Turmoil as Butt and Pavey refuse to accept Labour Group vote for Council Tax rise

The Brent Council Labour Group is in turmoil after Deputy Leader Cllr Michael Pavey refused to accept a vote by his Labour councillor colleagues at Labour Group in favour of a 1.99% rise in Council Tax.  The Group saw that as one way of saving some services from the proposed deep cuts.

Pavey argued that they could not go to the March 2nd Full Council with a list of cuts based on a frozen Council Tax and then raise the Tax.

There were some suggestions that a review of the proposed cuts could be held after the budget was approved on March 2nd.

There is anger amongst backbench councillors about what is seen as a denial of basic internal democracy and a letter of complaint has been sent to the Constitutional Officer of the Labour Party by a backbench councillor. I understand from my source that the author of the complaint is Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn).

I am writing to you as an elected Labour Party Councillor in Brent, we have over the past few weeks been discussing setting the budget. It has become clear that the budget making process is not a democratic process but a decision made by the leader (Cllr Butt) and the Deputy Leader(Cllr Pavey) without the endorsement of the Labour Group.

My complaint is not  about the different versions or opinions around the budget setting, that is a matter for democratic debate. What I wish you to investigate and give a constitutional decision is the rights or wrong of being forced to support a decision that did not follow the internal processes of the Labour party.

The leader and deputy leader have refused point blank to allow the group to vote on their Budget.However during a Labour group meeting another member forced a discussion and vote (in which the leadership took part and voted) which was overwhelmingly agreed by the full Labour Group to put up the council tax by 2% to safeguard services.The leadership refused to accept this vote and the Chair of the meeting refused to count the votes, following that meeting the Leader and Deputy Leader chose to completely ignore the vote and said they would only consider it a straw poll.

The issue I wish to investigate and give a constitutional decision on, is what I believe is an affront to democracy which is taking place in the  Brent Labour Group. The Labour group chief whip has indicated even though Labour group members have been deprived of a vote. I must vote for this budget which i believe is merely a dictate impose from the Leader and Deputy Leader without any democratic mandate.I have made it clear at all points of the budget process that I am more than willing to vote for and accept the whip if we follow the democratic process and have a vote.However unfortunately the Leader and Deputy Leader have denied me and others that right. 

I wonder will you confirm whether the chief whip is right when she says that I have to vote  for the budget that has not been agreed and voted on by the Labour Group and I would face disciplinary action from the Labour party (which I would of course appeal to NEC) if I did not support the Leader's and Deputy Leaders additional and unnecessary cuts package. 

I have a number of years experience as a councillor and have been part of the leadership on many occasions,I have also contacted sitting Labour party colleagues in  Islington,Harrow,Camden and Barnet to discuss the lack of democratic accountability and we are all in disbelief at the actions of the Leader and his Deputy. I believe unless you intervene with a ruling the Leadership of Brent's Labour group will bring the council in disrepute.Where the public and party will ridiculed  the Labour party for acting like the characters from Animals Farm": every vote is equal but some are more equal than others"  and all votes you don't like can be dismissed as a straw polls.

One Labour councillor pointed out angrily that Muhammed Butt had been boasting about freezing Council Tax and remarked, 'He is out-Pickling Pickles!'

Possible Council Tax rise emerges as an option on eve of Budget Consultation deadline

I understand that at last night's Labour group meeting the possibility of a Council Tax increase came back into play with a potential rise of 1.99% for 2015-2016 looked upon favourably by a majority of the group. A straw poll indicated 24 in favour of a Council Tax increase and 6 against.  This would be an annual increase of £30 for Band D residents.

Although Cllr Muhammed Butt opposed an increase at the Civic Centre Public Budget Consultation  that this would hit people already suffering from Coalition cuts the counter-argument is that in terms of social solidarity sharing the burden (with those in higher rated property paying more) would enable the most extreme of the proposed cuts to be avoided.  This would preserve some vital threatened services  to the benefit of poorer residents andwould be better for the Council's long-term stability.

Since 2011 the Council has avoided Council Tax increases, accepting the Government's grant for freezing the tax. Indeed Muhammed Butt has made virtue out of what he sees as necessity by boasting to residents that he has frozen the tax.

However there is an argument that long-term freezing of the Council Tax undermines the Council's revenue base.

This is what Clive Heaphy's Report stated in the First Reading Debate in November 2011 LINK

On 3 October 2011 the government announced a further one-off grant, for 2012-13 only, of £2.6m predicated on the basis that the council does not increase council tax for 2012-13. Each 1% in Council tax equates to approximately £1m of Council spending and members should note that the failure to increase Council tax over a number of years will erode the Council’s underlying revenue position in the longer term.

By January 2012 Ann John had ruled out a rise in the Council Tax as reported by the Brent and Kilburn Times LINK

As I stated at the time: LINK

The [Heaphy] report said that a rise of 2.5% in council tax would close the budget gap as follows:

2012-13 £4.4m
2013-14 £1.1m
2014-15 £19.7m
2015-16 £13.1m

In other words a rise of 2.5% in council tax this year would result in a net gain when the loss of the £2.5m grant is taken into consideration. Some councils are considering this option and some Labour councillors in Brent thought it worthy of debate. However that option appears to have been ruled out in advance of both consultation and decision making.

In November 2012 Assistant Director Finance presented a Budget Report that assumed a 3.5% Council Tax increase (above that triggered a referendum at the time). However the trigger was reduced to 2% (still current).

As I stated on my blog in January 2013 LINK

I understand that there has been discussion in the Brent Executive as to whether to raise Council Tax with the benefit marginal after grant losses and  a reduced collection rate are taken into account. A rise above 2% would have incurred the cost of a local referendum.  It would of course have been another additional cost for people already suffering from benefit cuts and low or frozen wages. An alternative view is that calling the Coalition's bluff and triggering a referendum could result in a proper political debate about the need to adequately fund  local services and the iniquities of the Coalition's grant reduction to local authorities. Only a very small percentage of local government revenue comes from council taxes and charges.

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has confirmed via a Facebook interchange with me that there will not be a 2% rise this year. Asked about a possible lower rise he said that the Council was looking at the settlement figures as part of the budgetary process and considering the offer of the freeze grant.

In January 2014 Muhammed Butt said that there were 'no plans' to change policy from freezing Council Tax in the 2014-15 Budget. LINK

I wrote on this blog:

Reflecting on Muhammed Butt's declaration yesterday that there were 'no plans to change course' on freezing council tax for the 2014-15 budget, I wonder what his plans are for 2015-16. In October the Council forecast a deficit for that year of  £34m (see below) a huge amount that on the council's own reckoning will put essential services at risk.

As political parties are deciding their manifestos for the May local elections surely they should be saying something about this crisis waiting for them in their first year of office.

In that respect a manifesto pledge to have a referendum on increasing council tax would make sense. Rank and file Labour party members and the wider public could than have a say and it could provide a launch pad for similar moves by other local authorities.  I do not think increases in council tax are the answer to the huge cuts in local authority funding, that of course requires the restoration of adequate funding, but a national debate post May 2014 leading up to the General Election in 2015 could feed into that demand. It will certainly put the future of local government on the General Election agenda.

Unfortunately despite some efforts at raising the issue and confronting the Coalition with the impact of the cuts, no real movement has emerged and no Referendum challenge..

Brent Council is left with the weakened revenue base that Clive Heaphy warned them about and deeply damaging unpalatable cuts.

It is noteworthy that in the above examples it has been Ann John and Muhammed Butt who appear to have made the decision about a Council Tax rise, although formally of course it is the Full council Meeting.

Where this leaves the Labour Group's support for a modest 1.99% rise, just below the Referendum threshold remains to be seen. Clearly the Cabinet should be taking note of the virews of its own councillors as well as the support shown for services by residents in consultations and in the campaigns that have sprung up to defend services.

If you wish to put your view there is still time to submit a  comment to Brent Council's budget consultation. The deadline is tomorrow, Wednesday February 4th :consultation@brent.gov.uk


 

Butt finds democracy a bit bothersome

I guess Brent's contribution to Democracy Week of an Question Time session with the panel consisting solely of Brent Labour Council's Cabinet members (the token Tory dropped out) is par for the course.

But the democratic deficit actually reaches into the Labour Group itself.

Cllr Keith Perrin, Cabinet member for the Environment resigned some weeks ago. One of his first jobs as lead was to defend the £40 Garden Tax against criticism from fellow Labour councillors. Some suggest this was a contributing factor in his resignation.

Rather than being replaced his role has been taken on by Council Leader Muhammed Butt - or has it?

Word has it that Butt does not want another election to choose Perrin's successor as the last election was too acrimonious with many councillors jostling for a Cabinet post.

Muhammed Butt is already on record as finding annual leadership elections irksome and now it appears even elections that don't involve him personally are too bothersome.

He has out-sourced the donkey work  for now to a former member of the Executive, who knows rather more about regeneration than waste.

Meanwhile, lurking in the wings is Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn)  who as former adviser on waste to Ken Livingstone when he was London Mayor, really is an expert on the subject.

However, he is not one of the Young Turks (or should it be Young Tiggers?) who form Butt's buttress against challenge.  He is too independent and experienced to fit in with the group.

Meanwhile people are contacting me who have only just found out about the Garden Tax. This one won't go away.

To cap it all there are now rumours that an excuse will be found to not go ahead with the Council meeting due on November 17th.

Butt to be rebuffed by Labour Group on Monday?

The Brrent Council Labour Group on Monday will be discussing proposals for the Labour leader (and thus at present the Council leader)  and Cabinet to be elected on a basis other than an automatic annual election.

Muhammed Butt after the May elections said that a four year cycle would end the problem of him having to 'look over his shoulder' all the time.

Brent Central Labour Party recently passed the following motion unopposed:

Brent Central CLP believes that because of the benefits in terms of accountability the Leader of the Labour Group and the Cabinet should remain as annually elected positions.

The potential loss of democratic accountability and the loss of ability to exercise some power on an annual basis has been too much for some councillors although there had been talk of introducing some compromise process which would require a certain number of signatories to trigger an election.

Meanwhile disquiet is mounting over the reputational damage the Council and Labour Party is suffering due to the Cabinet's failure to grasp the nettle of the current scandal regarding the Human Resources Department and the personal, business and career relationships between senior council officers.

There has been one Cabinet resignation recently with Cllr Perrin unwilling to explain the reasons for his resignation beyond the usual 'personal reasons' statement.  It would be to his credit if he had taken a principled stand on the Cavani-Corporate Management Team issue and had opposed the decision to spend council tax payers' money on an appeal over the Employment Tribunal's Judgment.

James Powney's concerns expressed on his blog may be dismissed by some as sour grapes from a member of the deposed Ann John team but his concerns are shared by Labour Party members on the Brent Trades Union Council and members of the Brent Labour Representatation Committee who were never Johnites.

Muhammed Butt accused of tricking Labour councillors on Scrutiny

James Powney, ex Brent Labour councillor, has returned to the matter of the changes in Scrutiny voted through by the Full Council on June 4th with no comments or questions from Labour backbenchers.

Here is an extract from his hard-hitting posting about the Labour Group meeting LINK:

Neither Cllr Butt nor anyone else chose to mention the drastic changes to the Council Constitution which he at least must have known about.

Why therefore did the entire Labour Group simply nod them through?  I asked a councillor this, and was told that no one in the Labour Group had chosen to read the changes and therefore they did not really know what they were voting on.  If true, that statement is a fairly damning comment on the thoroughness with which councillors prepare for meetings.  When the Tories pointed out the content of the rule changes, the inevitable partisan instincts kicked in and the Labour councillors all voted for them.

Had I been there I would have argued for deferral on the grounds that most of the councillors didn't understand what they were being asked to vote for because parts (eg describing scrutiny arrangements) are just obscure, and parts have sersious implicationms which new councillors simply won't understand until they are given some sort of grounding in Council governance.

Cllr Butt has effectively tricked his colleagues.  I hope they return to the issue at a later date, when they have had time to think about it.

The claim that 'no one in the Labour Group had chosen to read the changes' is interesting. The day before the Full Council I emailed a selection of councillors from all parties with the following message:

Dear Councillor,

First of all congratulations on your election as a Councillor for 2014-18.  With a Council returned with a large majority it is important that there is effective scrutiny in place with backbenchers playing a full part. Effective scrutiny protects against bad decision making and also protects against the damage to the Council's reputation that could be caused by poor decision making.

There has been extensive coverage on Wembley Matters of the proposed changes tabled for Wednesday which have not had full discussion, tabled as they are just two weeks after the election and with many new councillors elected.

Effective scrutiny is a matter for all political parties on the Council and I suggest that you read the pieces below and consider referring back the proposals to allow for the provision of more details and to allow for proper discussion.

Martin Francis

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/powney-calls-for-councillors-to-give.html

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/powney-blasts-scrutiny-proposals.html

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/brent-scrutiny-proposals-elaborated.html

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/scrutinising-brents-scrutiny-proposals.html

The only councillor who really questioned the changes and pointed out the issues was John Warren, leader of the Brondesbury Park Conservative Group.

I understand that disquiet is now developing in the Labour Group with newly elected councillors complaining about the lack of discussion beforehand. A source suggests that there is a possibility of a review although there may be some constitutional impediment to the reversal of a policy recently adopted by Full Council.

Powney calls for councillors to give themselves time to discuss Scrutiny proposals - and not accept a fait accompli

It is good to see James Powney LINK responding to the 'clarification' of Scrutiny proposals which I published from a source very close to Brent Labour earlier LINK

Like me he can see no reference to this detail in the Officer's Report going before Full Council tomorrow and remarks:

If Martin's source is knowledgeable, I wonder whether these are last minute changes to mitigate the apparent intention of removing the operations of the Council from effective scrutiny.  It all seems a very hole-in-the-corner way of doing things.

He says that the requirement that questions to Cabinet members at Full Council be submitted in advance, and without follow-up questions allowed,  will mean that officers will write the answers and they will be read out by the lead members'

He goes on:

All this strikes me as a far cry from how things should be done.  I have suggested that there are three objectives Scrutiny should aim at.  The Welsh National Audit Office has recently gone through a more elaborate analysis.  What the balance between is is an area where I can imagine lots of different points of view, but it is essentially a matter for political value judgements, not simply a technical issue.  Therefore, it should be the subject of a proper debate and decision by councillors, not simply presented to them as a fait accompli within a fortnight of election.

The elected members of the Council should give themselves time to discuss how they want Scrutiny to function, and what they decide should be laid out clearly, not anonymously communicated to Martin Francis. 

I agree completely that a proper report, detailing the proposals and setting out how lay committee members would be recruited is essential for proper consideration of the Scrutiny proposals. Far reaching Scrutiny proposals approved without proper scrutiny would open the Council up to ridicule.

I hope backbench Labour  councillors and the opposition take note and speak up tomorrow.

If you need any persuasion of the confusing aspects of the Scrutiny changes and perhaps evidence of the haste in which they have been prepared see the Supplementary Agenda LINK. Particularly important noteworthy are pages 30 and 48.

If you wish to attend the Full Council on Wednesday as a member of the public you are advised to let Anne Reid of Democratic Services know, as the number of seats is limited:  anne.reid@brent.gov.uk

Powney blasts scrutiny proposals

Former Brent Labour councillor James Powney yesterday blasted the Scrutiny proposals going before the Full Council meeting on Wednesday.  LINK
He describes the proposals as 'ill-advised' and put forward without any disccussion in the Labour Party or meaningful discussion in the Labour Group:

Given the whole point of scrutiny is to make sure that the spending of public money is transparent and above board, the secrecy with which these changes are being treated is particularly ironic. 

He goes on:

...Indeed it might have been specifically designed to do away with meaningful scrutiny altogether. At a time when barriers to corruption in local government are being systematically dismantled, and lower resources put a premium on good quality decision making, this is exactly the opposite of what should be done.

This is strong stuff and for once James Powney and I are in agreement.

More democracy 'wherever practicable' suggests new Labour councillor

As the Labour Group meets this morning there are signs of some disquiet over the changes in Scrutiny. However, concentrating minds even more in the context of concentrating power, is the proposed amendment to Labour Party Standing Orders which would abolish annual elections. This would leave Muhammed Butt in the leadership position until the next local election,

In a Twitter exchange with former councillor James Powney, newly elected councillor Tom Miller asks, "What stake for backbenchers, one might ask?'

Powney replied that it was open to the Labour Group to defer the decision.

Tom Miller responded, 'One for closed doors I am sure, but I know which way I fall on democracy issues - more of it whenever practicable...'

Let's hope the rest of the Labout Group agree with Cllr Miller today - not just on annual elections but Scrutiny. Perhaps he might even suggest that abolition of the whip would go some way to provide more democracy 'whenever practicable'.

'Go to Hell!!!' councillor apologises

A Brent Labour group source informs me that Cllr Dhiraj Kataria has now apologised to Rendall Mallakee for the 'unacceptable language' employed in his email. The source adds that although as best as they can tell no one of that name lives in the borough Cllr Kataria believed Mallakee to be a Brent residnt at the time of the correspondence.

See original story HERE

Labour 'Young Turks' may challenge for Brent Executive positions

The challengers are probably too young to remember this!

The Brent Executive may have a more youthful profile following Labour's Annual General Meeting in May. AGMs of any organisation are an occasion for elected positions to be open to challenge and part of that process is for members to assess the performance of the incumbents and consider alternatives.

According to my sources among the incumbents under particular scrutiny this time round are Cllr Lesley Jones, Cllr Mary Arnold and Cllr James Powney. 'Alternatives' that have been mentioned include the very able Cllr James Denselow who has a background in journalism; Cllr Michael Pavey, energetic Barnhill by-election winner, who is  a school governor and has launched a high profile campaign to safeguard Children's Centres; and Cllr Roxanne Mashari who yesterday announced she was not standing for the Brent Central parliamentary selection. Presumably experience as a member of the Brent Executive would stand her in good stead in any future parliamentary bid. I have heard that Cllr Lincoln Beswick is not expected to carry on but Jim Moher, contrary to weekend reports, is to stand again.

Meanwhile Cllr Butt himself has contributed a new blog on the Council website which calls on residents to campaign on cuts to the fire service and on the A&E closures. This adopts a slightly harder line than previously.  LINK

Following my posting yesterday on the front runners for the Brent Central selection I have had somewhat conflicting information. There has been a suggestion that Cllr Ann John has joined James Powney in backing Catherine West but others claim that West is seeking nomination in another constituency.

Apparently there has been some disquiet that members of the short-listing panel, who it is claimed should remain neutral, have been involved in backing particular candidates. Meanwhile I have let all the  prospective candidates I am aware of  that in the interests of an informed public I am happy to carry their Guest Blogs on this site.

Butt likely to hang on as rump fails?

No news on the Brent Labour leadership vote and I am off out for a Low Carbon Zone Meeting.

Latest intelligence is that Ann John supporters have been reduced to a rump so Muhammed Butt is likely to remain in post.

Officers miss the 'smack of firm government' from Ann, her efficiency and mastery of detail, but some councillors have recognised that their previous belief in TINATA (There is no alternative to Ann) was misplaced.

The Labour Group has battened down the hatches and there has been barely a tweet out of Twitter over the weekend so I may of course be completely wrong.

More later I hope...