up Hill, NW2 3UB (5 mins. from Kilburn tube/buses on Shoot up Hill). For more information see http://www.brentfoe.com or email info@brentfoe.com.

NOTE FROM MARTIN

As the only political party represented at this meeting is Labour  you may want to read what the Green Mayoral candidate, Sian Berry, has to say about clean air for London HERE

Now Tulip Siddiq says she won't show up to Save the NHS tomorrow

Thanks to  a Hampstead and Kilburn constituent for forwarding this. Cameron's Tories haven't got a huge majority, we are supposed to have a Left leadership in the Labour Party, but their MPs won't turn up on a vital issue. What would Bevan say?

Has anyone got a message from Dawn Butler?
 

-->

Good evening,

I am writing in response to your email, in which you asked whether I would attend the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill on Friday 11th March. Thank you very much for taking the time to write to me about this.

I could not agree with you more that the Health and Social Care Act, which was passed by the Tory and Lib Dem Government in 2012, needs to be repealed urgently. Spending on private and other providers has gone through the £10 billion barrier for the first time in the history of our health system, and unnecessary costs to our NHS have skyrocketed: the implementation of the Act itself has cost the taxpayer some £3 billion. When the Prime Minister took office in 2010 he inherited a health system where patient satisfaction was at all-time high, but as today's newspaper headlines starkly show, he has squandered this legacy: the NHS recorded  its worst ever performance figures in January of this year.

Quite rightly, ever since this Act was passed there have been a number of attempts, mostly by Labour MPs, to repeal the harmful elements of this legislation. The NHS Reinstatement Bill is another such attempt, and many Parliamentarians have tried to get it passed into law. This is the second such attempt to secure its passage, and I regret given there is a Tory majority in the Commons, it will be voted down by Conservative MPs.

I would have attended the debate at Second Reading tomorrow, but I am afraid that I have a number of prior commitments in the diary which mean that regrettably, I will not be able to make it. I am holding my constituency surgery at JW3 Community Centre tomorrow morning – this surgery has been scheduled for more than a month. In the afternoon, I will be speaking at an event to encourage more women into politics at the Women of the World Festival (see: wow.southbankcentre.co.uk/whats-on/how-get-elected-1785). Were it not for these diary commitments, I would certainly have stood up to be counted on the day of the vote.

In any event, however, the only way we can secure the reforms our NHS needs is by unseating this Tory Majority Government. Last May, I stood on a Labour Manifesto which promised to repeal the Health and Social Care Act and to abolish the rules which force NHS commissioners to put contracts out to private tender. We would also have reversed the provisions which permit hospitals to earn up to 49% of their income from private patients. I still remain firmly committed to these principles, and I will take every opportunity as your MP to implement the change we need to save our health system.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate you drawing this debate to my attention, and I can only reiterate my full agreement with your concerns about the Health and Social Care Act.

Thank you again for getting in touch, and please do write back if you have any further queries.

Best wishes,

Tulip Siddiq MP

Labour Member of Parliament for Hampstead and Kilburn

To receive updates on my work in Parliament and across Hampstead and Kilburn, please click here to sign up to my eNewsletter.

Twitter: @tulipsiddiq

Website: tulipsiddiq.com

Barry Gardiner won't take part in Friday's NHS Reinstatement Bill debate despite sympathy with overall objectives

Like other constituents in Brent North I have written to Barry Gardiner MP to ask him to support the NHS Reinstatement Bill when it is debated on Friday afternoon. I think most constituents would be understanding if he were to cancel his regular surgery in order to do something as important to the people of Brent as  help ing Save the NHS from current Conservatove attacks. Has anyone had a response from Dawn Butler or Tulip Siddiq?

Dear Mr Francis,                                                                                                                                     

Thank you for your recent correspondence asking me to be in the House of Commons for the second reading of the NHS Reinstatement Bill 2015 on Friday 11 March.

I very much regret that due to existing constituency commitments, I will be unable to be present. I am holding one of my regular surgeries for constituents this Friday, but I thought it would be helpful if I set out my views on the Bill.

As you may know, this Bill was introduced as a Private Member’s Bill last summer and as such, it is subject to the constraints associated with the parliamentary timetable. Even if the Bill were to receive its second reading this week (and there is no guarantee that it will even be debated), there is little prospect of the Bill becoming law in this session due to a lack of parliamentary time.

I am supportive of the overall objectives of the Bill. In particular, I support the principles behind duties outlined in Clause 1 of the proposed Bill – namely restoring accountability to the Secretary of State for the delivery of health services and the requirement that a comprehensive health service continues to be provided free of charge at the point of use.

The encroaching privatisation of the NHS must be halted and decisions about NHS services should never be called into question by any international treaties or agreements, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

However, I am concerned that some of the other parts of this Bill would require another wholesale reorganisation of the health service. The recent top-down reorganisation of the NHS, brought about by the Coalition’s Health and Social Care Act 2012, threw the system into turmoil, cost over £3bn and eroded staff morale.

So whilst I support the broad objectives which lie behind this Bill, I am concerned about the scale of structural change and costs associated with any further major reorganisation of the NHS.

If the Bill were to proceed, I would want to see it amended so that it avoids the problems of a further reorganisation but implements only its key principles.

In line with our manifesto commitment at the last election, Labour is already committed to repealing the competition elements of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and ensuring that patient care is always put before profits, and collaboration before competition.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Barry

Barry Gardiner MP
Member of Parliament for Brent North
Shadow Minister for Energy & Climate Change
Tel: 020 7219 4046 | Fax: 020 7219 2495
House of Commons - London, SW1A 0AA
www.barrygardiner.com

Barry, Dawn & Tulip please 'BACK THE BILL' ON Friday & Save Our NHS

Caroline Lucas  is calling on MPs to back her cross party NHS Reinstatement Bill which comes to the House of Commons on Friday.I hope to see all three of Brent's Labour MPs backing the Bill

Ask your MP to back to the bill: HERE 

The bill was supported by Jeremy Corbyn before he became leader of the Labour Party, and it is being backed in Parliament by the Scottish National Party and many individual MPs. The Labour Party has not yet made a public statement on it, but they are under pressure from health unions, grassroots NHS campaigns and tens of thousands of people who have emailed MPs asking them to back to the bill 

To guarantee that the NHS Reinstatement Bill is heard 100 MPs must be present in Parliament to bring about a vote on the Bill being debated before - that is why it is imperative that Barry Gardiner, Dawn Butler and Tulip Siddiq turn up to 'Back the Bill

Caroline Lucas, who tabled the cross-party NHS Reinstatement Bill, said:

This Friday MPs have a chance to show their commitment to our NHS. The NHS needs Labour to back this Bill. It’s the best chance we’ve got to bring people’s anger about what’s happening to our NHS into Parliament – and to then move towards reversing the failed privatisation experiment.

Across the country we’re seeing people making a stand against the ongoing marketization of our health service. The NHS is saddled with a wasteful internal market, and increasingly widespread outsourcing of services to the private sector. When you add this privatisation to the near-constant Government attacks on the NHS workforce, including forcing junior doctors to strike again today, you can see why so many people are supporting the NHS Bill.

The NHS bill would put the public back at the heart of the health service. MPs now have a chance to put their commitment to a public NHS into action by backing this bill on 11 March.

If we work together we can save our crisis ridden health service for future generations.

The NHS Reinstatement Bill would reverse the creeping marketisation of the health service and reinstate the NHS based on its founding principles – putting the public back at the heart of the health service. In practical terms that means simplifying the health service and removing the unnecessary complication introduced in 1991 (and reinforced in recent years) which fragmented the NHS by forcing services to go into competition with each other to win contracts.

The Bill would bring back health boards who would look at what services are needed in each local area and then provide them. The Bill also reinstates the Health Secretary’s duty to provide services throughout England - which was severed in the 2012 Health and Social Care Act.

Ask your MP to 'stick around' next Friday for the vital NHS Reinstatement Bill

Next Friday March 11th  Caroline Lucas will take the NHS Reinstatement Bill back to the House of Commons. [1] I have emailed and tweeted Barry Gardiner MP  to ask him to attend the debate.  I hope others will do so for their constituency MP.

The private members bill has received cross-party support and has among its signatories Jeremy Corbyn, who signed up before becoming Labour Party leader.

The bill would reinstate the secretary of state’s responsibility for the health of UK citizens, something the Health and Social Care Act removed. It would fully restore the NHS as an accountable public service by reversing 25 years of marketization in the NHS.

Many MPs return to their constituencies on Thursday nights but thousands of people have signed a petition urging their representatives to vote in favour on the NHS Reinstatement Bill next Friday. [2]

Caroline Lucas MP said:

I hope that MPs stick around next Friday to have a say on the future of our health service.

This mobilisation of grass roots campaigners and NHS staff is hugely inspiring. Across the country we’re seeing people making a stand against the ongoing marketization of our health service. The NHS is saddled with a wasteful internal market, and increasingly widespread outsourcing of services. When you add this privatisation to the near-constant Government attacks on the NHS workforce you can see why so many people are supporting the NHS Bill.
 
The NHS bill would put the public back at the heart of the health service. MPs now have a chance to put their commitment to a public NHS into action by backing this bill on 11th March.

If we work together we can save our crisis ridden health service for future generations.

[1] The NHS Reinstatement Bill:

[2] Petition in favour of the NHS Bill  

Brent Uncut (if only!) event on March 12th

At the Green Party Conference there was a discussion on whether we could work as part of a 'progressive alliance with the Labour Party. Opinions and experiences were mixed with some claiming that although Momentum had come out of the Corbyn leadership campaign it was little more than an election machine for the Labour Party who would back any Labour candidate, regardless of whether they supported anti-austerity or Corbyn, as a defeat would be seen as a blow for Corbyn.  I hope to post a video of the discussion later.

Meanwhile Brent Momentum has sent out the following invitation. Brent Momentum's event is called Brent Uncut, although of course Brent Labour Council has cut local services to the bone as a consequence of central government slashing local governnment finances. I  would be interested in any comments you wish to make.

What would Brent look like without austerity? Brent Momentum with Brent Trades Council and Brent Fightback presents Brent Uncut: Fighting Austerity for a Better Borough. Come along for a day of workshops and discussions, with:

Shelly Asquith (National Union of Students), Melissa Benn (journalist, writer, campaigner), Dawn Butler MP,  Muhammed Butt (Leader, Brent Council) and Michael Pavey (Dep Leader, Brent Council).

Participate in workshops on: education, transport, health, energy/climate, housing, PREVENT, welfare/disability and culture.

Brent Uncut will be held from 10 - 4 pm on Saturday 12 March 2016 at  Neasden Methodist Church, Neasden Lane North, NW10 0AF.

Please sign up and share via Facebook.

You don't need to be an expert or have been to events like this before. Everybody has great ideas and contributions to make for how we can improve our local area. Come along and be part of the movement for a more democratic, equal and decent society.

In solidarity,

Team Momentum

Brent Central MP and CLP oppose Overground ticket office closures

The proposed closure of Overground ticket offices on the Brent section of the line LINK has been opposed by Brent Central Constituency Labour Party:

Brent Central CLP calls on the London Mayoral Candidate, London Assembly Members and Brent Councillors to oppose Transport for London's proposed ticket office closures, and to ensure that they are properly staffed during opening hours. We congratulate the RMT on their campaign to oppose the proposed ticket office closures, and resolve to support their planned industrial action over the introduction of the Night Tube.

Brent Central MP Dawn Butler has put down an EDM (Early Day Motion) that has been supported by Gareth Thomas MP (Harrow West) and 15 others opposing the closures LINK.

That this House notes that London TravelWatch is required to consult on London Underground's [actually London Overground] proposal to close station ticket offices at Gunnersbury, Harlesden, Harrow and Wealdstone, Kensal Green, Kenton, Kew Gardens, North Wembley, Queen's Park, Stonebridge Park, South Kenton and Wembley Central; is concerned that the proposals are being bought forward despite many of these stations experiencing large increases in passenger numbers; opposes the closure of those stations on the basis that passengers, especially visitors and the elderly or disabled, would not be able to access the full range of tickets and services they need from a ticket machine, would find it harder to obtain advice on ticket and fare options, would suffer delays to their travel due to insufficient numbers of replacement ticket machines, would experience a more congested concourse, would be less confident using a ticket machine and could end up overspending, would be deterred from travel due to the lower staffing levels, and would be travelling on a network which is less safe with CCTV monitored less frequently; and therefore believes that these Tube ticket offices should be kept open.

What her constituents are telling Dawn Butler on Syria bombings

As anti-war demonstrators throng outside Labour Party HQ and Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn put their respective views to Channel 4 News on tomorrow's bombing vote it is worth looking at what Brent Central constituents have told Dawn Butler MP on her website survey.  The contributions appear to be running strongly against voting for bombing Syria.

Here are a few of the (unedited) comments from the 18 pages of comments on Dawn Butler's website LINK. Italics denote a new contribution:

The terrible attacks which took place in Paris are being presented as a rationale for bombing. Yet there is no evidence that further bombing will defeat ISIS, and there is much evidence that it can make the situation worse.

We should consider that air strikes in Syria have been going on for more than a year now, carried out by a coalition led by the US. In that time, ISIS has maintained and even increased its size, despite a large number of its members being killed. In addition, most members of the coalition have effectively ended military action. None of the regional states is at present involved, Canada has pulled out and Australia has suspended its bombing. Only France, the US and Russia are currently involved in attacks.

The shooting down of a Russian plane by Turkey underlines the danger of the situation escalating out of control. This is not a time to start further military action.

We should also reflect on the consequences of previous such interventions. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya continue, and terrorism has increased in all those countries, and many more, in the 14 years since they began.

Two years ago, Cameron lost a House of Commons vote to bomb Syria. Then he wanted to bomb Assad’s forces, but today he wants to bomb ISIS. The truth is that further bombing will do nothing to help the people of Syria. ISIS is a product of war, and has been helped to grow by Western allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

There is no comprehensive and clear EU plan in place to provide humanitarian assistance to the large number of refugees which will result from further bombing. In fact, the EU refugee plan is unravelling and the approach to refugees is highly fragmented. Nor is there a clear and unambiguous UN authorisation for the bombing of Syria.

Plans for military action are not subordinated to diplomatic efforts, but instead largely replace them. Also, it is not in practice possible to direct attacks solely at military targets. Evidence suggests that around 90% of drone strike victims are unintended casualties.

It is important that we learn from history. It is now widely accepted that Western interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have had disastrous consequences. There is no reason to think that Syria will be any different.

 I am not satisfied that there is any evidence that bombing will destroy ISIS; I believe that there is a stronger case that it will harm innocent Syrians more than ISIS. Furthermore, there is no system in place to help Syria re-build, as Assad is terrorising his own people.

 The intervention proposed – to add the UK’s specialised bombing capabilities to the US, which has been bombing Raqqa for months, and France, which has also recently bombed “command and control facilities”, “weapons depots”, “training camps” etc in Raqqa is retrogressive, learns nothing from failed ventures in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and just adds to the sum of total misery faced by civilians there. Just how many “command and control centres” can there be in Raqqa and how is it the US and French etc are so poor in “degrading” them???
Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been financing ISIL and offshoots of Al Qaida for years, but because monopoly capital here has too lucrative a relationship with the Gulf states, nothing would ever be done to destabilize that and they are allowed to continue unchallenged. Nor to upset Binyamin Netanyahu, ISIL’s chief recruiting sergeant in the Middle East.
The hypocrisy of Cameron and his cohorts is staggering.
There may well be a case for providing logistical and other support to existing fighters opposing ISIL, such as the Peshmerga in Kobane or the Yazidis in Sinjar, but bombing civilian populations or hoping to annihilate ISIL from the air is macho posturing of the “we must do something” school.

 I believe the root of the problem in Syria is Assad and that once he is removed, the people of Syria will be able to deal with ISIS. Their is no strategy to remove Assad, so no clear strategy on how to deal with the problem. Everybody seems to be aware that bombing will not bring about a solution and that ground troops are needed, yet this is not being proposed by the GOvt. In addition, the amount of bombing missions Britain can perform is negligible and will have very little military impact as a result, it is therefore morally unjustifiable given the almost certain likelihood of death to civilians.

 Islamic State represent an extreme and violent ideology which must be confronted. They will not be interested in any compromise, as they are directly opposed to everything about our way of life. It is vital that we join the international coalition and extend our action in Iraq to Syria too, as this is their main powerbase. The more we delay the confrontation, the harder it will be. The Labour Party has a proud history of standing strong against tyranny, and in this generation the fight is against the jihadist ideology. We must stand firm.

 I’m not a pacifist, so can consider military action as necessary. I am not sure bombing of Syria will be effective and stop Isis. To me it is slightly cowardly because the west is not prepared to put soldiers on the ground to help in the battle. More to the point does the west have a clear strategy once Isis is defeated? History suggests not. A vague idea to replace Assad is not good enough and a constant demand for free elections is a good idea but the west has to accept that elections don’t always go your way. 

To me the only way Isis will be defeated is by a ground war, supported by air power, a clear mandate from the UN, and a clear strategy for occupation, rebuilding and economic investment, and exit.
Finally the government has to say how it will pay for any military action. The history of government over the last 50 years is that we have wars but will not raise taxes to pay for them. I think a lot of people will take a penny on income tax if it increases our security.

 The terrible attacks which took place in Paris are being presented as a rationale for bombing. Yet there is no evidence that further bombing will defeat ISIS, and there is much evidence that it can make the situation worse.

We should consider that air strikes in Syria have been going on for more than a year now, carried out by a coalition led by the US. In that time, ISIS has maintained and even increased its size, despite a large number of its members being killed. In addition, most members of the coalition have effectively ended military action. None of the regional states is at present involved, Canada has pulled out and Australia has suspended its bombing. Only France, the US and Russia are currently involved in attacks.

The shooting down of a Russian plane by Turkey underlines the danger of the situation escalating out of control. This is not a time to start further military action.

 I was encouraged to read in the Kilburn Times that you are minded to vote against extending military action in Syria and I urge you to vote against the Prime Minister’s proposals.
I am sure that many people in Brent recognise that bombing Syria will recruit more young people to ISIS and increase the possibility of retaliatory action in the UK. It will also cause more people to flee their destroyed homes and country.
I hope you will have the opportunity to urge the government to learn from our interventions in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan and press them to work to strengthen those international institutions which contribute to peace.

 1. Bombing countries kills and displaces civilians, destroys the infrastructure, damages the mental health of all involved leading to fear and hate.
2. With so much emphasis on intelligence agencies mass surveillance, there should be a worldwide sharing of information to map out sources of funding for Isis, arms suppliers, customers buying oil from Isis in order take away/block funding, supplies, ability to sell oil and recruit.
3. Block ISIS’s communication channels, delete existing videos, photos, stop them communicating via Internet/satellite and mobile technology.
4. Focus on negotiated settlements between government and rebels. External supporters of government and rebel forces ( USA, Russia, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Iran etc ) will need to let go of their own financial/power agendas and priotise fate of civilians.
5. There should be effective mechanisms in place hold media corporations (including the BBC) and individual journalists to account when they spread misinformation leading to hatred, fear and confusion. If there is evidence pointing to countries providing support to ISIS, having agendas for regim change, selling weapons, buying oil etc public should be made aware of it. There should be more coverage of unfolding human tragedy (refugees camps, refugees drowning in the Mediterranean, civian deaths in Syria as a result of all the bombing)
6. Information should be released to public regarding:
i)legality of bombing the Syrian government, providing support to, training, arming rebel groups that oppose the government. Are international laws being broken? What is the UN position.
ii)legal position with respect to action against ISIS in Syria, can anyone go and start bombing Isis in Syrian territory because they are worried about the Isis threat to their own country or people? Does America/France have a legal right to bomb Syria, do we, UK have a legal right to join them? Who else has this right?. I am assuming Russia does have a legal right to be there as they were invited in by government?
I ii)Where did ISIS come from, who are they, are they the result of action in the region(Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt). Would removing Assad from power have an impact on support for ISIS?
iv) who are producing/dealing the weapons being used? What roles are being played by those with financial links to arms producers and dealers in this conflict.
v)What are the views of Syrian people? Has anyone bothered to ask those left in the country and the millions displaced across the world.
7. Why has America and France been so heavily involved in this conflict for so many years? Were they fighting Syrian government or ISIS? What led to Russian involvement? Who in the region are involved – why and how? If those involved in bombing are only doing so to help Syrian people, doesn’t any other countries want to join in. How much money is being spent on this conflict – where is the money coming from? Why isn’t there enough money to help feed/support/look after civillians caught up in the conflict – but everyone seems to have plenty of funds to bomb and attack Assad and ISIL.
8. People should be supplied with unbiased facts and evidence. Governments should take views of civilian population into account before entering into military action/war.

 Bombing certain geographic locations will cause great loss of civilian lives and only provide more breeding ground for this terrorist group. IS is not a simple target that can be located in Syria. Instead the terrorist attacks of the last decade and a half have demonstrated that IS has infiltrated our society. Political intervention needs to continue and at a faster pace, not senseless bombing to give the illusion that politicians can protect the public in this way. Bombs are a blunt measure when we need these finances to go to different causes: intelligence to cut off IS funds as well as their weapon, oil and human trade, education to show an alternative, and creating a sustainable economy that will make joining IS unattractive.

Brent Central constituents have really risen to the occasion with many thoughtful comments. It is an exercise in democracy that should not be a one-off.