Brent Momentum debuts with frank open debate & a little political torsion

Interestingly it was not criticism of his attitude to cuts that made Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt fly into a rage at yesterday's Brent Momentum meeting but a challenge on the implementation of the Prevent Strategy in the borough.

Butt had been asked to make a public statement on Prevent to the people of Brent by Humera Khan of the long-established An Nisa Society.  Butt stood up and visibly shaking, shouted over Humera and jabbed his fingers at her yelling, 'You always do this..'   Eventually, when he had been forced to stop and calm down by the chair of the session, Faduma Hassan, Humera was able to complete her question. She recognised that there were statutory constraints on the Council about their duty to implement the Strategy but wanted a clear statement from Butt about its shortcomings. In particular she wanted the Council to commit to tackling Islamophobia and inequalities that impacted on the Muslim community.

Cllr Butt said that he had been critical of Prevent in a Channel 4 programme but that the Council was taking a different approach to the Strategy by working with communities and placing it in a broader safeguarding context which would not stigmatise the Muslim community. He would be speaking in Cambridge about his criticisms of the Strategy. He confirmed  'I don't like Prevent' and thought the current strategy was 'pernicious'.

Humera said that she wanted a statement made to the community in Brent - not in Cambridge or on Channel 4. The question of which community groups Brent Council was engaging with and how they had been selected remained in the air.

On the issue of cuts Michael Calderbank called on Cllr Butt to show more political  leadership, 'all we hear from you is managerialism.' Asked to join with other councils in funding an attempt to get a Judicial Review of the 'Shaping a Healthier Future' proposals on local health services, based on the findings of the Mansfield Report, Butt would make no commitment pending legal advice.

The day had begun with an emollient address by Cllr Michael Pavey where he admitted that the Council had made mistakes in the way they engaged with people and presented cuts. The library closures and Stonebridge Adventure Playground were such cases. He claimed that having a Labour Council had lessened the impact of austerity on local people.  He wanted to move away from a 'stale debate' with the left over not implementing cuts, needs budgets etc and work with them in challenging austerity and  government cuts to local authority funding.  He cited 'Red Lines' LINK where Labour councillors were standing up to defend Londoners.  He wanted to work with council trade unions on these issues.

In earlier commentary I had raised the issue of inviting Butt and Pavey to a 'Brent Uncut' event when they had implemented cuts in Brent but organisers justified on the basis that it would open the dialogue between the community and Labour councils that Jeremy Corbyn had advocated. This was bound to result in some friction but there was much constructive work, especially in the workshops on issues such as health, education, welfare, environment and housing where I hope some of the proposals will be published by Brent Momentum. Framed as helping to build a 'Better Brent' (an old slogan) they could produce a unity beyond the normal activists.

Kilburn Labour Party member and Brent TUC Secretary Pete Firmin said in his introduction that we all know what the government is doing but the question for the day was how to oppose these measures and in some cases, work from against them from within. It was no use just shouting at councillors for implementing cuts but adopting alternative policies, learning from other councils, (such as Islington on housing) and admitting that the council had failed to win the hearts and minds of local people.

A number of themes emerged from the workshops which didn't always avoid reiterating the awful things that are going on rather than suggesting ways to oppose and transform:

• councillors managing cuts rather than adopting a political response
• privatisation in health, education and council services
• council's attitude to free schools & academies when they are not allowed to build new schools
• protecting paid jobs  but at the same time need volunteers to keep services going
• need to train volunteers in order to recognise that jobs can't be done by just anyone
• unpicking language around benefits so as not to reinforce stereotypes
• address the issue of digital inclusion by improving Council and CCG websites and catering for those without access
• use Goverment Accessible Information Standard  in publications and communications
• in council reports include the impact of policies on the 30,000 people with disabilities alongside that on other groups
• the need for some form of Basic Income
• proactive measures council could take on environment including insulation, microgeneration, climate jobs 
• school funding changes impact on local authority education services including school improvement and special educational needs
• need for key worker housing if we are to stem loss of teachers, nurses and other public service workers
• challenge developers on amount of affordable social  housing in regeneration schemes
• support community unionism on the model of the Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group
• develop a culture of passion to help service users in council  officers when they are bound by an inflexible scripted response
• linked with that build links between councillors, activists and the community for a united response to government policies

About 40 people attended the conference including in addition to Cllrs Butt and Pavey, Cllr Perrin and Southwood. Cllr Margaret McLennan, lead member for Housing and Development, was due to take part in the housing workshop but did not turn up.

Mansfield recommends abolition/suspension of Shaping A Healthier Future in a damning critique

The Mansfield Commission's Interim Report into the Shaping A Healthier Future consultation states of the programme that would rsult in the closure of four of the nine acute hospital sites in the North West London area and the loss of Central Middlesex A&E:  

The SaHF programme in our view was a preconceived solution that was imposed on the North West London health system without there being any clear problem that it was designed to solve. 

In particular there was no proper assessment of the needs of the whole area to which the health and social care system would respond.

 The following recommendations are made:

1.     We recommend that the SaHF programme is abolished / suspended, thereby saving a considerable sum at one fell swoop. 


2.     We recommend that an independent review of the North West London health system is undertaken under the auspices of a joint health and local authority initiative that builds its case on a thorough assessment of the needs for health and social care of local populations, at local levels. 


3.     There must be no presumption that so-called ‘reconfiguration’ of acute services is the solution to what may not be a problem at all. 


4.     In addition there must be no presumption that the solution will involve a top-down approach across the whole area as SaHF assumed; there should be an openness to consideration of local solutions possibly at the borough level where these can be shown to work. 


5.     The NHS and local authorities must agree to work together to achieve a joint aim to provide good accessible health and social care to all local populations within a sustainable financial model. 


6.     We recommend that the attempt to close Ealing and Charing Cross hospitals is immediately stopped; that a guarantee is given to sustain acute health services on these sites – with no more double talk from NHS leaders – until the above review is complete and any associated business cases are taken through to Full Business Case level, which is likely to be at least five years. 


7.     We recommend that in the light of current failures in the system in North West London there is an independent review of the emergency system under the auspices of the above joint health and local authority initiative; and that this as a matter of urgency examines the closure of Hammersmith and Central Middlesex A&E departments with a view to opening these, if that is what the review suggests is needed, and what local people want. Local people must be given honest and genuine choices; the opportunity cost of retaining these sites as A&Es must be made apparent. 


8.     We recommend that there is a review of primary care services in the region, and that following this review, immediate steps are taken to rectify any issues. However any investment must be based on a clear business case that relates costs and benefits to changes across the whole system. 


9.     Likewise we recommend that there is a review of OOH services in the region, to establish a clear case if it exists for OOH acting as a way of reducing demand for acute services, and also as a way of reducing total system costs. Following this review, any investment in OOH services must be based on a clear business case that relates costs and benefits to changes across the whole system. 


10.  In the case of changes that take place in primary care and OOH services as a result of the reviews outlined above, there must be a clear business case presented that makes a clear case for system- wide improvement arising out of these changes, and this should be consulted on with the relevant local populations; there should be no assumption that this is the population of the whole of North West London. 

The full report can be read here: 

The commission's final public session will be held at the Brent Civic Centre on Saturday 9 May 9am-5pm. Brent Trades Council and Brent Fightback are among those who have submitted evidence. It would be good to have as many health campaigners as possible at this session. More evidence will be heard

Brent People's Assembly Meeting Monday at the Prince of Wales

There is a meeting tomorrow (Monday) to discuss the setting of a People's Assembly Against Austerity in Brent.

I support the People's Assembly nationally but wrote to the organisers of this meeting pointing out that Brent Fightback, with much the same agenda, already existed locally.

This is their response:

I recognise the invaluable role Brent Fightback has played in the fight against cuts locally but setting up a Brent Peoples Assembly is not in conflict with the good work of Brent Fightback. The Peoples Assembly is a growing national umbrella organisation which has placed the fight against cuts, fight for jobs, improved services, for the NHS  and education as aspects of the overall fight against austerity and the PA is uniting its members by making demands which are set out in the Peoples Charter.

At a recent meeting of the national organisation Richard Lynch fedback that the PA in London is developing local branches in Camden, Barnet etc. and national TUs and local unions are affiliating to the organisation. It is possible that there are local Brent people who may be interested in setting up a Brent PA and the meeting on Monday is providing an opportunity to find out whether there is scope to develop this organisation locally. If there is we must then discuss how Brent Fightback and a local PA join up. A first step could be for Brent Fightback to affiliate to the PA.

I believe that in the past Fightback has been affiliated to the PAA  althought that may have lapsed.  We have certainbly attended their marches and conferences as well as a West London PAA event. I would be the first to admit that we need to attract a broader group of people, users of services as well as trade unionists, and  the younger people who are active in other campaigns such as Brent Against Racism Campaign and Brent Housing Action.

On the other hand it would not be good to duplicate activities and just provide the 'usual suspects' with an additional meeting. Burn out is  a real issue for Brent activists.

I will be going along to the meeting with an open mind:

6.30pm on Monday 6 October at the Prince of Wales Pub, 101 Willesden Lane, London NW6 7SD (a short walk from the junction of Kilburn High Road and Willesden Lane).

RECLAIM OUR SCHOOLS! Hammersmith.Tonight.

Tonight's Education Question Time at St Paul's Church in Hammersmith could be the start of a significant fightback against neoliberal policies in education. It is a chance to bring together teacher unions, parent groups, community organisations and governors in a concerted campaign to defend progressive child-centred and democratically accountable schools with broad educational aims from privatisation and narrow aims centred on international commercial competition.

Nothing could illustrate the current battle more than the fate of Sulivan Primary School, a walk away from tonight's venue. Hammersmith and Fulham Council has voted to close the successful Sulivan Primary School (ostensibly a merger with a nearby primary academy) and handing over its unique site to a boys' free school.

Staff, parents and pupils have all campaigned for their school and their views have been ignored.

Here are some of the questions tweeted for tonight. Add your own: #edqtime @nec2014

Battling Brent in 2013

Brent was a battlefield in 2013 as campaigners challenged both the Coalition's attack on the welfare state and the Labour Council's 'dented shield' approach to cuts.  Some of these campaigns made national headlines, many were unsuccessful, some won minor concessions and there were a few victories.

 The Home Office campaign to send a van round around areas of high diversity, including Brent, urging immigrant to 'Go Home' aroused immediate opposition which was spear-headed by Brent ace tweeter @PukkahPunjabi using the #racistvan tag. A mixture of mobilisations when vans were spotted, photoshopped parodies, official complaints to tha ASA and EHRC, and protests by politicians including Muhammed Butt led eventually to the vans being dropped.

Following revelations by the BBC that two Willesden letting agencies were colluding with landlords who did not want Black tenants there was another speedy mobilisation by campaigners which was supported by some Labour councillors and some of the Labour candidates for the Brent Central parliamentary nomination. Council leader Muhammed Butt said he would speak to Brent Trading Standards officers about the issue but I have not yet heard of any outcome.

Brent Council was the target for a a demonstration outside Willesden Magistrates Court when the Council summonsed 3,300 people for non-payment of Council Tax. These were low-income people, already hit by benefit cuts, often having to pay the tax for the first time after the Council introduced its Council Tax Support scheme. Council leader Muhammed Butt argued that the summonses were the only way to get to talk to the people affected. The Council later revealed in an under-publicised 'consultation' that it wanted to continue the scheme with just a few tweaks.

The Counihan-Sanchez Family Campaign which began when Brent Council made a local family homeless, broadened out into a campaign on local housing taking up issues regarding the bedroom tax, benefit cuts and evictions. Brent Housing Action was formed to link activists, tenants and housing organisations in a united campaign which also covered Brent's growing private rented sector. The Kilburn Unemployed Workers' group developed  its work of defending and supporting unemployed workers through regular meetings to share experiences and ideas.

Gladstone Park Primary parents formed an action group to oppose the school's forced academisation following a poor Ofsted report. They demanded a democratic say in the school's future and urged the Council to support them in arguing that the school, supported by the local authority had the capacity to improve. Unequivocal support was not forthcoming and eventually governors having argued for the right to choose their own sponsor chose CfBT. The parents' campaign put forward the idea of a federation with an 'outstanding' school in Camden as an alternative but the Council turned this down only for the idea to emerge again last month with the head of that school being appointed as Executive head before CfBT took over in April 2014. Unfortunately that fell through when Camden decided that because of changing circumstances  at her school they no longer supported her appointment to Gladstone Park. The school is left in limbo for the Spring term.

Copland High School was similarly faced with forced academisation following a poor Ofsted.
The school, already suffering financial problems because of the bonus scandal and a very poor building, had an Interim Executive Board imposed on it by Brent Council and a new management that swiftly made staff redundant and life uncomfortable for those remaining. A pupil petition in support of  the school staff brought no response from the Council and lead member for Children and Families, Michael Pavey, declared there was 'no alternative to academisation'.

At a public meeting Pavey later said that the academy sponsor would not necessarily be Ark, despite the fact that pupils had been sent a letter announcing the appointment of Delia Smith of Ark as Executive head teacher.  Copland unions have come out on strike several times against academisation and for a democratic ballot of all involved and will continue the battle in 2014.

The fragmentation of education in the borough continued with the approval by Michael Gove of three secondary free school to open in September 2014. The most controversial is the Michaela Community School, the brain child of Katharine Birbalsingh, who wowed the Tory Conference years ago with her account of teaching in a comprehensive school. In a minor victory Michaela was forced to take down a huge banner on their proposed building for which they had not had planning permission. More importantly an FoI request established that they school had received only 50 first preferences for 120 Year 7 places. The other two schools, Gladstone and,Gateway, whilst recruiting Year 7s for 2014 have still not got premises.

Brent Fightback, sponsored by Brent Trade Union Council, has been active in many of these campaigns and was central to the campaign to save Central Middlesex A&E from closure under the Shaping a Healthier Future proposals. Unfortunately Brent Council failed to rise to the occasion and did not offer the same degree of support as Ealing Council did for their local campaign on Ealing Hospital. Although they joined in the march to Save Central Middlesex they did not advertise their opposition, circulate leaflets or hold public meetings as Ealing had done. They only belatedly came out in opposition and support the campaign that Fightback and Save Our NHS were fighting. The closure of A&E was approved by the Secretary of State and there are currently consultations on the future of the site, including its use as a 'hub' for a variety of activities.

There was also a huge national campaign in defence of the NHS and its privatisation in which Brent campaigners played a part. Privatisation involves out-sourcing service such as Blood Transfusion as well as smaller ones in particular NHS districts. In Brent you can often find yourself referred to a private service by your GP and the battle to ensure that local commission groups procure from within the NHS is a continuing battle.

The Bin Veolia in Brent Campaign challenged Brent Council on ethical procurement. They argued that council tax money should not go to Veolia, a company that profits from its operations in  support of  illegal settlements in Occupied Palestine. Labour councillors refused to make a political decision but instead hid behind legal arguments from officers. Despite support for the campaign from thousands of local residents, the Trade Union Council, Brent Central Labour GC, Hampstead & Kilburn Labour GC and potential Labour parliamentary candidates as wellas the Lib Dem Council opposition, Brent Council approved the awarding of the contract to Veolia.

During the campaign Executive members at times spoke about the possibility of the Council adopting an ethical procurement policy but little has been heard of it since. The Council has continued to out-source services and has refused to answer, on grounds of cost, my Freedom of Information request asking how many of its out-sourced suppliers and services pay the London Living Wage.

Brent Green Party consistently opposed the building of a new £100m Civic Centre as a grandiose and wasteful vanity project. It is now open and has encountered problems with IT and its telephone system. In a fairly typical PR failure the Council spent more than £90,000 on an opening ceremony claiming this was a tiny drop of expenditure amidst the millions of pounds cut from their budget by the Coalition.

Brent Council has a policy of selling off its land to developers to help finance new facilities which they then claim are 'at no cost to residents'. They approved the redevelopment of Willesden Green Library which involved a land transfer to Galliford Try in exchange for a new Cultural Centre to replace the Willesden Green Library Centre.  The Cultural Centre  will have a smaller foorprint than the Library Centre and will not include space for the Willesden Bookshop.

The luxury flats built by the developer went on sale in Singapore with a unique selling point: assuring would be purchasers that they would not include keyworker housing or affordable housing on the same site - i.e.no poor people on site.

The Keep Willesden Green campaign were defeated in their  valiant attempt to keep the public space in front of the library but did retain the historic Victorian library.

An independent campaign for the 2014 local elections has emerged from the struggl, and the resulting community solidarity, in the form of Make Willesden Green which is standing Alex Colas as a candidate.

Library campaigns have been particularly resilient and good at building social solidarity in their areas through a variety of activities including pop up libraries, reading festivals, pub quizzes, 'Light of Learning' runs between the closed libraries as well as taking on the Council, All Souls College, developers and the Secretary of State.

An issue that needs resolving early in 2014 is the alleged fraudulent submissions to the planning department supporting developer Andrew Gillick's plans for Kensal Rise Library. Brent Council has passed the details to the police but no action has yet resulted.

Another development issue to be resolved in 2014 is the future of Willesden Green's Queensbury pub. The Brent Conservative Party sold the building off to a developer who plans a 10 storey block of flats. After a concerted campaign the Council granted the pub Asset of Community Value status, not least because of its use by toddler groups. The developer has revised plans to offer a smaller pub/wine bar/community space but opposition continues on the basis of the inadequacy of the offer and the inappropriateness of the new building in the local context.

One of my great regrets of 2013 is our failure, despite an energetic cross-party and cross-borough campaign to stop an enormous development on the Barnet side of the Welsh Harp. Luxury tower blocks (again!) will loom over the reservoir, bird sanctuary, nature reserve and SSSI.  Campaigners addressed the Barnet Plannning Committee to no avail, protested about hat appeared to be a very biased presentation by the planning officer and took the issue to Boris Johnson's planners at the GLA. The development will go ahead in 2014.

The campaign against the Harlesden Incinerator had similarities in so far as it was again just across the border from Brent, this time in Ealing, but affecting Brent residents. It also involved some cross-party support and local residents.

The campaign was successful in getting the decision deferred for further investigation about the dangers posed by emissions.

At the turn of the year it appeared that the proposal is unlikely to go ahead because the site is needed for the HS2 project, which in the broad sweep of things may not represent a victory for the environment but may relieve the local residents.

My favourite positive story of the year has to be the opening of the new Chalkhill Park in Wembley. A lot of pressure had to be exerted to bring the project to fruition but it is transforming the estate through providing a public and social space for all ages.

The picture shows the official opening with the Chalkhill Primary School Carnival but in reality children had opened the park themselves weeks previously, unable to resist the swings and climbing equipment.

Next year is going to be hard but it does give us an opportunity in the local and Euro elections to use the ballot box to register our views on what has been going on. Of course I hope that many will choose to vote Green but I also hope that all readers will continue to campaign energetically for environmental and social justice - locally, nationally and internationally.

London Councils laments but where's the fightback?

Anti-cuts campaigners in London have been urging councils to get together with their communities to mount a challenge to the cuts imposed by the Coalition.  Most now admit that the cuts are doing real damage to and hitting the most vulnerable.  London Councils, the body representing boroughs across London,  could be the vehicle for a coordinated campaign but have been reduced to lamenting the impact while local councils quietly carry on carrying out the Coalition's dirty work for them.

If London took the lead this could be followed by other local authorities and the beginning of a national movement.

London Councils issued the following statement after the Autumn Statement:

On the basis of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, funding for local government is expected to fall by a further 2% in 2014/15 beyond the funding reductions already expected. 

Mayor Jules Pipe, Chair of London Councils says:

 ‘The capital needs 90,000 more school places for the start of the 2015 school term and the city’s housing crisis has been brought into sharp relief by the Government’s changes to the benefits regime.

‘This means additional financial pressure on London councils as they seek to ensure a good school for all London’s children and decent homes for Londoners.

‘In 2010 the Government announced a cut of 28% to local government grant. Yet the Government continues to cut the amount of funding available to local government.

‘London’s councils have been at the forefront of delivering efficiency savings while attempting to improve and protect local services.

‘The Government needs to be aware that with increasing levels of demand this level of cuts is unsustainable and presents a significant level of risk to delivering those services vital to ensuring that London is a world class competitive city. The Government needs to realise that if London doesn't work, the country doesn't work."

How councillors can REALLY fight back against the Coalition

Following on from the discussion with Muhammed Butt at Brent Trades Council and discussions within Green Left over Brighton Council and cuts, I thought it would be helpful to publish the Independent article  LINK by Owen Jones in full here:

Imagine coming into politics to shut down youth clubs, take money from poor people and make the lives of elderly people harder and lonelier. It’s unlikely that any councillors stuck a rosette on their lapel with these ambitions, but it is not an unfair description of their job these days. With the Communities and Local Government’s council budget being slashed by 28 per cent by 2014, the state is not just being rolled back by this radical Tory government at the national level; it’s being stripped away locally, too.

Last week, I spoke to several Labour councillors in Southampton. Although they felt they had managed the first round of cuts without inflicting excessive hardship – indeed, they have offered to reverse pay cuts imposed by the previous Tory administration – over the next few years, jobs, services and people will be hit. “ Intolerable” was a term one councillor used to describe the situation. But they had no intention of spending the next few years resigned to acting as the local Labour custodians of Tory policy, merely attempting to minimise the damage inflicted on their communities by cuts they did not agree with it. Instead, they wanted to fight back.

What was suggested was a strategy that could pose a new threat to the Government’s whole austerity agenda. Councillors right across Britain would convene a conference to decide on a national strategy for taking on the unfolding disastrous cuts to local government. Rather than spending the next few years managing the misery locally, councillors across the country could co-ordinate a response that would challenge these cuts. It would not simply be out of principle; after all, it is local councillors who face being blamed for policies imposed by a government they oppose.

In part, such a strategy would need to drive home the impact of these cuts. Many people struggle to understand what services are actually provided locally; they only notice them when they depend on them and they abruptly disappear. Often, many will suggest libraries as the most likely victim, and indeed up to one in five face being shut down because of cuts. In Brent, for example, six libraries – or half the total number in the borough – face the chop.

But the impact is far, far greater than local libraries. The anti-cuts website False Economy have been collating examples, and the picture is frightening. Bristol City Council is closing eight of its care homes, sacking 130 workers and leaving almost 200 vulnerable elderly people having to find somewhere else to live. In York, the cost of attending day care for disabled people has been hiked by a stunning 263 per cent. In Northamptonshire and Bolton, street lamps are being dimmed or switched off, leaving women particularly at risk. In austerity Britain, the lights are literally going out.
Lunch clubs can alleviate the loneliness many elderly people face, but they are being slashed, too. In communities like Anglesey, teaching assistants face the sack, and funding for local authority social care across Britain dropped by more than 6 per cent in a year. Back in July, a legal challenge to North Somerset Council’s decision to decimate youth services with a 71 per cent cut was dismissed. Such cuts are happening across the country. Expect thousands more bored teenagers to flood on to our streets.

We don’t hear much of the Big Society these days, but local authority cuts to charities make Cameron’s flagship project even more farcical. Women’s refuges faced a drop in funding of nearly a third last year, leading the charity Women’s Aid to reveal that it had turned away 230 women a day. In a country in which two women are killed by their partner or ex-partner a week, lives are at risk.

In Liverpool, local authority funding for the voluntary sector has been reduced by £18m, or nearly half. According to New Philanthropy Capital, six in ten charities face being hit by local council cuts; and, overall, charities face losing up to £5.5bn because of local and national cuts, says the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations.

By the next election, councils across Britain will have been stripped to the bone. Amy O’Callaghan, a Labour councillor in Luton elected in 2010, says they originally anticipated local cuts of £22m but – thanks to changes in benefits and business-rate restrictions – it has soared to £48m in the past three months. That will mean the council will not even have enough money to pay for statutory services. “So as the situation stands, we won’t even carry out what we’re legally accountable to do come 2015,” O’Callaghan says.
A newly published report for the Resolution Foundation reveals a typical low-income family faces a shocking 15 per cent drop in real income by the end of the decade. Just one reason – among many – is the Government’s attack on council tax benefit. Up to six million people have either all their council tax paid, or are offered a partial rebate; but funding has been cut by 10 per cent, with councils left to decide who suffers. With the elderly protected, and councils unwilling to withdraw it from already hammered disabled people, low-paid workers and working-age unemployed people face a drop in council tax benefits of up to 44 per cent.

Those councillors in Southampton are right – this situation is intolerable. But fighting back is not straightforward. Some anti-cuts activists argue that Labour and Green councillors should simply refuse to implement cuts, and set budgets based on people’s actual needs. But councillors respond that they would not be martyred, as in the past, through imprisonment or being made personally liable for funds. Instead, the Department for Communities and Local Government – led by Eric Pickles – would simply intervene and impose cuts with different priorities. Labour-run Islington Council, for example, might then lose policies it is rightly proud of, such as free school meals and the London Living Wage.

But that does not mean inaction. Labour councillors – with other potential allies, such as the Greens – must meet and decide a national strategy. After all, they derive their mandates from opposing Tory policies. They are uniquely rooted in their communities. Whether it be planning co-ordinated days of action in their boroughs – or even more radical actions – they are specially placed to mount a challenge to national cuts.

With the failure of austerity sucking growth out of the economy as borrowing surges, it would be impossible to ignore them. The choice facing our councillors is clear: face having to take responsibility for kicking people who are poor, disabled, old or young – or join together and fight back.

What is Brent Labour's response?

The Fightback Starts Here