Kensal Rise Library, Copland and Representative Democracy

Guest blog by Guestropod

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caroline Lucas is Wildlife MP of the Year

Caroline Lucas has been voted Wildlife MP of the year by readers of Mark Avery's 'Standing Up for Nature' blog.

The full results were:

Caroline Lucas 39%
Owen Paterson 23.5%
Barry Gardiner  13.5%
Zac Goldsmith 11.8%
None of the Above 5.2%
Joan Walley 4.5%
Nick Clegg 2.5%

The Tories seem to have mobilised for badger hunting, climate change sceptic Owen Paterson. Maybe they do have a sense of irony.

Hopeless Clegg fails to address Sulivan Primary School scandal

Hammersmith and Fulham Council plan to close successful Sulivan Primary School to hand the site over to Fulham Boys' Free School. Surely something the Lib Dems wouldn't approve of?

Sorry,to disenchant you but the video speaks for itself: Clegg continue;s to be Cameron's poodle. And does Michael Gove look even remotely interested?

Mixed reaction to Teather's withdrawal from 2015 election

Sarah Teather's decision not to stand for election in 2015 has come as a surprise to many but her increasing alienation from her party has been clear since her sacking as Children's minister, which itself followed her failure to vote for Government welfare reform. The Daily Mail and Tory MPs vociferously called for her resignation at the time.

Some argue that she missed her moment and should have resigned on a matter of principle at the time rather than limp on until she was sacked. Her post-sacking re-dedication to her constituents was seen by many as an attempt to rekindle local support ahead of the General Election. She was suddenly available to constituents and campaigners again after pleading that ministerial conduct codes prohibited her from openly campaigning on national political issues - she dropped letters to ministerial colleagues instead.

I had a hunch that free from these constraints she would become a more open critic of the Lib Dem's collusion with the Tories and that by 2015, if she survived the likely Lib Dem  electoral disaster, she would be in a position to contest the leadership on the basis of 'I saw it coming'. This would of course have raised difficulties about her General Election campaign and how to distance herself from the party's manifesto.

This was not to be but her position as regards her party appears confused this morning. Her Observer interview says that she no longer feels able to operate within the Parliamentary Liberal Democrat group BUT she will stay in the party. Her personal statement on her website says that she will campaign for Lib Dems in the local elections and for her Lib Dem successor in the 2015 General Election. This seems to indicate that she will not cross the floor of the House.

Similarly Nick Clegg is both a 'decent bloke' who has done many good things but also someone whose stance on immigration left her 'catastrophically depressed'.

Teather's by-election victory six months after Iraq was partly due to her strong anti-war position and she won many plaudits for her progressive stance on Guantanamo and Palestine. Living locally and modestly in Willesden Green she was highly visible on local streets in contrast to Barry Gardiner Labour MP for Brent North who lives out in Chorley Wood. In opposition she won a reputation as a hard-working MP excellent at case work.

However her appointment to government after the General Election was immediately controversial as tuition fees were raised despite signed Lib Dem pledges.  Her passionate maiden speech opposing tuition fees was circulated on the net underlining her 'betrayal' LINK. Her acquiesce to Michael Gove's policies on free schools and academies, and her personal admiration for him, angered many on the left as did her later opposition to equal marriage.

Reaction on Twitter to Teather's decision has ben mixed to say the  least. Iain Dale called her 'A rather sad, pathetic hypocrite and  Alistair Campbell at his most cutting stating:

Sarah Teather- a looming lost seat dressed up as look-at-me 'principles.' Her voting record speaks louder than today's self-pitying whinge

Sunny Hundal called it a 'significant and principled decision' and Marc Cohen commented:

Agree w her politics or not (mostly I don't) as my local MP Sarah Teather has by most accounts been v good &u can't knock her principled stance

Tory MP Nadine Torries wrote:

 Hope knives stay locked away re Sarah Teather. She was never going to retain seat in 2015, has been a good constituency MP. Good luck to her

Patrick Vernon, one of the leading Labour contestants for the Brent Central Parliamentary candidate nomination in an exclusive statement said:

I understand why and appreciate why Sarah Teather has resigned as a Lib Dem MP.  As a former Minster she realises that her party has no moral compass on social justice in fighting for the rights of local people in Brent. It is a pity that she did not give the opportunity for a Labour Candidate to fight against her in the 2015 election so local people can decide on her record as a MP since 2003.

Some people have said that there should be a by election as she may not be committed to Brent over the next 20 months. This is up to Sarah to decide but I do think she does have a duty to organise a public meeting to explain to her constituents her intentions as the current local MP.

In the meanwhile a number of potential candidates including myself are putting ourselves forward as a prospective candidate for Labour in Brent. Local party members need to decide who has a track record working in Brent to build and mobilise an election campaign based on social justice and fighting against the growing inequality facing residents along with the massive cuts  and destruction of public services by the Coalition government. Also the selected candidate has to be transparent and accountable to restore confidence as a public servant to the community

Shahrar Ali, spokesperson for the  Brent Green Party and former parliamentary candidate for Brent Central said:

Having stood against  Sarah Teather as a Green in two general elections, I can testify to her verve on election platforms and her ability to mobilise the local Libdem electoral machine with a finger pointed at a heap of rubbish for good measure. I can't shake off the feeling that her decision not to stand again is as much political calculation based on party unpopularity as the frustration she now declaims with her party direction.

Now is not the time to eulogise about the high points of Teather's political career, not least when Guantanamo remains open for business. With her party in government, injustice remains rife across society home and abroad.

Yes, it is a privilege to represent the electors of Brent and one which I would like to see Teather exercising more with her new-found voice, no less than if she had been intending to stand again

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

Sarah Teather doubts PM's claims on 'racist van' campaign

Sarah Teather MP, Liberal Democrat, Brent Central, reacting to David Cameron's spokeperson's claim  that the 'racist van' campaign was working, said:

I am extremely sceptical that these adverts are having any effect other than to annoy and upset local residents. The reaction over the last week would certainly suggest that Conservative Ministers are among a very small minority who think the vans are a good idea. "I await the detailed statistics and analysis of the trials which backs up No 10's claim with bated breath. But I dare say that this is a desperate attempt to try and save face in the face of overwhelming public hostility.

With the campaign now condemned by Vince Cable as 'stupid and offensive' and in somewhat milder terms by Nick Clegg, we have to ask how much longer the Liberal Democrats can continue in coalition with such a morally bankrupt and divisive Conservative Party.

Twitter viruses and viral sorrowful Lib Dem leader

My Twitter account was hacked overnight and apparently some followers received some objectionable messages. I did not send these. Do not open any Facebook links sent via Twitter from Wembley Matters as they may contain a virus.  My password has been changed so all should be okay now.

Meanwhile this has gone viral but just in case you missed it:

Teather lobbies Lansley, Cameron and Clegg on NHS Changes

Safe in her hands?

In a letter to constituent Sarah Cox, Sarah Teather MP has recognised the concerns of local residents on the proposed NHS changes:

I have received letters from an overwhelming number of constituents on this issue and I am well aware of the strength of feeling. I believe our National Health Service is a major part of this country's history and something to be proud of.

As I am sure you are aware, the Department of Health are taking the opportunity to pause and review the plans and allow for more consultation with GPs and the public.

I have already written to Andrew Lansley, Secretary of State for Health, outlining the concerns that many of my constituents have raised. I have today written to both David Cameron and Nick Clegg to make them fully aware of the views of the people of Brent on the proposed NHS reforms. I will be sure to write again as soon as I received a response.

Sarah Cox responded by saying, "We don't just want the NHS to be part of our history but part of our present and future too!"

"Don't be Seduced by the Trappings of Power" Lucas to Clegg

Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion and leader of the Green Party has issued the following statement on the discussions taking place this weekend:

These are uncharted waters for all politicians. But this only makes it more important that Nick Clegg makes his decisions based on the clear steer given to him by voters.

In this election the British people have brought in a House of Commons in which a majority of MPs are from parties which support reform. A clear majority of people in the United Kingdom voted for reform of our political system. Therefore any arrangement between the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives must include genuine and comprehensive reform of the political system. A commission, inquiry, or any other delaying tactic will not be acceptable. There should be a referendum before the end of the year which includes options for a genuinely proportional system not the self-serving system of AV which is even less proportional. The people should be asked what voting system they would prefer. That is proper democracy.

The first past the post system has created a situation where people cannot vote positively for the candidate or party whose policies they most agree with. Instead, they are forced to vote in fear, working out how to vote to keep out the party furthest away from them in policy and values. This leaves us a grotesque democratic deficit and a poor basis on which to govern.

The Liberal Democrats must not be seduced by the trappings of power. The people have voted for reform: Nick Clegg must not betray them.