Newly selected Green candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn pledges support for railway renationalisation

Camden and Brent Green Parties today announced that international security expert Dr Rebecca Johnson has been selected to stand as the Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency.

Rebecca with Shahrar Ali, Green Party deputy leader

Rebecca is co-chair of Compass Greens, and Vice President of CND. With a PhD from the University of London (LSE), she is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and works on international security with the UN. She used to live in Kilburn, and now lives in Hackney, but has continued to cycle to Hampstead Heath, where she loves to walk and swim.

Rebecca said:

I got to know this constituency when I volunteered for Glenda Jackson's campaign in 1992. I've been talking to local people in recent weeks, and have heard them highlight the need for more affordable housing, finding environmentally sustainable alternatives to the dam nonsense that will protect both Hampstead Heath and homes from flooding, and defending local businesses and homes against the folly of HS2, while supporting the renationalisation of our rail services, on which so many of us depend.

In standing for the Greens, I will work for these goals and a raft of other policies to protect our environment and secure fair distribution of resources to help all of London's communities, especially our most disadvantaged citizens.

Natalie Bennett, Green Party Leader and candidate for the neighbouring Holborn and St Pancras constituency said:

Throughout Camden voters are looking for a credible alternative to the three business-as-usual parties, and Rebecca will be a brilliant new Green voice for Hampstead and Kilburn.  With record results across Camden and Brent in the local elections this year, and Rebecca as our candidate, we're confident that we will inspire voters from across Hampstead and Kilburn that we have the policies people need.

Three candidates contested the selection and the results were declared to local Green Party members on Sunday. Greens select candidates under the single transferrable vote system, and Rebecca secured 36% of votes in the first round, equal with Brent Green Party’s Scott Bartle and ahead of Islington Green Party member Benali Hamdache. She was declared the winner with 63% of the total after second preferences were reallocated.

The process of selection of Green party candidates for Brent Central, Brent North, Harrow East and Harrow West began this weekend and the result will be known in October.

Brent Council's fraud evidence demands a proper police investigation and potential prosecution

The case of the fraudulent emails in support of Andrew Gillick's planning application for Kensal Rise Library, owned by All Soul's College and closed down by Brent Council,appear to be coming to a head.

Below you will find a redacted version of the evidence sent by Brent Council to police through the National Fraud Reporting Centre:

Council’s Supporting Information Statement to Police

The attempted fraud concerns false representation to get planning application approved by submitting false supporting comments to the council. The application has been made by a developer, Andrew Gillick, of Platinum Land Ltd, for conversion of the existing vacant building to provide 3 one-bed flats, 3 two-bed flat & one two-bed house and community space on ground floor and basement. The planning application was made by Kensal Rise Properties Ltd, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. On all applications the council has consultation with residents and others and received a significant number of objections to the proposal. Unusually, the council also received a high number, 176, supporting comments through its on-line consultation system. Almost all of these are false. They emanate from 5 separate IP addresses, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The names and addresses given on the supporting comments do not match with official records held by the council, i.e. false names have been associated with real addresses and the email addresses provided do not exist. Although the planning application was refused, the supporting comments may have affected the process. The attempted financial gain associated with the fraud is not known but would represent the profit on sale after conversion. Much of the investigation work into the IP addresses has already been done.

It is clear from this that the Council know the IP addresses and as the last sentence states much of the investigation work had already been done. They also make clear that there would be financial gain from the fraud ' the profit on sale after conversion. Clearly a considerable sum/

However in its statement to the Council the Police Service stated:

The Police Service has finite resources and it is only right that these resources are directed towards crimes that are solvable with a proportionate level of investigation.

As a Police Service we also need to channel our efforts towards preventing and detecting certain crime types that the people of London and Central Government have identified as being policing priorities.

I have examined your allegation and considered a wide range of factors when deciding if this matter should be further investigated by police. Included in my consideration is the likelihood of detecting and bring an offender to justice.

 It appears that the Police Service think a form of identify theft, possibly carried out for financial gain, in a planning application process, is of no concern to the people of London or Central Government.


Surely our three MPs, Glenda Jackson, Barry Gardiner and Sarah Teather, should get behind the Council's request to the police to think again about taking the investigation further, and to a conclusion.  It is certainly a demand that I am right behind.


Meanwhile the upcoming second Andrew Gillick planning application process must be halted until the case is concluded one way or another.

Cllr Pavey calls on local MPs to support School Places Crisis campaign

Cllr Michael Pavey has written to local MPs Barry Gardiner, Sarah Teather and Glenda Jackson asking them to support the 'School Places Crisis Campaign'. The campaign seeks the restoration of  power to local authorities to plan and build new schools to address the current shortage of primary school places.

The campaign has already been supported by Green MP Caroline Lucas and Natalie Bennett, Green Party leader.

Pavey wrote:

Dear Barry, Sarah and Glenda,

I am writing to ask that you support the NUT's 'School Places Crisis' campaign: www.theschoolplacescrisis.com 

As you know, we have a terrible shortage of school places in Brent. As a Council we are proactively expanding our schools and opening up additional spaces such as the Gwenneth Rickus Building. Yet even with all these additional forms of entry the shortage continues.

Personally I believe the diversion of precious public money into Free Schools is a terrible distraction from the urgent challenge of providing additional places. It is absolutely essential that, rather than sitting back and hoping that appropriate providers establish appropriate Free Schools in appropriate locations, Government policy allows for the strategic planning of new school places. I firmly believe that this function is best performed by local authorities. 

To meet the ongoing shortage of school places it is absolutely essential that the law be changed to allow Councils to open new schools. I would be very interested to get your thoughts and would strongly encourage you to support the NUT campaign in the interests of Brent families.

Best wishes,

Michael.

Cllr. Michael Pavey

Lead Member for Children & Families

Labour Councillor for Barnhill, Brent Council

Brent politicians' positions on Syria debate

Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather joined Labour colleagues Barry Gardiner and Glenda Jackson in voting against the government motion on Syria last night. Barry Gardiner made an effective intervention when Nick Clegg was summing up, asking if the US mounted an attack over the weekend whether the UK would offer 'indirect' support (the use of UK bases for example). Clegg failed to answer fully and his avoidance was followed up by other MPs, contributing to doubts over the Coalition's position.

Gardiner had strongly supported Tony Blair's Iraq war.

Following the Government defeat and David Cameron's declaration that there would be no direct UK intervention the issue of whether there will be indirect support remains unanswered. The Labour Party meanwhile hasn't clarified whether their position is still that set out in its motion, support for intervention if conditions are met, or whether it is now opposed to any military intervention.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari made here position clear this morning in a Tweet:

Horrified and outraged by scenes in Syria. Fail to understand anyone who categorically rules out military intervention to help these people.

At 6pm yesterday  Sarah Teather posted a full statement on her position:

Everyone will agree that the use of chemical weapons is an abhorrent and unjustifiable act. The horrifying pictures that emerged after last week's attack were devastating to see and all will want action to prevent this from reoccurring.

However, I do not believe that the case for military action to prevent further attacks has been made successfully, either practically or ethically.

I am not opposed to military action in all situations. I do accept that military intervention is sometimes necessary, for example as part of an international peacekeeping mission, as an urgent response to prevent an immediate imminent humanitarian disaster such as genocide, or as an act of self-defence. When used in such circumstances, military action must be a last resort, have some reasonable chance of success and be proportionate to its context. I am not convinced that the proposed action in this situation meets those objectives.

First, it falls into none of the categories described above (peacekeeping, prevention of genocide, self-defence). Instead it seeks to punish a country for an action it has already taken. We have repeatedly heard politicians speak of a 'slapped wrist' or of making clear that Assad's actions 'must be seen to have consequences'. I am troubled that military action on this basis - which would inevitably involve further loss of life - may not have an adequate moral or legal foundation to justify it.

Politicians in the UK have subsequently shifted their rhetoric to argue that it is intended to be a deterrent rather than a punishment. But it is not clear how it would succeed in acting as a deterrent and yet meet the test for proportionality. Certainly it seems to have limited chance of success in meeting an objective of preventing further use of chemical weapons. Strikes against chemical weapon stores would be incredibly dangerous and would risk civilian casualties. An alternative course of strikes against minor targets would do little to dissuade Assad and instead could result in him escalating the already bloody civil war that is raging in Syria. We simply cannot know what Assad's response to any attack would be.

Stronger military action would also not accomplish the stated aim. Weakening Assad's military capabilities would tip the balance in favour of regime change - something the Government has steered clear from. The situation in Syria is extremely complicated and is not simply a case of Assad's regime versus the Syrian people. The Syrian opposition is not a homogenous group, but is rather a mix of factions and sub-groups where in many cases the shared value is opposition to Assad. As a result, it is extremely unlikely that the sudden toppling of Assad will end the civil war. Instead it is much more likely to result in the conflict spreading beyond the borders of Syria, further destabilising the region. I therefore do not believe that any military action will achieve the asserted aim of preventing further chemical attacks.

There is no easy answer to the current situation in Syria but I fear that military action can only make matters worse. And if we do intervene and the situation continues to escalate, what then? It would be almost unavoidable for the UK not to be drawn into further and more intensive military action.

In our understandable desire to do something in the face of such appalling atrocities we are in danger of arriving at a contradictory position: attempting to uphold international law by flouting international law ourselves and attempting to make a statement about our disapproval of violence by perpetrating further violence.

Some people have argued were we not to take military action, we would be washing our hands of the situation and doing nothing. However, the choice between military action and doing nothing is a false one. It is not clear to me that the only way to uphold international law is via military force. Certainly any military force would clearly need to be a last resort, having exhausted all other options.

Any solution to the current crisis in Syria needs to be political rather than military if long-term peace is to be found. That is why the UK must increase its attempts to work with international partners and provide full support for the Geneva II process in order to secure global cooperation in finding a peaceful resolution. There must also be full provision in place to provide international humanitarian support and aid for the nearly 2 million refugees that have left Syria - half of whom are children - who are fleeing into neighbouring countries.

For these reasons, and given the current circumstances, I do not support military intervention in Syria. I also feel that, while I welcome the work done by Nick Clegg in ensuring that the Government does not rush into military action, tonight's motion paves the way for a future commitment. As such, I shall this evening be voting against the motion

Black vote decisive in Brent Central and Hampstead and Kilburn parliamentary contests

There was a ripple of amusement at Ealing Planning Committee last night when the Ealing Planning Officer referred to Cllr Zaffar van Kalwala as 'the Brent MP'.

Van Kalwala's hat is indeed in the ring for the Brent Central parliamentary candidate selection as is that of Dawn Butler and many others include Patrick Vernon. This afternoon Butler is co-facilitating a Voice Editor's Forum in Wembley on the issue of 'Is Labour losing the Black vote?'.

This follows the survey carried out by Operation Black Vote LINK on how Black and Ethnic Minority voters could influence the outcome of the 2015 General Election.

Dawn Butler lost against Sarah Teather in 2010 in the third biggest national swing against Labour despite Labour winning back seats on Brent Council to take control. Barry Gardiner increased his majority in Brent North in a campaign which played more to his personal prominence and following than to his Labour affiliation. Both Brent Central and Brent North have a majority of BME voters.

The OBV analysis for Brent Central in summary is: Brent Central MP: Sarah Teather Party: Lib Dems 2010 Majority: 1,345 (Ultra Marginal) Nearest challenger: Labour BME Voters in 2015 - Adjusted Figure: 61,609 Majority Seat: BME Voters 57.9% Total BME Population: 84,180 (61.2%) Asian Voters: 24,186 Black Voters: 28,591 Largest BME: African BME Impact: Very Significant

Clearly the BME vote will be of vital importance and will be a consideration when Labour starts the Brent Central parliamentary candidate selection process after the Labour Party Conference in September.

Hampstead and Kilburn where Glenda Jackson has a majority of only 42 and has stood down is also labelled an 'Ultra Marginal):   MP: Glenda Jackson Party: Labour 2010 Majority: 42  (Ultra Marginal) Nearest challenger: Conservative BME Voters in 2015 - Adjusted Figure:32,802 Total BME Population: 44,819 (34.5%) Asian Voters:12,491 Black Voters: 11,764 Largest BME: African BME Impact:  Very Significant

The report describes Brent North, which at 70.6% has the third highest BME population in the country, as 'Safe' for Barry Gardiner:  MP:Barry Gardiner Party: Labour 2010 Majority: 8,028  
Nearest challenger: Conservative BME Voters in 2015 - Adjusted Figure: 69,015    Majority Seat: BME Voters 70.6% Total BME Population: 94,300 (73.4%) Asian Voters: 49,261  1Black: Voters 12,836 Largest BME: Indian

BME Impact: Very Significant

The full report can be downloaded HERE

Local MPs should back zero waste EDM

With air pollution a constant concern in London, and particularly in Brent, readers may wish to ask our local members of parliament to sign Early Day Motion 383 on 'Zero waste strategies, recycling and incineration'. With possible incinerators at Brent Cross and Park Royal the quality of our air and its impact on the young, unwell and elderly is a vital local issue.

EDM 383

That this House notes the European Parliament's adoption by a large majority, on 24 May 2012, of a resolution on a Resource Efficient Europe, which commits to working towards a zero waste strategy and the Parliament's call on the Commission to bring forward legislative proposals, by the end of 2014, to ban both landfill and the incineration of recyclable and compostable waste in Europe, by 2020; further notes growing evidence of incinerator overcapacity in the UK by 2015, which seriously risks harming recycling performance, as has already happened in some European countries; further notes UK figures showing a steady and significant decline in residual waste since the middle of the last decade - even allowing for the economic recession - and rising recycling rates; acknowledges the impact that these developments will have on the economic case for, and environmental sustainability of, mass-burn incinerators in the UK within a decade; and calls on the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Energy and Climate Change, and Communities and Local Government, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to work together to examine how government policy can positively facilitate the pursuit of zero waste strategies, and to report to Parliament on their findings as a matter of urgency, as many local communities across the country are currently opposing their local waste authorities' costly, environmentally damaging and unsustainable plans to build mass-burn incineration plants.

Sixteen MPs including Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative, Democratic Unionist and Green have signed so far.Full list HERE

Brent MPs under pressure to take up hospitals fight

Sarah Teather, Barry Gardiner, and Glenda Jackson have been targeted by campaigners against hospital closures and privatisation of the NHS in a petition launched this week. The petition reads:

To: NHS NW London, Sarah Teather MP, Glenda Jackson MP, Barry Gardiner MP,

NHS NW London is consulting on proposals which would mean the accident and emergency department at Central Middlesex Hospital, already closed at night, closing for ever. This could be the first step in the downgrading of the hospital, which serves some of the most deprived wards in Brent with the greatest health needs.

We the undersigned demand: 

· The reopening of A & E at Central Middlesex Hospital to provide a full 24 hour emergency service with all necessary back up.

· No cuts to community, mental health or other services. The government can find money for the banks, they should restore the £1billion they are cutting from NW London Health Services.

· An end to privatisation which provides an inferior service for patients and cuts in jobs, pay or worse working conditions for staff, creaming off profits for private companies.

Campaigning organisations will be collecting signatures over the summer and into the autumn. You can run off your own copy using the link below and collect signatures in your workplace or neighbourhood.

Charity battles to stop family being split by Brent Council

This account of the travails of a Brent family on the edge of homelessness has been posted on the website of  Zacchaeus 2001, a London-based charity that seeks justice for debtors. LINK


Although Z2K is neither an immigration or refugee charity, we do often meet migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in desperate need of our help. Below is our Caseworker Yiannis’ account of how he gave Z2K’s trade mark intensive assistance to a family on the verge of homelessness. Unfortunately Brent’s behaviour is all too common among Local Authorities who will try anything to get out of providing assistance to those in need.

Mr and Mrs F was referred to us the day before his eviction, by his MP Glenda Jackson. The family were failed asylum seekers, with two young children. With nowhere to move to, we accompanied them to Brent social services. They said they could only help the children, and the parents would need to live somewhere separately. The parents were very upset when they heard this, and understandably said that that would not be an option. 

Brent then told us the Fs would need to apply for assistance under the National Assistance Act 1948, through the Refugee Council. We went to Brixton, only to be told after a long wait that they need to make a fresh asylum claim before NAS assistance can be offered. With both tenants in tears, we then went back to Brent Council and asked them to house the children and parents together. However they had not changed their positions, they would only house the children, without Mr and Mrs F. 

We asked them to reconsider, as they have a legal duty to do what is in the children’s best interest ( which involves keeping the family together whenever possible). The case was referred to ‘senior management’, only for us to wait until 5pm to be told once again that separating the parents from the children was an option being seriously considered by Brent. The mother of the children, who was already crying, had a minor panic attack, finding it very difficult to breathe or drink water. 

A few minutes later, the social worker from Brent returned and said that Brent had decided to house the whole family in a nearby BnB for one night only, to give them a chance to make a successful application for NAS assistance. No apology or explanation was offered as to why this offer had not been made until so late in the day, and after so much anguish on the part of the parents. 

The next day, as it was clear that NAS assistance would take a week to be sorted out (at least), Brent decided to house them for a further 15 days. We referred them to another organisation which could help with their immigration and NAS applications.

ACT NOW ON NHS - 38 Degrees

Things are moving fast. The press are reporting that David Cameron and Nick Clegg are trying to finalise changes to their NHS plans - at least two weeks earlier than expected. [1] The next few days are critical - we need to move quickly to influence their decisions.

It looks like Clegg and Cameron may try to push ahead with at least two of the more worrying parts of Andrew Lansley's original plans. They're still toying with imposing more competition from private health companies. And they're still looking to scrap their legal duty to provide the same level of healthcare to everyone wherever they live.

Together, we can persuade them to drop these dangerous bits of the plans. MPs don't get a lot of phone calls from their voters. If thousands of us call them today, it will send shockwaves through parliament as MPs, Clegg and Cameron realise how determined we are to protect our NHS!

Can you phone your MP today? It's quick and easy. Find their name, number, and tips for what to say, here:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/phone-your-mp

Yesterday, in the 38 Degrees office, team members Johnny and Becky contacted key allies and experts at health organisations, charities and in Parliament to try find out what's going on behind the scenes. [2] It's a bit murky. But reliable sources are saying that, right now, Clegg and Cameron are plotting out which parts of Lansley's plans they need to drop to win public support.

Everyone seems to expect that whatever decision is reached will be a lot better than Lansley's original plans - thanks, in no small part, to the efforts of 38 Degrees members! But they're telling us that we need to pile on more pressure in two key areas:

- Competition in the NHS - an argument is still raging: will the future of the NHS be about health professionals working together to ensure patients get the best possible treatment? Or will Andrew Lansley get his way and shift the NHS towards a US-style system, with a growing role for competition, private companies, and "market forces"? [3]

- The government’s duty to provide a "comprehensive health service" - the government still wants to water down their legal duty to provide a decent health service to everyone, regardless of where they live. This legal duty has been enshrined in law ever since the NHS was created in 1948! Scrapping it would pave the way for a more patchy service, and mean in the future we could all face more problems with "postcode lotteries". [4]

There's still time to push these decisions in the right direction. But we need to move fast. Can you call your MP right now?
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/phone-your-mp

Together we can make sure that as senior politicians sit down round the negotiating table, they're hearing reports of record numbers of voters on the phone calling on them to stand up for the NHS. That could just tip key decisions the right way.

The very fact that Clegg and Cameron are having to negotiate which parts of Lansley's plans they have to drop proves that, by working together, we can play a key role in protecting our NHS. [5 ]Sky News reported in April that the government had started backtracking on the NHS as "the result of a lobbying campaign by a pressure group called 38 Degrees". [6] That's us!

Whatever deal is announced next week, it's unlikely to be the end of our campaign. Any changes to the NHS will still need to pass through Parliament to become law, which means we will have fresh chances to improve them. But decisions made in the next few days definitely matter - so let's take our chance to stand up for the NHS.

Please give your MP a ring. Find their name and number, and some tips for what to say to them, here:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/phone-your-mp

Barry Gardiner votes against UN backed Libya intervention

Barry Gardiner MP (Labour, Brent North) joined Caroline Lucas (Green Party, Brighton Pavilion) and 11 other MPs  including Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Dennis Skinner in voting against the Government in yesterday's vote giving support to the UK's involvement in the intervention in Libya.

The vote was 557 for and 13 against. Sarah Teather MP (Brent Central) voted for the Government and Glenda Jackson MP (Hampstead and Kilburn) did not vote.