Labour's leadership candidates answer NUT's questions on education policy

An emergency motion has been tabled for Green Party Conference this weekend on Jeremy Corbyn's proposal for a National Education Service:

The Green Party notes that Labour are proposing a National Education Service. Conference desires that the Education Policy Working Group (EdPWG) set up a monitoring group that will evaluate and criticise the detail of Labour’s plans in line with GPEW Education Policy. External Comms will defer to this group on an ongoing basis regarding official GPEW comments on Labour’s National Education Service proposal.

The NUT, which is not affiliated to any political party has put questions to the two Labour leadership candidates to help inform union members who have a vote in the leadership elections. Corbyn elaborates on his proposal which so far has been quite sketchy.

Questions for Jeremy Corbyn from the National Union of Teachers

www.jeremyforlabour.com

I have called for the establishment of a National Education Service that will deliver the highest quality education to every person in the country, from young to old, free at the point of delivery. Education has never enjoyed the loyalty and commitment at the national level that has been enjoyed by the National Health Service. The National Education Service would ensure that, as the NUT says, education is and is seen to be a human and civil right and a public good. As such it is vital that education spending and investment do not suffer cuts but must be at a sufficient level to ensure that all children and young people (and indeed older people) have access to a good quality education, which allows them all to reach their potential. Real terms funding cuts for schooling are damaging and short-sighted; by ensuring education is held in the same regard as our NHS, we will make sure that future governments cannot so easily push through cuts in funding, and we are committed to reversing this government's austerity measures, recognising education spending as vital for future prosperity and individual's own well-being.

Would the Labour Party under your leadership argue for increases in overall school funding which would avoid real terms cuts in funding per pupil?

Yes. We will not repeat the error of this present government in imposing cuts on real terms schools funding since the 1990s, since it is very clear just how damaging this is. The National Education Service will ensure that properly-funded, high-quality education is delivered for all our

What will Labour's position be towards the national funding formula which will lead to increased funding for some areas, but cuts in funding for other areas?

In terms of funding, there is a discussion to be had about a national funding formula to ensure that the education service is well funded everywhere. However, any funding formula must be about levelling up and not cuts.

Following this year's SATs chaos, would you support an independent and research-informed review of curriculum and assessment in primary schools?

Yes. The Tories' continual meddling with the schools system, and desire to push through testing that is counterproductive to good education, has created the chaos we've seen this year that quite rightly so many parents have protested against. I am on record as saying that all children and young people need and deserve a curriculum in which art, music, drama, PE and citizenship feature. A narrowing of the curriculum has been brought about by a focus on literacy and numeracy because of the testing regime. Our children and young people are amongst the most tested in the world. Added to this, the fiasco of this year’s SATs has shown that we are in urgent need of a review. I would support such a review and  would want to ensure the voice of teachers was heard prominently in it.

If you are elected leader, will the Labour Party support the restoration of national pay and conditions for all teaches, including in academies and end performance related pay?

Labour would recreate a system of national pay and conditions with all teachers employed in schools with the same governance structures. This, in combination with trusting teachers to use their professional expertise and judgement in developing both curriculum and assessment should begin to address the issue of teacher shortage. And of course every child deserves to be taught by a qualified teacher, a teacher who has achieved that qualification through both classroom practice and academic study as in the PGCE. I want to see teachers given sufficient opportunities to train and develop during their own careers.

Will Labour campaign for the end of testing and league table systems that skew the content of education and are turning schools into 'Exam Factories'?

I believe that parents as well as teachers want the eduction service to move away from the exam factory culture which has developed in our schools. Blanket testing and league tables linked to performance related pay and a punitive system of performance management for teachers has led to a real problem in recruiting enough teachers to work in our schools. Endless testing becomes counterproductive. We get the best results for our children and young people, and for our society, when they are given space to develop and their talents are nurtured.

Will Labour support giving local authorities back the legal powers they need to open new schools and have democratic oversight of schools?

Democratic control through local authorities bringing together and supporting schools is the way to oversee education. Local authorities should clearly have the right and responsibility to commission and build schools where they are needed. The market based Academy and Free School programme has not ensured a school place for every child and is the wrong approach to a national service and entitlement. In reimagining and recreating the education function of Local Authorities, Labour would see supply teachers once again properly employed, with access to both the teachers' pension and the public money currently going to agencies reinvested in the education service.

On the issue of grammar schools, a Labour Government would not sanction the opening of any further Grammar schools, and we will do all we can in opposition to oppose their extension by the Conservatives.

Do you support recent calls from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, David Anderson QC and the NUT for an independent review of the Prevent Strategy?

I am aware of the good work the NUT has done on anti-racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and of the Union's critique of the Prevent Strategy and the call from David Anderson QC for a review. The Labour Party under my leadership would support a review and would want to hear from the NUT and other professionals about an approach to keeping children and young people safe but securing space and time in the curriculum to be able to discuss difficult and contentious issues. If classrooms are not safe spaces for such discussions children and young people may be at greater risk.

Should Labour support the right of public bodies to make ethical decisions in how they spend and invest public money, for example, by not investing in companies complicit in Israel's occupation of Palestine?

I am also aware of the international solidarity work of the NUT. In the case of Palestine, the union has a clear public position that supporting the Palestinian case and cause is not synonymous with anti-Semitism. I agree with and fully endorse that position. Local Authorities should have transparent, ethical investment policies, decided locally.

What will the Labour Party do to redress the imbalance of funding generally in Wales caused by the inadequacies of the Barnett Formula? Will the Labour Party seek to implement the recommendations of the Silk Commission regarding the devolution of schoolteachers' pay and conditions? If so, what protections will the Labour Party implement to ensure Welsh teachers do not become the poor relations when compared to teachers in England?

There is currently an imbalance between education funding in Wales and England. Under my leadership, national pay and conditions for teachers would be consistent across England and Wales. There is a need to reconsider how the education service is funded in Wales so that the current gap might be closed. There is, of course a discussion to be had with the Party in Wales as to how best this can be achieved. 

Owen Smith's response is in PDF rather than Word format and thus less easy to copy and paste into this blog. The PDF is below:

Caroline Lucas: Corbyn's support for NHS Bill was not 'inept'

Caroline Lucas' letter to the Guardian

 I have no wish to intrude on the Labour leadership debates and I have no idea whether former shadow health minister Heidi Alexander is right in her critique of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership style, but for her aides to pick out Corbyn’s support for my NHS reinstatement bill as evidence both of his “ineptitude” and of his shadow chancellor’s “undermining” her strikes me as both desperate and depressing (Shadow cabinet inept and shoddy, says MP, 20 August).

My private members’ bill, drawn up after extensive consultation with health experts and health service users, would have reversed the creeping marketisation of the NHS – under both New Labour and the Conservatives – and stripped away the costly market mechanisms that waste NHS money and lead to inefficiencies and the fragmentation of services.

Perhaps a more interesting question is why the rest of the Labour party didn’t join their SNP, Plaid and Lib Dem colleagues in giving it their backing too. With a few honourable exceptions, they chose to abstain instead. Yet this is precisely the kind of policy a successful Labour party would surely be expected to promote – as well as demonstrating a greater willingness to work alongside colleagues from other parties on those areas where there is common ground between us.

Overcoming party tribalism and finding practical ways of working together will be crucial to any hope of progressive policies finding a majority at the next election.

Caroline Lucas MP
Green, Brighton Pavilion

Kilburn, Corbyn and Khan

Some local Labour Party members complained to me last week that they were 'always the last to know' about Labour events in Brent - Wembley Matters often knows before them.

Brent Council's photo of Khan visit

It does seem that Sadiq Khan's PR visit to South Kilburn, to sing the praises of Brent Council's housing and regeneration programme, was kept under wraps - perhaps to avoid any embarrassing interventions by local residents (see Kilburn Times Letters page this week).  Jeremy Corbyn's visit to the Rauch City Church (the former Gaumont Cinema) in Kilburn High Road this evening was only a rumour until a few days ago.

It is perhaps fitting, given some of the more over the top declarations of support for JC, that tonight's event is being held in a place of worship.

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has always been close to Khan, at one time there was even a wild rumour that he might land a City Hall job, but he has not joined the Labour List LINK group of councillors backing Owen Smith.

Given their closeness he may have known about Khan's intention to come out in support of Owen Smith in today's Observer.

These are our local councillors who are supporting Smith:

The list of councillor supporters of Corbyn is rather harder to access as it is in no particular order but Cllrs Claudia Hector and Rita Conneely are on the list. A year ago Cllrs Tom Miller and Abdi Aden signed upto support Corbyn.

I am happy to update these lists if any councillor wants to be added.

Corbyn in Kilburn on Sunday

From Brent Momentum

We will be joined by Jeremy Corbyn, trade unionists and community activists from across the country at this event on Sunday in Kilburn. This will be a coming together to show support for Jeremy’s vision to rebuild and transform Britain.
This is a ticketed event so please RSVP HERE

WHEN

August 21, 2016 at 6pm - 8pm

WHERE

Ruach City Church
197 199 Kilburn High Rd
London NW6 7HY
United Kingdom
Google map and directions

Editor's note: There will be no Overground service on the Euston-Watford line on Sunday and no Bakerloo service  north of Queen's Park.

Brent Central and Hampstead and Kilburn Labour Parties nominate Corbyn for Labour leadership

Queueing at the Kingsgate Centre tonight (photo ex-Twitter @inductivestep)

Brent Central CLP nominated Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership by 69 votes to 24 tonight. Hampstead and Kilburn nominated Corbyn by 96 to 54.   Brent North does not vote until August 9th.

Brent Central nominated Corbyn in 2015 and Hampstead and Kilburn nominated Yvette Cooper.

Who is your Brent Labour councillor backing for the Labour leadership?

Labour leadership supporters of Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith have been seeking support from Labour councillors. So far only  seven of Brent's 56 Labour councillors have signed up. Statements and signatories below:


KEEP CORBYN

We are a group of Labour Party councillors who are dismayed by the attempt by some within the Parliamentary Labour Party to oust our democratically elected leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Many of us were elected in May, where in spite of predictions of an electoral meltdown, we won our seats. Voters who had previously felt abandoned by the Labour Party returned to vote for us, returned as members, and returned as campaigners.

It would be utterly self-defeating for the people we represent if now, less than a year after Jeremy was elected on the single biggest mandate of any previous leader, he was to be forced from office. It is our view that the behaviour of some members of the Parliamentary Labour Party is totally self-indulgent and at odds with what the communities we represent need. We will risk losing all those new members and enthusiastic campaigners who joined us because Jeremy offered a vision of hope for the future.

Our enemy is not Jeremy Corbyn – it is the Tory party and their plans to use the EU referendum as a fig leaf to inflict further cuts to the councils we represent.

We hope that those MPs who have embarked on this indulgent course of action will reflect on their behaviour and turn their fire on the real enemy, the Tory Party.

Claudia Hector,
Rita Conneely
Jumbo Chan


BACK SMITH
 
In a month’s time, we will be casting our votes for Owen Smith as Leader because we believe this is the only path forward to a Labour Government and putting a stop to the immense damage the Tories are doing to our communities and our nation.

We have closely watched the debate in our Party in recent weeks and are deeply impressed with how Owen has done. He has driven home the message that the fight Labour must lead is about tackling inequalities in wealth, power, outcomes and opportunities, across our country.

Owen has convincingly made the case that he knows how to get things done and has the tenacity and skill to advance the cause of working people. He has not shied away from saying our Party has been too timid and that he would increase taxes on the wealthy. He has set out a radical vision for a £200bn investment programme, re-nationalising our railways and putting the decision to make war firmly in the hands of elected MPs, not the Government of the day.

But there is more at stake here. There are militants in both wings of our Party who are determined to carry out a civil war against each other, whether it harms working people or not. We have intimidation and bullying in Constituency Labour Parties up and down the country. We have those who seem to prefer perpetual division to the job of winning power for the good of those we represent. We need a unifying leader who is principled and competent.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Our country faces an existential threat from nationalists and poor-bashing Tories. A new Scottish referendum is on the horizon. This is no time for Labour to keep fighting itself. The next general election has already begun. Owen Smith, with his experience, especially as Shadow Secretary of State fighting austerity, has a firm grasp of the issues and will be prepared to lead our party from day one.

Our party needs a leader who can win and is principled. That’s why we need your support in backing Owen Smith.

Bernard Collier
John Duffy
Neil Nerva
Sam Stopp

Brent Stop the War Meeting: Chilcot - what now?

This was the surprise guest at Brent Stop the War/Brent & Harrow PSC findraising garden party on Sunday

From Brent Stop the War

There is a growing demand that Tony Blair should face a motion of contempt in the House of Commons over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has said he would probably support.

What does the Chilcot Report mean for Stop the War?  How can we build a movement capable of stopping current and future interventions abroad?

Mundher Adhami [a member of the Brussels Tribunal on Iraq, and the Iraqi National Foundation Congress]will speak at a special meeting of Brent Stop the War which will take place on Monday, July 18th at 7.30pm

Brent Trades Hall (London Apollo Club) 375 High Rd, Willesden, NW10 2JR

[It’s very close to Willesden Bus Garage, buses 6, 52, 98, 226, 260, 266, 302, 460 and just five minutes’ walk from Dollis Hill Jubilee Line station]

Brent Central Labour Party GC backs Corbyn's leadership

Dawn Butler with Jeremy Corbyn

I understand Brent Central Labour Party General Committee, attended by some of the new young members, last night voted to support Jeremy Corbyn by 50 votes to 16 with one abstention..

This follows the statement below by Dawn Butler, Labour MP for Brent Central, on the leadership issue. Although she voted 'Yes' in the confidence vote I draw your attention to the passage I have put in bold which looks like a possible get out clause for the future. LINK:

This means that at present all three Brent MPs (Barry Gardiner, Tulip Siddiq and Dawn Butler) are backing  Corbyn.

Many Brent Central constituents have recently contacted me concerning the potential leadership challenge within the Labour Party. I am responding to make clear to you my position as the Labour MP for Brent Central.

I must start by putting on the record it is unfortunate that the Labour Party has conducted itself in this way. I have been so truly shocked by the events that have taken place these past weeks and I truly regret that we are in the situation we now find ourselves.

Following the EU referendum result, I believe the country is critically divided and in need of political leadership.

Many constituents have been in touch to ask how I voted in the ‘no confidence’ motion held recently by the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP). The exact question we were asked is ‘Do you have confidence in Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the Labour Party?’ to which I voted ‘Yes’.

I voted yes for two reasons.

Firstly, Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Labour Party at a time when the Acting Leader, Harriet Harman, was trying to force MP’s to vote for some of the most draconian legislation that this country has ever seen. The attack on the working classes was palpable and we were supposed to support these measures. I just could not understand the logic. However since Jeremy Corbyn has become Leader I have had no such disagreements with the stance he has taken against the Tories and their legislation. We have fought them at every turn having inflicted heavy defeats and gained concessions on the Trade Union Bill, Housing & Planning Bill, Investigatory Powers Bill. The Government have backed down on devolving Sunday Trading, forced academisation as well as on child refugees in the Immigration Bill.

Having inflicted all of these defeats on the Government, we cannot afford now to allow the Conservative Party and the new Prime Minister free reign in Parliament at such a crucial time. There are people up and down the country struggling under the Conservatives who need a Labour Party holding this Government to account.

Secondly, Jeremy Corbyn was democratically elected as the Leader of the Labour Party with the largest mandate of any Leader in the history of the Labour Party. However it is important to note that although Jeremy’s policies are suitable for the Leader of the Labour Party a Prime Minister does require additional qualities. Any Leader needs to bring its MP’s and the party as a whole along with them and I believe we need to be a strong and effective opposition.

There are people in communities up and down this country who are struggling under this Conservative Government’s savage cuts to public services and welfare spending who need a united Labour Party able to hold the new Conservative Prime Minister to account. So too as we seek to renegotiate our place in Europe following the leave vote in the referendum we have an obligation to the British people to secure the best deal possible.

In my view Theresa May will likely win the Conservative leadership race and will be a robust and powerful leader of her party. The Labour Party cannot be weak and we need all of our Labour MPs working together.

I want to assure you that I am actively speaking to colleagues within Parliament and the trade unions to try and reach an amicable solution which keeps the Labour Party together. Whilst I do not know how these events will unfold in the coming days and weeks I do know that I will continue to argue for calm and party unity. 

Warm Regards,
Dawn

Green Parties propose talks on progressive alliance post-Referendum vote

This is the text of the open letter that has gone from the Green Parties of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Farron and Leanne Wood urging talks about a progressive alliance.

 Dear all,

In a spirit of openness and transparency, we are writing to you as Leaders of parties which oppose Brexit, to invite you to a cross-party meeting to explore how we best rise to the challenge posed by last week’s vote to leave the EU.

Britain is in crisis and people are scared about the future. Never have we had a greater need for calm leadership to be shown by politicians.

We have a UK Government in chaos, an economy facing a crisis and people up and down the country facing serious hardship. There is an urgent need to make a stand against any austerity and the slashing of environmental legislation, human and workers’ rights that may come with Brexit.

With the growing likelihood of an early General Election, the importance of progressive parties working together to prevent the formation of a Tory-UKIP-DUP government that would seek to enact an ultra-right Brexit scenario is ever more pressing.

This is an opportunity to recognise that a more plural politics is in both the Left’s electoral and political interests. This crisis exposes the absurdity of our first past the post electoral system. Just 24 per cent of those eligible to vote elected the government that called the referendum. The only fair way to proceed is to have a proportional voting system where people can back the politicians who they believe in, rather than taking a gamble and not knowing who they will end up with.

The idea of a progressive alliance has been floated for several years, and proposals have once again been put forward in the context of the current crisis. We believe that the time has come to urgently consider such ideas together in the context of a Westminster Government. We recognise the very different political situation in Scotland, given the strongly pro-EU majority there. We hope that co-operation between progressive parties their can ensure that this mandate is respected, and we will support them to keep all options open.

We look forward to your response,

Natalie Bennett, Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales

Alice Hooker-Stroud, Leader of Wales Green Party

Steven Agnew MLA, Leader of the Green Party of Northern Ireland

Caroline Lucas MP, Brighton Pavilion

Barry Gardiner joins Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet

Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent North, was reportedly booed by fellow Labour MPs yesterday evening when he had the temerity to speak up in defence of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. Corbyn has now appointed him shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary.

Gardiner is my member of parliament and I have clashed with him many times, as well as agreed with him on some issues, such as the Prevent Strategy. I stood against him in the General Election before last as the Green Party candidate.

We share a concern about the environment and climate change and although our specific policies, not least on the major question of whether our current economic system based as it is on continuing economic growth is compatible with tackling climate change, may differ, I welcome his appointment as strengthening the Labour Party's approach to the issue.

This is what he had to say in a recently updated Huffington Politics LINK article that demonstrates his ability to analyse the political implications of resource competition.:

Exactly one week before the Queen’s Speech President Obama gave a speech - not in London, but in New London, Connecticut - to the United States Coast Guard Academy. He said: “I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country... And so we need to act - and we need to act now.”

He said that climate change would shape how every one of America’s services plan, operate, train, equip and protect their infrastructure, because climate change poses risks to national security, resulting in humanitarian crises, and “potentially increasing refugee flows and exacerbating conflicts over basic resources like food and water.”

Last summer I was critical in this House of the government’s decision not to provide financial support to the Italian government’s coast guard operation to rescue refugees from Libya. The Government’s responded to me then that such rescue operations acted as a “pull factor” and were only increasing the number of attempts. I thought it an obscene argument then and in the intervening months we have seen that it was not only obscene, but wrong. The numbers have increased. This Saturday the Italian Coast Guard announced that more than 4,000 migrants had been rescued off Libya’s coast in 22 separate operations in just one day.

We need to look deeper into why those migrants are coming in the first place. It would be convenient for me to point to the British and French air strikes, not to mention the failure to prepare a post-Gadhafi strategy that left that country in chaos. But I want to look deeper still into why the civil war started in the first place. It was part of a much wider pattern of regional upheavals that we called the Arab Spring that began in Egypt in 2010 with the uprisings in Tahrir Square.

If we track back those disturbances we come inexorably to the 2010 drought in Russia’s wheatbelt. It was the longest and most severe drought in Russia in over 50 years. The country lost 25% of its crop and it led Russia to impose an export ban on wheat that it had traditionally exported to Egypt. The food crisis in Egypt was the pre-curser to the Arab Spring. It was the same in Tunisia and the rest of the Arab world.

On the 9th September 2010 when the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation warned that Syria’s drought was affecting food security and had pushed 2-3 million people into “extreme poverty” few people took any notice. In fact Syria had suffered four successive years of drought: the longest and deepest failure since records began in 1900. The losses from these repeated droughts were particularly significant for the population in the northeastern part of the country, in Al-Hasakeh, Deir Ezzor and Al-Raqqa.

Small-scale farmers were worst affected — many of them not able to cultivate enough food or earn enough money to feed their families. Herders also lost 80-85 percent of their livestock. Thousands left the northeast and migrated to informal camps close to Damascus. Experts warned at the time, that the true figure of those living in “extreme poverty” was higher than the official 2-3 million estimate. What is astonishing in military terms is that nobody predicted in September 2010 that such a tinder box might give rise to civil unrest and civil war only six months later.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies is very clear on the impact of resource shortages. In 2011 they published a report claiming that climate change “will increase the risks of resource shortages, mass migration and civil conflict” and the MoD has said that it will shift “the tipping point at which conflict occurs”.

The degradation of natural resources such as forests and freshwater has removed much of the resilience that societies formerly enjoyed. And what is perhaps equally disturbing is that we are beginning to see evidence that efforts to mitigate or adapt to climate change by some countries can actually shift increased risk onto others.

Climate change brings pressures that will influence resource competition between nations and place additional burdens on economies, societies and governance institutions around the globe. These effects are threat multipliers. They will aggravate those things that lead to conflict: poverty, environmental degradation, political instability and social tension. If Britain is to play a positive role in the world then this must be understood by our military and we must adapt.

We as politicians have to understand that the greatest threats to our security are no longer conventional military ones. You cannot nuke a famine. You cannot send battleships in to stop the destruction of a rainforest. But you can spend money on clean technology transfer that enables countries to bring their people out of poverty without polluting their future. You can invest in adaptation measures that will protect communities from the effects of climate change that are already placing their societies under stress.

Red Pepper declares coup attempt against Corbyn an emergency & calls for #KeepCorbyn support

As a Red Pepper subscriber I have just received this message. Red Pepper is not an official Labour Party publication and is read by many Greens and non-aligned socialists so this is an unusual intervention.

To Red Pepper readers and supporters

Jeremy Corbyn – the Labour leader who has given us all so much hope – faces a coup threat from Labour MPs, defying the will of the Labour Party membership.

This is now an emergency. Please, do these two things to support Jeremy:

1. Sign the Momentum petition at http://labourunited.peoplesmomentum.com/

If you have a Labour MP, it will also let you write to them in support of Jeremy – this is vital to add to the pressure against the coup.

2. If you can make it to London, come to #KeepCorbyn protest tomorrow (Mon) from 6pm in Parliament Square.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1754368201514480

The place and time is because this is when Labour MPs plan to put the coup motion to the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting. Share the Facebook event and invite your friends.

Jeremy has fought for all of us – now we must fight to make sure Labour Party democracy is respected and he is not ousted as leader.


Red Pepper

Referendum - Brent MPs react

Brent debates anti-semitism

Three meetings are scheduled over the next 10 days addressing in various ways the issue of anti-semitism in the Labour Party and in the wider context.

At a Hampstead and Kilburn Labour Party meeting last week last Thursday a motion from the Jewish Labour Movement proposing a rule change on anti-semitism was deferred pending the outcome of the Chakrabati inquiry into anti-semitism in the Labour Party.

That was followed up by an angry blog by Philip Rosenberg entitled  'The great betrayal: Labour members refused to discuss anti-semitism.'  LINK

Rosenberg's account of the meeting was disputed by local activist Ian Saville:

The writer here is being disingenuous to say the least. An inconvenient truth, not mentioned in his article, is that a number of Jewish members supported the proposal to postpone the motion, or any motion on this subject, until after the Chakrabarti Inquiry has reported. This is due by the end of June, so we are not talking of the sort of delay one could expect from a Chilcot type of inquiry. Since an expert inquiry has been set up, with well respected chairs, it would be silly to attempt to preempt its deliberations by bringing in a rule change that proposes disciplinary and other measures which will be covered by the inquiry. The writer needs to calm down and learn some patience. There will be many opportunities to discuss these matters in coming months.

I understand that Hampstead and Kilburn Labour Party are now holding a special meeting of the General Committee on Tuesday 7th June at the Kingsgate Centre, 107 Kingsgate Road, NW6 2JH at which a motion 'unhesitatingly' condemning anti-semitism will be tabled. The Jewish Labour Movemement are expected to address the meeting and there will also be a discussion about a leaflet given out at last Thursday's meeting which was critical of the JLM.

On Monday June 6th the Brent Momentum AGM will be addressed by Jackie Walker, National Vice Chair of Momentum, who was recently reinstated after being suspended over claims of anti-semitism.

The agenda includes:

Where is Momentum Going?
Does Labour have a problem with antisemitism?
How do we get a Corbyn-led Labour government?

The meeting is at 7.30pm Brent Trades Hall/Apollo Club, Willesden High Road, NW10 2JR

Lastly Brent Stop the War (not affiliated to any political party) has invited Julia Bard  of the Jewish Socialist' Group and Jews for Jeremy to speak at their June 13th meeting on 'Is criticism of Israel anti-semitic?'

The meeting is at 7.30pm at the Brent Trades Hall/Apollo Club, Willesden High Road, NW10 2JR

I think these meetings are a sign of a healthy democratic climate in the borough (and neighbouring Camden) where controversial issues are not shied away from but the subject of open debate.

Jewish Socialists' Group on the anti-semitism furore

Amidst the furore over allegations of anti-semitism this statement was issued by the Jewish Socialists' Group. I have known comrades in the JSG since cooperating in  the 70s and 80s over racism in schools and opposition to the activities of the National Front and other right-wing groups. I think their statement worth reproducing here as a calm and rational response as some of the backwash hits Brent:

Antisemitism exists and must be exposed and fought against in the same way as other forms of racism by all who are concerned with combating racism and fascism.

Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not the same. Zionism is a political ideology which has always been contested within Jewish life since it emerged in 1897, and it is entirely legitimate for non-Jews as well as Jews to express opinions about it, whether positive or negative. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.

Criticism of Israeli government policy and Israeli state actions against the Palestinians is not antisemitism. Those who conflate criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism, whether they are supporters or opponents of Israeli policy, are actually helping the antisemites. We reject any attempt, from whichever quarter, to place legitimate criticism of Israeli policy out of bounds.

Accusations of antisemitism are currently being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party with claims that Labour has a “problem” of antisemitism. This is despite Corbyn’s longstanding record of actively opposing fascism and all forms of racism, and being a firm a supporter of the rights of refugees and of human rights globally.

A very small number of such cases seem to be real instances of antisemitism. Others represent genuine criticism of Israeli policy and support for Palestinian rights, but expressed in clumsy and ambiguous language, which may unknowingly cross a line into antisemitism. Further cases are simply forthright expressions of support for Palestinian rights, which condemn Israeli government policy and aspects of Zionist ideology, and have nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism.

The accusations do not refer to antisemitic actions but usually to comments, often made on social media, long before Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership. Those making the charges now, did not see fit to bring them up at the time, under previous Labour leaders, but are using them now, just before mayoral and local elections, when they believe they can inflict most damage on the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn.

The attack is coming from four main sources, who share agendas: to undermine Jeremy Corbyn as leader of Labour; to defend Israeli government policy from attack, however unjust, racist and harmful towards the Palestinian people; and to discredit those who make legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy or Zionism as a political ideology. As anti-racist and anti-fascist Jews who are also campaigning for peace with justice between Israelis and Palestinians, we entirely reject these cynical agendas that are being expressed by:

• The Conservative Party
• Conservative-supporting media in Britain and pro-Zionist Israeli media sources
• Right-wing and pro-Zionist elements claiming to speak on behalf of the Jewish community
• Opponents of Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour party.

The Jewish Socialists’ Group recognises that ordinary Jewish people are rightly concerned and fearful about instances of antisemitism. We share their concerns and a have a proud and consistent record of challenging and campaigning against antisemitism. But we will not support those making false accusations for cynical political motives, including the Conservative Party, who are running a racist campaign against Sadiq Khan, and whose leader David Cameron has referred to desperate refugees, as “a swarm” and “a bunch of migrants”. The Conservative Party demonstrated their contempt for Lord Dubs, a Jewish refugee from Nazism, when they voted down en masse an amendment a few days ago to allow 3,000 child refugees into Britain while Labour, led by Jeremy Corbyn, gave total support to Lord Dubs and his amendment.

The Jewish Socialists’ Group sees the current fearmongering about antisemitism in the Labour Party for what it is – a conscious and concerted effort by right-wing political forces to undermine the growing support among Jews and non-Jews alike for the Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, and a measure of the desperation of his opponents.

We stand against antisemitism, against racism and fascism and in support of refugees. We stand for free speech and open debate on Israel, Palestine and Zionism.

We need this spirit now - 40 years since the Grunwick Strike in Brent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please sign up and share via Facebook.

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

In solidarity,

Team Momentum

Labour Friends of Palestine condemn government's attack on local authority ethical policies

I don't normally publish press releases from the Labour Party but this might be of interest to readers and local councillors in the context of previous postings on this blog regarding proposed government curbs on the rights of councils and other public bodies to make ethical choices regarding procurement and pension fund investments.

This statement was released today by Labour Friends of  Palestine and the Middle East:
 

This week the Cabinet Office (17/2/2016) published new government guidelines intended “to stop inappropriate procurement boycotts by public authorities.”

Principally aimed at the Palestine supporting BDS campaign it intends to remove the freedom from local authorities and other bodies to refuse to buy goods and services from companies involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels, tobacco and other products.

The change in policy has been condemned by politicians, charities, campaigning and church groups and in the press. Many pointed out that these rules, as intended, would have blocked many groups from supporting the campaigns against Apartheid South Africa.

A spokesperson for Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn MP stated:

People have the right to elect local representatives able to make decisions free of central government political control. That includes withdrawal of investments or procurement on ethical and human rights grounds.

During the General Election LFPME asked candidates to sign up to our 6 election pledges, one of which was - ‘Illegal Settlements: Call for a complete freeze on illegal settlement growth in order to save any hope for a viable two state solution, and end all trade and investment with illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory.’

Boycott campaigners have reacted to the new guidelines as simply re-stating existing policy, which will not stop groups from following an ethical procurement policy that discriminates against companies based on their human rights record or compliance with international law.

Grahame Morris MP Chair of the Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East said:

We have reached a contradictory situation in which we in the International Community economically sustain a major obstacle to peace—the illegal settlements.

Settlement products are the proceeds of crime. They are illicit goods, the product of a brutal occupation and the exploitation of the occupied and their resources. By trading with those who produce them, we financially encourage them.

Those settlements are built on the foundations of immense suffering—that of the Palestinians who have seen their homes destroyed, have been expelled from their own land and are living under brutal oppression—yet we make the illegal settlement enterprise profitable for the occupying power.

That seems to me a gross injustice.

Commenting about the BDS movement, Mr Morris added:

 

We should not have to boycott settlement goods; we should not be allowed to buy them in the first place. I am appalled that the government are more focused on preventing boycotts and disinvestment from the illegal settlements rather than attempting to end settlement trade.

This undermines their commitment to international law, human rights and resolving the conflict.

Should Greens and Labour 'think the unthinkable' to topple the Tories?

Following on from the last article this is another Guest Blog, this time  from Davy Jones. It was first published by Labour Briefing LINK  I am no longer a member of the Brent Green Party Committee but need to make it clear that this is not to be seen as representing the views of Brent Green.  It is a contribution to a discussion which is also happening elsewhere (see Michael Calderbank's Facebook discussion of a Progress report by Danny Dorling.
 

JEREMY CORBYN’S AMAZING VICTORY in the Labour leadership election has rightly revived the question of how Greens and other progressives can work together with Labour. This was not easy during the recent General Election, when Labour nationally was supporting austerity and was well to the right of the SNP, Plaid and the Greens. Potentially, all that has now changed.

“There could be Labour Green candidates in many areas to avoid splitting the anti-Tory vote.”

As someone who stood for the Greens against a left Labour candidate in Brighton Kemptown, I am acutely aware of the need for us to avoid dividing ourselves against the most reactionary government in my lifetime. The Tories received the support of less than 25% of the electorate.

They are also trying to hold onto power permanently by redrawing the boundaries and hastening individual voter registration. We therefore have to “think the unthinkable” to topple the Tories.

The historic link of the Labour Party to the trade unions has entrenched the notion of it being the sole party on the left. Most other European countries can boast significant alternative left parties. Almost uniquely, the UK still retains the First Past the Post system for national elections, which is deeply undemocratic and reinforces the two-party domination of elections.

It is vital that Labour under Jeremy unequivocally comes out in support of proportional representation. This would at a stroke make it far more likely that joint work and electoral pacts might be considered across the left. But it would also signal that Labour understood that it risks never being elected and forming a government under the current electoral rules.

Above all, members of Labour, the Greens, the SNP, Plaid and other left currents need to come together in campaigning work – against austerity, tackling climate change, defending the NHS, bringing railways back into public ownership. This will help to overcome accumulated sectarianism, lack of goodwill and trust. Only then will electoral alliances or other bold steps feel realistic and essential.

Out of such collaboration, it would be logical to identify the key areas of policy agreement of Corbyn’s Labour, the Greens, SNP and Plaid – and to discuss in a constructive way where differences remain on other key issues.

From such discussions a Progressive Policy Platform could be developed across the parties of the left. There could be negotiations over whether an agreed single candidate could be found to stand on that platform to take on the Tories, with other parties considering whether they would stand down or run merely a token local campaign.

Possible Issues for Collaboration and a Progressive Policy Platform:

• Tackling climate change – supporting renewable energy, opposing fracking and nuclear energy; removing subsidies from fossil fuels
•  War & Peace – opposing military interventions in the Middle East; no to replacing Trident; ending the global arms trade
• Europe – for a progressive democratic Europe of social justice and solidarity
• Austerity and cuts to public services – supporting those fighting against the cuts, especially the attacks on local council services and democracy, and for increased investment in public services; closing tax havens and loopholes, forcing big companies to pay taxes and reforming the banking sector
• Privatisation – opposing it in the NHS and elsewhere, and for bringing other key services, such as rail, energy, academies, back into public ownership
• Housing – opposing Right to Buy, supporting private sector rent controls, and a massive capital programme of house- building including making existing homes energy efficient
• Democratic rights – Opposing the Trade Union bill; support for proportional representation; opposing the Immigration Bill and supporting refugees; for a fully elected second chamber.

“An even more radical option, namely that the Green Party affiliates to the Labour Party in the same way as the Co-operative Party...” 

Others on the left have suggested an even more radical option, though many Green and Labour members will be aghast at the suggestion, namely that the Green Party affiliates to the Labour Party in the same way as the Co-operative Party is affiliated.  Labour claims to be the broad church of progressive politics, it is argued – so why not invite the Greens (and maybe also the SNP and Plaid) to a affiliate if they wish to do so?

The parties would remain independent, but through affiliation, members would stand for election as Labour or Labour Greens, just as people currently stand as Labour or Labour and Co-operative Party members. So there could be Labour Green candidates in many areas to avoid splitting the anti-Tory vote.

Clearly, this would be a non-starter unless and until Jeremy Corbyn is able to ensure the Labour Party nationally adopts consistently anti-austerity and pro-environmental sustainability policies, as well as a thorough democratisation of the Labour Party itself.

No doubt, opponents will come up with lots of reasons why serious collaboration between Labour and the Greens will not work. But one thing is clear: the current situation of division across the left is not an option – unless we are prepared to put up with the most reactionary Tory Government for 100 years continuing in power, with its neo-liberal policies of trashing the planet and the economy. “Just one more push” simply does not off­­er any solution.

Does the People's Assembly motion show us a way of fighting council cuts?

Following the discussion on this blog on local council cuts, after the Corbyn letter to council leaders, arguing that they had not choice but to make cuts LINK , I thought it would be worth publishing the motion passed at the People's Assembly Conference earlier this month.  The motion from Cardiff PA was more contentious that other motions but passed with a clear majority.
 

“No Cuts” Campaign Against Council Cuts

Conference notes

1.  People’s Assembly opposes all cuts. Five more years of council cuts is unsustainable.

2.  Council cuts derive from the Tory government’s austerity policies of making us pay for the financial crisis not of our making.

3.  People, especially younger people, across the UK are under financial pressure from benefit cuts and falling real wages. In these circumstances they increasingly rely on the collective provision of council and other services, only to find that they are being withdrawn whilst at the same time experiencing increased payments for less provision.

4.  Council cuts are transmitted down from the UK Tory government by a combination of withdrawal of finance and requirement to set a legal budget.

5.  Councillors, lacking politics and confidence to challenge this political and bureaucratic process, buckle under and pass ‘their problem’ as they see it, on to us.

6.  Historical examples of councils defying central government: Poplar 1921, Clay Cross & Bedwas and Machen 1972, Rate Capping Rebellion of 80s with 26 Labour councils pledging to defy government with Liverpool and Lambeth going furthest.

7.  Recently examples of Northern Ireland Assembly and House of Lords prepared to risk a constitutional crisis over implementation of Tory welfare reform and tax credits.

8.  A small number of Labour & Green councillors have voted for no cuts.

Conference calls for

People’s Assembly to launch a national campaign for councils to refuse to set cuts budgets this year and instead set ‘needs’ budgets based upon estimating what is actually needed to adequately maintain services and campaigning for the government to provide it.

Conference therefore resolves to

1.  Publicise and develop arguments around ‘needs budgets’ to aid activists

2.  Prepare model motions calling upon councils to set no cuts budgets for use by local anti-cuts groups, trade union branches etc

3.  Give a platform to, and amplify voice of councillors who vote against all cuts 4 In all council areas an electronic petition could be drawn up demanding councillors vote against all cuts, raising directly the issues that we face and the responsibility our elected representatives have to fight back.

5.  Rectify lack of material on PA website supporting local campaigners around council cuts, especially around the political arguments (ie.  responding to ‘cuts have to be made’, ‘we have no choice’, ‘what would you cut instead’)

6.  Organise a national meeting for councillors, trade unionists and anti-austerity campaigners to explore how councils can resist.

7.  Compile and share information on examples of council ‘best practice’ in resisting austerity such as using reserves, no bedroom tax eviction policies, pledges of non-cooperation with the Trade Union Bill, Manchester Council opening up empty buildings to homeless etc.”

This along with the suggestions from  Felicity Dowling LINK and William Quick LINK could provide the basis for a discussion at Brent Fightback and Brent Momentum early in the New Year.