A 'secret' meeting with Councillor Butt

Guest blog by Philip Grant

-->

The need for independent investigation of a number of important matters which appear to be going wrong within Brent Civic Centre has been the subject of a number of “blogs”, and hundreds of comments on them, in the past few months, most recently in Martin’s article about ‘Diminishing democracy in Brent’ on 13 July:- 

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/diminishing-democracy-in-brent-update.html
 

I was one of the people who urged our Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, to publicly answer the allegations which were being made, both in comments made and in emails sent to him both before and after the local elections in May. I also had outstanding matters from a letter I had given to him on 4 February 2014, at a “Brent Connects” meeting where I had spoken out in a “soapbox” slot about Senior Council Officers failing to honour commitments in Brent’s Constitution about proper consultation and working effectively with the community (the report back to the following “Brent Connects” meeting in April had incorrectly informed the public that ‘the Leader’s Office has responded to Mr Grant’).

I was therefore pleased when one of my emails finally received a reply, from Cllr. Butt himself, on 24 May saying: 

‘Let’s meet up soon so that we can discuss the points that you have been highlighting. I need to be appointed as leader again on June 4^th at the agm of the council and if all goes ahead fine we can sit down soon afterwards.’

After some delays at his office, I finally met with Cllr. Butt, and his assistant Thomas Cattermole, in his office at the Civic Centre on Thursday 26 June. I am a retired Civil Servant, and right at the start of the meeting I made it clear that I wished to make a written record of our discussions. This is how I recorded it in the “Introduction” to my notes of the meeting (the only part of them which I feel I can disclose, for reasons which will become apparent):

Kensal Rise Library, Copland and Representative Democracy

Guest blog by Guestropod

Anyone following the Kensal Rise Library correspondence on Wembley Matters LINK would be struck by two things:   1. the level of interest in the matter    2. the desire to communicate that interest and the related opinions to councillors, with  the implicit expectation that the elected representatives would respond to them.

A similar level of interest and a similar expectation of a response to their concerns also seems to have characterised  the involvement of Copland students in their opposition to the dismantling of their school and its takeover by the Ark academy business. This opposition was ultimately expressed in a letter which followed up a petition signed by well over 400 students and addressed to Brent Council's Head of Children and Families. Apparently, none of these students had participated in any similar action before and many would have been unaware that it was possible for them to do so. I would imagine that the experience was worth a term's worth of Citizenship lessons.  

The original petition was ‘lost’ by Brent council and further copies had to be provided.  A copy of the follow-up letter went to every Brent councillor. LINK

Out of the 60+ councillors who were sent the letter, I gather that a grand total of 3 (THREE) managed the courtesy of a reply, (2 Lib Dem, 1 Labour).

Anyone teaching in Brent at the 2010 General Election would have been impressed by the level of interest shown by 6^th form students keen to use their vote for the first time. The mock election staged at Copland and organised by Mr Allman was supported by local and national politicians and enthusiasm for the breath of fresh air and honesty which Nick Clegg appeared to be offering was palpable. Within a few months most of these students were in further education. And grants were tripled. A more effective way of disillusioning a generation of new voters is impossible to imagine.

None of those kids who signed the Copland anti-academy petition have the vote, so presumably they can be ignored. Those Copland 6^th formers who voted Lib Dem in 2010 did have the vote, but they were ignored and betrayed anyway. Those contributing to the Kensal Rise Library discussion on Wembley Matters and elsewhere no doubt all have the vote, probably used it last time and are likely to vote again on May 22nd. It’s good to see the faith they seem to still have in the democratic process and in their elected representatives’ responsiveness.

I would hope that Copland's current and past students could share that faith. But I can also imagine (and sympathise with) the reasons why they might not.

Green Party Education Policy offers a real alternative

I will be moving a motion revising the Green Party's Education Policy at our forthcoming Spring Conference. The revisions take account of recent developments in what has been termed GERM (the Global Education Reform Movement) and the various campaigns that have sprung up as a result of privatisation, forced academisation, test led curriculum and pedagogy and the attack on teachers; conditions of service.

The full briefing paper on the motion can be read HERE. This extract sets out the background:

Since the current Education Policy was written there has been much change in the direction of education both nationally and globally. What has become known as GERM (the Global Education Reform Movement) emphasises competition between schools and between countries, education’s contribution to global economic growth and competition, the provision of a ‘market’ in education with increasing involvement of private companies, a narrowing of the curriculum through a concentration on basic subjects that can be measured through standardised testing, and a convergence between the world of work and education. 

In England the three main parties, to varying degrees, support this movement, which has resulted in the promotion of free schools and academies, the increasing role of private companies not just in sponsoring such schools but also in the provision of curriculum and learning materials. Companies such as Pearson and Murdoch are poised to exploit this situation. Testing at the age of four is now being mooted as well as the existing Phonics Screening Test at six, Key Stage 1 SATs at 7 and Key Stage 2 SATS at 11. In the secondary sector there is a huge emphasis on examination results. Test results are used by Ofsted as the first measure for judging school performance and schools spend an enormous amount of time analysing and ‘interrogating’ the data. A blip in these results can lead to a local authority school being forced to convert to academy status.

The paradox is that increased centralisation and the granting of unprecedented powers to the Secretary of State for Education, in this government and any successor, have accompanied the rhetoric about setting schools free from local authority ‘control’ through academies and free schools. Currently the micro-management of schools by Michael Gove has extended to advocating particular policies on behaviour management. Peter Wilby has described the situation thus:

Michael Gove is on course to complete what Kenneth Baker began… the creation of a fully centralised school system in which the secretary of state for education has the powers of an elected dictator.

The agreement between the three main parties on this gives the Green Party the space to offer a completely different approach based on our underlying principles:

• Our rejection of the economic growth agenda and the accompanying international economic competition enables us to have a broader interpretation of the aims and content of education.
• This in turn enables us to reject the narrow curriculum, testing regimes and league tables associated with the GERM model and to put forward a child-centred approach taking account of child development, especially in the early years.
• Our belief that decisions are best made at local level rather than by centralised diktat means that decisions about curriculum (apart from a broad entitlement) and pedagogy are made by teachers and the school community rather than the Secretary of State.
• This enables diversity and creativity to take place within the state funded local authority school system, which will have the effect of empowering teachers and developing their professionalism rather than deskilling them.
• Our belief in cooperation rather than competition means that we put forward collaborative models of school improvement including school to school support and a partnership role for an independent inspection service informed by educational research/
•  Our support for increased democratic accountability at a local level involves improving the representation of parents and pupils within schools and democratic accountability through local authorities and removing the excessive powers of the Secretary of State.
• Our commitment to social justice means that we put forward policies that support fair admissions and fair funding of schools and inclusion of children with special needs.

Greens back independent grassroots candidate for Willesden Green

Several members of Brent Green Party attended the Make Willesden Green campaign's policy discussion on Saturday as observers. The participants were local activists and residents, mostly non-party but with some disillusioned Labour supporters, who were concerned about their lack of say in local issues, poor consultation, the loss of some key local amenities, and the feeling that Willesden Green was being changed into a featureless dormitory which would squeeze out poorer people.  The Council was seen as remote and unresponsive.

The meeting was highly positive and very participative and people left determined to exercise some People Power at the local elections in May 2014.

Alex Colas is standing as an independent grassroots candidate in Willesden Green ward. He has worked alongside Green Paty members in several campaigns including the Keep Willesden Green campaign over the redevelopment of the Willesden Green Library and the loss of the Willesden Bookshop and the open space, as well as the continuing campaign against the forced academisation of Gladstone Park Primary School which serves many children from Willesden Green,

Alex wrote a Guest Article in the last edition of Brent Green Party's Willesden Green News.

At the beginning of the well-attended  meeting Alex explained the relationship between MWG and the Greens. MWG is standing on an independent platform and is not a political party and welcomes support from supporters of all parties and none. The 'Green' in Make Willesden Green stands for the place and not the party.

However, the Brent Green Party believe that an independent grassroots councillor for Willesden Green would enhance local democracy and has issued the  following statement:

Brent Green Party welcomes the candidature of Alex Colas who is standing as an independent on the Make Willesden Green platform in Willesden Green ward in the local elections.

We believe that the election of Alex Colas, arising from his principled participation in local campaigns, would be healthy for local democracy.  In recognition of this we will stand only two candidates in the ward and recommend that our supporters give Alex their third vote.

Further information on the Make Willesden Green campaign can be found HERE

‘I’m an Ark Academy apologist. Get me out of here!’

Copland staff  and parents underwhelmed by  ‘consultation’ process.  

Guest blog by 'Participatory Democracy'

Copland staff have always been a little sceptical about ‘consultation’, possibly since ex-Head Davies once announced to a full staff meeting (on applying for Trust status) : ‘the consultation period is over’, having omitted to do anything to indicate that it had ever actually begun. So when various Ark representatives, including the Ark Academy Head, Dame Delia Smith OBE, and IEB members fronted a ‘consultation’ meeting for Copland staff last Thursday, no one was expecting them to get a warm reception. And that’s exactly what they didn’t get. Still, as almost all the staff had only ever seen one member of the IEB before, it was, if nothing else,  a chance for them to get a glimpse of this year’s latest  new bosses. Or, as one ‘deleted’ teacher put it: ‘it’s always nice to be able to put a face to your redundancy notice’.

Time for concerted preemptive advice on primary forced academies

An initiative I fully support from the Education Reform website: LINK

It is time to create a concerted stand against the bulldozing DfE conversion of Primary schools to Academies.

Each school so far has had to fight its own cause with only minor support from other schools or unions.

The situation calls for forewarning advice to be sent to each school before they have a chance of a weak Ofsted inspection outcome, with DfE brokers swiftly moving in to undemocratically convert the school to an Academy.

This measure is needed - overdue in fact - for the very simple reason that democracy is being subverted or simply ignored, with the DfE selecting 'preferred' sponsors opaquely, and blatantly failing to listen to parental needs or concerns. The occasional parental consultation that they tolerate is operated mechanically, and the results effectively ignored.

I might be deemed 'an enemy of promise' by trying to stop these forced conversions, but the DfE are indeed bulldozing the educational landscape, with the title deeds of the doomed schools and their land give away for free to private businesses who often have no original background in education. There is rumour that they will be given the right to make a profit on the back of this free offering in the future.

But the real enemy is the DfE as they are the 'enemies of reason' - they literally care not one jot about the public opinion, nor the hard facts that Academies do not guarantee success. The DfE know what they want - to serve private enterprise. Why else pass the title deeds to charity-status sponsors that never need to own them in the first place?

Many Primary schools are quivering at the impending arrival of Ofsted inspectors - a stressful enough event in normal circumstance. With the threat of massive upheaval against their wishes via the long forced conversion process, the spirit of a school can be killed.

Are there any volunteers who are happy to accumulate the advice that should be sent to the primary schools? I am happy to help coordinate this effort.

Primary school champion Robin Alexander slams Gove's 'Discourse of Derision'

From the TES blog: LINK

Teachers have more power than they realise to resist government reforms to primary education, Professor Robin Alexander, author of a wide-ranging review into primary education, has said.

The respected academic, who led the Cambridge Primary Review – a three-year analysis of all aspects of primary education published in 2009 - attacked the current "discourse of derision" in which the government denounced those who disagree with its ideas was the real "enemy of progress".

He was referring to a recent argument over the review of the national curriculum in which 100 academics curriculum proposals as an "endless lists of spellings, facts and rules" and were in turn denounced as "enemies of promise" in a newspaper article written by education secretary Michael Gove.

Professor Alexander said at an event in London last night: "It's surely proper to ask whether heaping abuse on members of the electorate because they hold different views is what government in a democracy is about.
"It is especially bafflingly during a period of public consultation when different views are what the government has expressly invited."

Alexander is no fan of the current coalition government’s national curriculum review, saying it uses international data with ‘eye-watering selectivity’.

Alexander's Cambridge Primary Review contained 75 recommendations but just one - start formal lessons at six - made the headlines, and the report was consequently largely dismissed by the then Labour government and had commissioned its own overhaul of the primary curriculum.

But he pointed out that many of the 2009 report’s recommendations did not need government action, they could be and were being, implemented by headteachers and teachers themselves.

Alexander was speaking at the launch of the Cambridge Primary Review Trust, a not-for-profit company with core funding from educational publisher Pearson. The trust, based at York University, will carry out research and training building on the review's evidence and principles. There will also be a separate body to develop branded professional services and materials for schools.

The launch event included a panel debate, Any Primary Questions?, which was chaired by broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby. Graham Stuart, chair of the Commons education select committee, was one of the panellists. He said afterwards that he felt more political attention had been focused on secondary than primary issues.

“It is important that primary community speaks up, rather than despairing of politics," Stuart said. "One of the priorities of The Cambridge Primary Trust is a policy dialogue and the Trust could become a strong advocate for the world of primary.”

Labour Councillor refuses to be a 'compliant cipher' over academisation

It is gratifying to find a local Labour councillor prepared to take a stand against academisation - even if that councillor is in Blackpool and not Brent!

Councillor Martin Mitchell said:

I have resigned from the board of governors of Collegiate High School in protest at the academisation of the school which is joining with Bispham High.

Earlier this year Government inspectors’ declaration of Bispham High as “failing” was widely described as politically motivated and a distortion of reality. Bispham High’s recently reported best ever exam results show that description to be totally accurate.

My time at Collegiate has been dominated by the academy issue.

Control has now been handed to a group without democratic standing which will decide which of the governors will remain.

I am not and do not wish to be a compliant cipher for a group without support in the local community. I believe public education should be kept in public hands and encourage others who think the same to speak up at every opportunity.

Green Party accepts Jenny Jones' life peerage

I'm not happy about adding credibility to a rotten system but the Green Party made a democratic decision on this:

Today's announcement from the Green Party
 

The Green Party today accepted the nomination of London Assembly Member, Jenny Jones to the second chamber in the Palace of Westminster.  Ms Jones was chosen as the Green Party nomination by a ballot of all members of the Green Party of England and Wales. 

She has been a London Assembly Member for 13 years, which has included being Deputy Mayor of London, and prior to that was Chair of the National Green Party Executive.

Ms Jones said:

"It is an honour and a privilege to be chosen as the Green Party representative in the Second Chamber. My holding the Metropolitan Police to account for over a decade has shown me that issues around policing are a constant concern UK wide and there's a clear need for strong voices protecting civil liberties and the right to protest. I am looking forward to a new battlefield for green ideas and policies and I shall do my best to fulfill the trust and expectation that my party has shown in me."

The appointment of Ms Jones to the Second Chamber restores the Green Party back to its previous level of representation prior to 2008. Ms Jones will be using the post to support the many worthy changes to legislation put to the Second Chamber by Green MP Caroline Lucas.

Natalie Bennett, Green Party leader, said: "I'm delighted that the Green Party has provided the second chamber of the British parliament with its first elected representative*.

"We can only hope this can act as a spur towards wider reform of this house, for which reform has been promised for more than a century.

"Reform was included in the manifestos of the three largest political parties in Britain in 2010, and it isn't too late for action within the term of this parliament."

Natalie added: "Jenny will be an excellent addition to the second chamber, and one small step towards political balance there. Of course a full-elected chamber, on the basis of a proportional vote, would produce a body entirely reflecting the democratic wishes of the British people."

* Jenny was selected as the Green Party's top candidate for the House in an open ballot of all Green Party members.

People's Assembly generates hope but this must result in action

It was always going to be hard to enable as many voices as possible to be heard in a gathering of more than 4,000 people but yesterday's People's Assembly got close. Central Hall, marquees outside and the Emmanuel Centre down the road were buzzing with ideas and viewpoints, as well as simply heaving with people.

Much more united us than separated us, this included a deep dislike of the Coalition and the Conservatives (there was laughter when the caption maker misheard a quote and described Tories as 'worse than Birmingham' instead of vermin)and there was a determination to not only describe what was wrong but to provide hope that together we could bring about change.

Although many wanted to see trade unions take a lead, and there were calls for a general strike, there was also an emphasis on community organisation and resistance, and providers and users of services such as health, social work and education working together.

I attended the sessions on 'climate change and jobs' at which Caroline Lucas spoke (clip above), 'protecting public education'; and 'democracy and decision-making-fixing our broken political system' at which Natalie Bennett ran a workshop.

Caroline Lucas's call for renationalisation of the railways received enthusiastic applause as did her statement that capitalism was incompatible with solving the climate crisis.

In the education workshop speeches from the platform were interspersed with batches of one minute contributions from the floor. I managed to get a rather incoherent one minute plug in for a 'Reclaim Our Schools' movement made up of teachers, parents, governors and school students and that seemed in line with Christine Blower's (NUT) suggestion of a Reclaim Education campaign. It was important to resist and challenge efforts at divide and rule.

Throughout there was a thread of argument about the crisis in democracy, representation and accountability and this came together in the sometimes chaotic democracy workshop where issues of electoral reform, community organising, local people's assemblies came together and many were introduced to 'jazz hands' for the first time. (Hands are waved in the air silently to express approval rather than clapping).

Discussions and debate continued in the nearby cafes, pubs and restaurants afterwards and are due to continue at local people's assemblies in the future as well as a student assembly in November. It will be important not to lose the momentum, enthusiasm and hope as well as to refine and spread the emerging ideas.

Passport not sufficient ID to get into Brent Council meeting

There was increased security at last night's meeting of Brent Council and a ticket system for getting into the building. When I arrived there was a small group of lobbyists outside from the Counihan Family Campaign and Brent Fightback. Brent Fightback had been giving out a leaflet making the case for the Council to set a needs based budget. Railings had been erected at the foot of the Town Hall steps and two police cars were in attendance.

When I asked if they were going to observe the meeting one of the lobbyists told me that the council meetings were so tedious and mind-numbing that she did not wish to go in.  Others however said that they had been denied entry by an officer from Democratic Services who stood at the door with a security guard. He told them that they were going to keep out the people who had caused trouble at the previous meetings. or who might cause trouble because previous meetings had been interrupted and they wanted the business of the Council meeting to be completed that evening.

The officer's action seemed particularly targeted at the Counihan Family Campaign but was applied in a blanket way to everyone who had been lobbying.. Three women who tried to get in were asked for ID in order to gain admittance. Carol, a retired TfL worker went all the way home to collect her passport and library card but the officer refused to look at it saying, 'We know you are part of the campaign' without saying which campaign.

I was granted admittance and a woman was also allowed in but only after she had to ask that the officer to ring  Carol Shaw, her local councillor,  to check her credentials.

When we eventually arrived in the public gallery we were the only two people in attendance with 50 empty seats and more on the floor of the council chamber.  After half an hour or so two young women joined us but soon got bored and went home. Ex- Democratic Conservative Councillor Robert Dunwell, who has his moments in the Town Hall, was happily trotting around the Council Chamber.

Clearly this raises issues about democratic accountability if the public are not allowed to attend full meetings of the council.  The 'Summons to attend council meeting' clearly states 'The press and public are welcome to attend this meeting'. How can democracy be seen to be done if the electorate are not allowed to see it in action? Is it legal or moral for the council to decide which members of the public are acceptable?

A further troubling aspects is the question of how the council has identified previous and potential trouble makers?  I have never been a conspiracy theorist but is there a list or photographic record? Does the council believe in guilt by association? If you are opposed to council policy does that make you a 'trouble maker'. Would library campaigners have been asked for their ID?

Interesting Lib Dem Cllr Jack Beck who tweets as @digitalliberal tweeted during the meeting:

Brent Fightback at the Town Hall tonight, very unimaginative literature, looks like a member of the Brent Labour Party wrote it. 

So a Labour Council bars entry to a group of people, some of whom are Labour supporters, who are advocating a policy supported by many on the left of the Labour Party as well as other socialist groups including Green Left,  as well as those supporting a Brent family suffering as a result of the housing crisis.  l Muhammed Butt,   leader of Brent Council went to speak to Brent Trades Union Council earlier this year at a meeting attended by many members of Brent Fightback. LINK  He stressed that he wanted to have a dialogue with them and return to 'what Labour stands for and why we are here'. Asked how he would organise a fightback against Coalition cuts he said:

Me being here is just a start. I am willing to go anywhere, whether to a warm reception or a hostile one, to have a dialogue.

In the same meeting he said that he had not ruled out a needs based budget.We are entitled to ask, what has happened to that dialogue, but more importantly, what has happened to democracy?

Recently I attended an Extraordinary Meeting of Barnet Council where the Labour group had tabled a motion of 'no confidence' in the Conservative Leader of the council calling for him to be replaced. Feelings were running high but not only was the public gallery full but the council had provided seats in an overflow room with a television link. Officers from the council politely greeted us and showed us to the viewing room. There was some spirited heckling but the Mayor was able to keep things under control and a proper debate took place.

Outrage as Brent Council plan to charge citizens for free speech

I thought a speaker at the Willesden Area Consultative Forum might have been rather exaggerating when she likened living under Brent Council rule to  living in the Soviet Union but then we read of Brent's plans to include community groups in plans to licence (and charge) distributors of free literature.  I wrote in my blog breaking news of the plans that the definition of 'political purposes' would be open to interpretation LINK. Campaigns around cuts and libraries etc are 'political' but not representing a political party. It now appears that Brent's interpretation is that exempt activities are those of political parties campaigning at election time. See Brent and Kilburn Times story LINK

So if we want to campaign against Council policies in designated areas we must seek their permission and pay a fee to do so!

Veteran activist Sarah Cox has expressed the outrage that many Brent people feel in a letter to Councillors Gladbaum, Long and Beswick:

Dear Councillors Beswick, Long and Gladbaum,

I am writing to you as my ward councillors and copying this email to Cllr Ann John as leader of the Council because I learned from the local paper that you intend to discuss on Monday a proposal to charge £175 for a license to give out leaflets in the main shopping areas of the borough with a further charge of £75 a day. This proposal, if passed, would represent an outrageous curtailment of human rights. Maybe you have been taking lessons from Uzbekistan or China. You may have been irritated by the distribution of leaflets and collection of signatures from people opposed to cuts and closures of services in the borough, but surely that is an essential part of democracy?

According to the paper, political parties, charities and religious groups will be exempted, but I often give out leaflets for bodies which do not fit any of these categories like Unite Against Fascism, the Stop the War Coalition or Brent Fightback. The cost of leaflets I am likely to give out on any day is probably twenty pounds or less, to charge £175 plus £75 a day (for each person?) is to gag all protest and free speech.

The editor of the Kilburn and Brent Times recognises the threat to democracy posed by you proposal, I am shocked and surprised that you do not. I hope someone will be allowed to speak at Monday's Council meeting to oppose this outrageous idea. I hate litter as much as anyone, but the litter I see on the streets is plastic bags, food wrappings, old clothes and mattresses, not leaflets asking people to protest against library closures, fascism and war.

I hope to hear from you that you will be voting against this proposal.

Dos the 'market' govern us now?

Well, I used to worry that multinational companies really ruled the world and that governments were relatively powerless...

Now is seems that the markets can impose unelected technocrat governments (Greece and Italy) and via Standard and Poor's rating agency make whole regions quake in their boots and adjust their policies to please the market.

Where were Standard and Poor's  when the banks were behaving so recklessly back before 2008?

Where does that leave democracy and our right to elect a party that will govern in OUR interests?

See Wall Street Journal on S & P's role in original US mortgage crisis HERE

SAVE OUR TOWN HALL - SAVE OUR LOCAL DEMOCRACY

© Copyright Roger Kidd and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence

The local newspapers have this week carried reports of the dispute between Shahrar Ali, a local resident and member of the Green Party and Cllr Kanta Mistry who chairs the Kingsbury Area Consultative Forum. The immediate controversy is about the minutes of the Forum which Shahrar Ali claims were initially inaccurate and reworded by verbal agreement at a Forum meeting, and then reworded again prior to publication.

The effect of the rewording was to remove the rather stark claim by a council official that Brent Council had not consulted on the proposed civic centre which will replace the Town Hall and other major council buildings, 'because it did not need to' and substitute with 'The council had not consulted residents on whether a new civic centre needed to be built and had not done so because the business case for a new building was felt to be overwhelming'.

Underlying the dispute are wider issues about consultation:

* Should the council have the power to decide not to consult on major projects that impact on the people of Brent?

* Are the minutes of consultative forums the property of the meetings themselves or of the council members and officers?

*What happens when participants in the consultation process seek to extend democracy and accountability and the council seek to limit it?

SUPPORT DEMOCRACY: VOTE

I have been busy with leafleting and campaigning for the Greens in the Euro elections for the last few weeks and am cautiously optimistic about the chances of increasing our representation in the European Parliament. The reason for the caution lies in the public reaction to the expenses issue which has produced in some people a loathing of all politicians and rejection of politics in general. Many people have told me that they will not vote at all, in protest against what is going on and the drip-drip of revelations in the newspapers.

As I said at the Barry Gardiner meeting (below) this is bad for democracy and we cannot afford to throw away our hard worn democratic rights, however limited we believe they are, in a fit of pique. In earlier times in this country and recent and currently in many others (remember the lone protester in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square?) people have died to gain democratic rights and a voice in their own lives. Not voting will be cutting off our nose to spite our face and open the way for the BNP and UKIP. Rather than constituting an overnight slap round the face for the greedy it will affect our lives for many years to come. It is imperative that everyone gets out and votes for positive change.

Thankfully, in the last few days I have seen evidence that people are recognising this. Talking to voters in Kilburn High Road, Wembley High Road and Willesden Green it is clear that many are giving serious consideration to voting Green and are identifying with policies such as opposing health services being opened up to free market competition, creating thousands of new jobs in green services and industries, making homes and schools energy efficient and closing down tax havens. More Green MEPs in the UK will increase our clout both at home and in Europe. Parents picking up leaflets outside schools have been particularly positive with only a 1 in 10 refusal rate.
One of the most heartening exchanges was at an elders' care home in Kingsbury where the initial reaction from the white residents was to shoo us away, saying they were fed up with all politicians, but once conversation opened up began they were adamant about the need to keep out the BNP and scathing about their policies. Curiously there has been very little evidence of the main three parties on the streets with independent candidate supporters more in evidence. A number of voters said that we were the only party that seemed to be out actively seeking votes and delivering material through their doors.

When the results are announced on Sunday I look forward to seeing Green gains but I will also be desperate for evidence that people have not given up on democracy.