Sarah Teather's full personal statement on her decision not to stand in 2015

In just over a week's time, I shall reach the tenth anniversary of my election to Parliament in the Brent East by-election. I took some time off this summer and found myself reflecting a great deal on the last ten years.
It has been an enormous privilege to serve as an MP in Brent. Indeed, for me personally, so much of the last decade has been both rich and surprising. I am not sure that I would ever have expected to be elected so young, and I certainly never expected that I would have had the opportunity to serve in Government.

The greatest privilege of my work both as a constituency MP and as a Minister has been the gift of being able to share in the private joys and struggles of so many people's lives - many different from one another and very different from my own. I shall always be inspired by the profound courage and dignity I have witnessed in people I have worked with, often in the face of the most extraordinary difficulties.

Of all my parliamentary work, the campaign I remain most proud of is the campaign to get my constituent released from Guantanamo Bay. I shall always count the moment my constituent walked back in through his own front door and picked up his five year-old daughter for the first time in her life as one of the most precious of my life.

In Government, the moment I count as my proudest is the one where I listened to Nick Clegg announce our intention to end the routine detention of children in the immigration system - something I worked hard to deliver, in what, at times, felt an almost insurmountable battle with the Home Office. I feel humbled too to have been able to play my part in delivering the pupil premium to schools and to extend free early education to two year olds, and perhaps the work dearest to my heart, that of reforming the system of support for children with special educational needs.

There have been so many rewards to this work -- too many to list here. But having taken the summer to reflect on the future, I feel now that at the General Election, the right time will be right for me to step aside. I wanted to explain why I have decided not to seek re-election in 2015.

I first joined the party almost exactly twenty years ago, during fresher's week at university. It was then -- and still is now - absolutely inconceivable that I could ever join any other political party. As with most party members, there have always been a few issues where I have disagreed with party policy. But over the last three years, what has been difficult is that policy has moved in some of the issues that ground my own personal sense of political vocation - that of working with and serving the most vulnerable members of society. I have disagreed with both Government and official party lines on a whole range of welfare and immigration policies, and those differences have been getting larger rather than smaller. Disagreements with the party on other areas of policy I have always felt could be managed, but these things are just core to my own sense of calling to politics. I have tried hard to balance my own desire to truthfully fight for what I believe on these issues with the very real loyalty and friendship I feel to party colleagues, but that has created intense pressure, and at times left me very tired. I don't think it is sustainable for me personally to continue to try and do that in the long term.

I want to reassure people in Brent that I shall continue to work very hard to represent them over the next 18 months until the next General Election. My constituency office will remain open five days a week, just as it has always been. I shall be out campaigning for the local elections with my local LibDem team over the forthcoming months and will campaign to get my Liberal Democrat successor elected to Parliament in the General Election. In Parliament I shall continue with my work as Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees and will carry on making the case for a fair and humane immigration system as Parliament considers a new immigration bill in the coming months.

I hope that I have been able to support and represent the people of Brent well as their MP, but I feel rich beyond measure to have been able to do this work here. I shall always count myself indebted to those who gave me this opportunity to serve - to the thousands of constituents who voted for me and to the many Liberal Democrat supporters and members who campaigned and walked the streets for me over three elections. I hope that, over the last 10 years, I have at least gone some way in repaying the faith that so many have shown in me.

Sarah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BME Impact: Very Significant

The full report can be downloaded HERE

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.

Lorries promoting government racism in Brent condemned

Brent has been chosen as one of six borough for the dubious honour of hosting a campaign that panders to the racists of the EDL and echoes the 'Blacks Go Home' slogans of the National Front in the 70s.

In the 70s I was one of many in anti-racist groups who organised weekend actions removing  or painting over the slogans from the walls and doors of London. The slogans, often aimed at individual homes. as below, were designed to intimidate.

Now it is a government that is funding a campaign with exactly the same aims. It shows, contrary to the multi-racial bliss promoted by the government over the Olympics, that racism is now acceptable.

As a teacher I was very aware of the impact racist and anti-refugee campaigns had on children in our schools, making them anxious and insecure and sometimes ashamed of their status. This campaign will have a similar impact and seems designed to reassure the racsits that the government is taking action but will have the effect of stirring up resentment, suspicion and fear.

The choosing of Brent for such a campaign, when there was that notorious YouTube video about Wembley by a far-right racist group not so long ago is deeply offensive.

Sarah Teather MP spoke out against the campaign saying:

This is the latest in a string of Home Office announcements that are designed to make the government look tough on immigration. But I fear that the only impact of this deeply divisive form of politics will be to create tension and mistrust to anyone who looks and sounds foreign. These adverts are nothing less than straightforward intimidation and … can only have bad consequences for communities like those I represent in Brent, where people from all faiths and races have mixed for decades. We will all be much poorer for it.

Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council said yesterday:

Placing these posters in the most diverse borough in the UK is inflammatory and divisive. I have people in my surgeries every week who have been wrongly processed by the home office or who have come from places they simply can't return to and are now going to feel publicly threatened as a result of these posters. It's disgraceful and frankly unwelcome in our diverse and united borough.

I welcome their statements and am keen to discuss what we can do as a community once these lorries of hate are on out streets.

Natalie Bennett speaks out on immigration as Teather laments the three party consensus

Sarah Teather, Lib Dem MP for Brent Central makes the front page of the Guardian today, with her criticism of the main main parties on immigration LINK:

Teather, whose Brent Central seat is an area of high poverty and immigration, said her decision to speak out was motivated only by concern that all three main parties had "seen the same opinion polls", and were chasing the anti-immigrant vote with no regard for the consequences. She said: "It's got to a stage where you almost can't say anything else. It's almost unacceptable to say anything else, and that bothers me that there is a consensus among the three party leaders.

"It's stifling the rest of the debate, making people afraid to speak. If you get to a stage where there is no alternative voice, eventually democracy's just going to break down."

Coincidently, Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party did exactly that yesterday, in a trenchant, principled and informed speech given at the Romanian Cultural  Institute. I reproduce it below and am grateful to Bright Greens for bringing it to my attention LINK:

This month, the Home Office, working under the direction of our Tory-Liberal Democrat Government, put out a report on the impact of immigration. It conducted a survey of local authorities and service providers, and found that the presence of immigrants was likely to lead to longer waiting times at GP surgeries, pressure on the number of primary school places due to the tendency of migrants to have more children than the native-born population and “poor quality, overcrowded acommodation, inflated rents, exploitations by unscrupulous landlords…”

Exactly the same data could have been taken, and looked at differently. Longer waiting times at GP surgeries – that reflects the failure of the government to provide adequate investment in the cost-effective, efficient publicly owned NHS, and the disruption caused by the wholesale, top-down reorganisation of the organisation by the current and previous governments, despite their lack of a mandate for the act.

Pressure on primary school places – the failure to make adequate provision for the known number of children, and the misdirection of money into areas where there isn’t need due to the ideological attachment of the Education Secretary to “free” schools.

Poor quality, overcrowded accommodation and exploitation – Britain’s longterm failure to build adequate housing, particularly social housing, and failure to regulate landlords and letting agents, to the point where protests against their abstractions are growing.

In short, it’s simple, the government is scapegoating immigrants instead of acknowledging its own failings and that of the former Labour government.

They are taking the understandable anger of the British public at the shortage and high cost of housing, at the underfunding of public transport and health services, at struggle to find a school place for your child, and trying to direct that to one group of British people.

It’s pernicious, it’s dangerous, and it needs to be challenged.

You might expect the Labour opposition to be standing up to this scapegoating, but no, instead they are pandering to it. The Labour Party has not apologised for taking Britain into the Iraq War, has not apologised for failing to regulate the bankers, has not apologised for the fact that inequality rose in its 13 years in power – but it has apologised for its immigration policy while in government.

But back to today… The Telegraph newspaper quoted Mark Harper, the immigration minister, as saying of the study: “It emphasises the importance of protecting our public services and taking a robust approach against those who come here to exploit our welfare system.”

I entirely agree with the first half of that sentence – although unfortunately this government is, through its policy of austerity and ideological attachment to privatisation, cutting a giant swathe through our essential services.

The second half of the sentence – well it is a total non sequiteur, since the survey was not about benefits, but worse, much worse, a misleading claim.

We’ve seen much focus in recent months from this government about the claim that immigrants are attracted to Britain by benefits. There is simply no evidence of this claim.

You don’t have to just believe me, you can go to the European Commission, not known for picking fights with member governments, which has accused Home Secretary Theresa May of inventing the problem of welfare tourism without providing any proof that EU foreign nationals are abusing free movement rules to claim benefits.

And as for asylum-seekers, research commissioned by the Home Office concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that they had detailed knowledge about the UK benefits system – when fleeing persecution, they usually go where events take them, and when they do seek out Britain, it is usually because they already have family or friends here. And Britain is not especially a target. In 2011, the UK received 25,500 asylum applicants. France gets twice as many – and Britain is 14th out of 27 when looking at asylum seekers per head of population.

The deconstruction of this report is no academic exercise. It’s a critical issue of political debate in Britain.

The facts of immigration

First, it’s important to set the facts straight. It’s very easy to follow the rhetoric of the government and the rightwing media, and think that immigration is one of Britain’s chief problems. Or that immigration has entirely changed the face and culture of Britain.

A study out this week found that generally, Britons think 31 per cent of the population is recent immigrants. In fact the figure is 13% – representing about 7.5 million people. Black and Asian people are thought to make up 30 per cent of the population, when the figure is closer to 11 per cent.

Turn the lens around, and about 5.5 million British people live in other countries around the globe. So the overall scale of exchange isn’t that far off balanced.

Second, it’s important to acknowledge the contribution of immigrants to Britain. The NHS could not operate without immigrant workers. Our social care system, and our education system are significantly dependent on immigrant workers.

If you measure this in financial terms, migrants make a significant net contribution to their funding through their tax and national insurance contributions. They make a net contribution to the UK economy of £3 billion. Because they are often young, healthy, and skilled, their use of public services is limited – much lower than that of the general population.

But of course their contribution isn’t only through employment, whether they are young or old. The grandmother who moves to Britain to be with her family – she might be providing childcare, or she might simply be providing the solidity, the knowledge, the experience of a lifetime. The partner who moves to Britain to be a “house husband” brings not only time and love, but also the cultural experience of a different life experience. The foreign student brings to their local course a whole host of different experiences, knowledge and skills to their local classmates, to the enrichment of all.

The political climate

So where is this attack on immigrants coming from? Politically, the answer is clear. Recently, I had the “pleasure” of being on Question Time with UKIP leader Nigel Farage.

He said there were 80,000 Romanians in Britain, and that the Metropolitan Police made nearly 30,000 Romanian arrests in the last five years. As a smear, it has clearly been effective, and often used.

Actually the figure for Romanians in Britain is, based on the Labour Force Survey, there are around 102,000 Romanians are Britain. That’s at one point in time, the end of 2012.

The arrest figures are over five years – and are actually less than 28,000. And they are only arrests – not individuals. And they undoubtedly include some tourists, not included in the resident figures. Undoubtedly there are some individuals arrested multiple times – and arrests are not charges, not convictions … and we are talking over five years.

The figures around broadly accurate in each individual case, but their manner of assembly deeply dishonest, deeply misleading, and deeply dangerous.

I am speaking today in the Romanian Cultural Institute – and I know that there is offence and worry in Romania about the way it’s people have been painted in Britain, by Mr Farage, by our rightwing media. I can only apologise.

Yet this toxic, dangerous rhetoric from UKIP is not being challenged – instead it is being pandered to. We have in Britain a “race to the bottom” on immigration rhetoric.

Less than two in 10 people in Britain think that immigration is a problem in their local area, but about three quarters are in favour of reducing immigration. That’s the product of this rhetoric.

Genuine, reasonable concerns, wrongly directed

We need to acknowledge people’s real concerns about their standards of living, the future of their children, the problems of housing, of public services, of unemployment and low wages, but we need to lay the blame where it truly lies, not casually, cruelly, dangerously, blame immigrants.

About one in ten new jobs goes to an immigrant. And we have a minimum wage which should be a floor under a balanced labour market. Yet this is inadequately enforced, too low (well below the living wage level at which it should be set), and firms are being allowed to increasingly use zero-hours contracts and forced casualization to provide jobs that no one can build a life on. This is an issue of labour market regulation, not immigration.

We need to acknowledge too that people, particularly in the South of England, are feeling crowded. The London Tube too often feels like you might imagine a sardine in a can does. Traffic congestion is a huge problem, and a huge health threat. Housing cost inflation is out of control.

But there are also a million empty homes in Britain, whole streets and even suburbs tormented by depopulation in the North of England. The congestion comes not due to immigration, but the failure of regional development policy to spread prosperity across the whole of the UK, not just concentrate it in London and environs.

And there is of course grave concern about Britain’s environmental impact on the world. We’re living a “three planet” lifestyle, when we only have one earth. But was Green Party policy makes clear, what we have to talk about is our ecological footprint – we need to get back within the planet’s limits, but that’s true not just of the UK, but the world.

Immigration cap

The government has established an effective immigration cap – promising that net immigration would be reduced “to tens of thousands” by the end of this parliament. Of course this ignores the fact that it has no control whatsoever over one side of this equation – immigration from Britain, the product of a whole host of individual circumstances.

More, it is promising that those coming into Britain will almost all be “the brightest and the best”.

In a speech this month, Tory MP Liam Fox said the government should “have a really good look at the type of people who will benefit our country and help generate wealth and prosperity”. “Nobody should assume they have the right to come to our country because they have relatives already here” – so there goes the right to a family life, acknowledged as a human right…

And more, there’s an important question to be asked about the value judgements here – is a hedge fund trader, who might have a high income, really more valuable than a carer, an arms company executive really more valuable than a beloved grandma? I don’t believe so – indeed the New Economics Foundation did an excellent study showing that for every £1 they are paid, childcare workers generate between £7 and £9.50 worth of benefits to society. By contrast a city banker destroys £7 of social value for every pound they generate.

The impact of the changes

Net migration fell to 153,000 in 2012, from 242,000 the previous year. The number of immigrants coming to Britain fell from 581,000 to 500,000, while the number of migrants leaving the country was up from 339,000 to 347,000.

But asked by  BBC to explain, the Institute of Public Policy Research think tank said this was “in large part” due to a drop in the numbers of international students, with “considerable economic cost” – estimated at £2-3 billion/year (conservatively).

You might expect the Labour Party to be highlighting, focusing on that cost, that loss of fees for our universities, the loss of opportunities for home students to study with a rich range of fellow students, but no, Labour welcomed the fall, saying the “pace and scale of immigration” had been too high. And shadow immigration minister Chris Bryant added that the government, “is not doing enough on illegal immigration, failing to deport, failing to prevent absconding”.

Family reunion

The tightest of the toughening of government rules has been in family reunion visas – we now have among the toughest rules in Europe.

Any British citizen who wants to sponsor his or her non-EU spouse’s visa has to be able to prove that they earn at least £18,600 a year – 47 percent of the British working population last year would have failed to meet the income level for sponsorship. The amount rises to £22,400 to sponsor a child and an additional £2,400 for each further child.)

By the government’s own estimate, almost 18,000 British people will be prevented from being reunited with their spouse or partner in the UK annually as a result of the new rules.

Pick up your local paper and you’ll often read these stories – individuals who’ve made relationships, formed ties, and are understandly bemused, confused, angered, that they can’t live together as a couple, can’t even care for their children in their home country. We are failing these individuals – failing our society by creating this situation.

These rules are unconscionable. They are unfair and arbitrary. And they must be changed.

Proud tradition of asylum

I live in central London around the corner from the Somers Town Coffee House, once the haven for Hugenot refugees from France, fleeing religious persecution. It’s one visual reminder of Britain’s proud tradition of providing refuge to those who need it, particularly political refugees.

But that reputation today is under threat. It’s a subject that I’ll be speaking on another time, but one statistic is telling – in 2012, 27 per cent of initial asylum rulings were overturned on appeal.

And the Green Party has long campaigned against the failure to recognise gender aspects of persecution. The system also fails to acknowledge the persecution faced by LGBTQ people in many countries around the world.

Global damage

The impact of the rhetoric of immigration, of government policies and policies proposals, stretches far beyond immigrants, prospective immigrants and their families.

Recently the government – the Liberal Democrats to the fore – floated a trial balloon suggesting that visitors (not immigrants) from a number of states, including India, could be forced to pay a £3,000 bond, to be repaid when they left the country.

I went on a major Indian evening television show where this was a topic of debate, to explain this didn’t reflect the views of all Britons, and was almost buried under a torrent of anger. Indians were insulted, they were angry, and they were threatening not just not to visit but to withdrew investment flows into Britain. It was unsurprising that David Cameron, who recently visited India with an ‘open for business’ message, quickly reversed the policy, but damage has definitely been done.

Conclusion

In 2011, Green Party conference passed a motion opposing the government’s cap on immigration.

It said we should stop “treating those who are not native to the UK as a problem”. Today, it’s important to restate that.

The approach to immigration of the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour distracts from our real problems – the failure of George Osborne’s policy of austerity, acknowledged now even by that well-known “champion “ of government spending the International Monetary Fund, the deep damage being done to our social fabric by the government’s ideologically driven assault on our public services and the social safety net provided by benefits.

And further more, it is going to have real world, serious, even potentially deadly consequences. The declaring of open rhetorical season on migrants by the majority of our politicians is a signal. It’s a signal to the drunk man in the pub, who wants a target for his abusive tongue, and quite possibly his fists, and is now increasingly likely to find it in someone who is, or he perceives to be, an immigrant. It’s a signal to the irate woman on the overcrowded bus, ready to launch a tirade at a fellow passenger who might be an immigrant.

We have a responsibility to say “enough”. To acknowledge that we need to welcome immigrants, to regard them not as economic pawns, but people, with families, with friends, with feelings – who deserve, and must get respect, and respectful treatment.

Cultural diplomacy begins at home.

After Woolwich, Unity demonstration at Downing Street today

The message is clear at Brent Town Hall last night

Following the banning of the EDL march in Woolwich there will be a unity demonstration by anti-racists at Downing Street as the BNP has called a national demonstration there today. The Unity Demonstration aims to unite community groups, faith groups and trades unionists in a peaceful statement that we will not let Islamaphobia divide us, will begin at 12 noon. You are advised to approach Downing Street from the Trafalgar Square end of Downing Street.

Muhammed Butt and Sarah Teather last night

Last night there was a 'One Brent' event at Brent Town Hall that was called to emphasise that the borough's diversity is a source of strength in the face of events such as the murder of the soldier Lee Rigby. Among those who spoke were Muhammed Butt, Sarah Teather MP, Barry Gardiner MP and faith leaders. At times it seemed more a concerted condemnation of the killers rather than a commemoration of Rigby or a celebration of Brent's strength through diversity.

I felt uncomfortable when Muhammed Butt said that  people who did not like how things were done in this country knew what to do - they could find the exit. Too close to what the extreme right-wing say - and of course not directly relevant to 'home grown extremists'.

Many contributions, as unavoidable at such events, were anodyne, with references to Rigby's perceived bravery and patriotism and 'the job he was doing defending this country' skating over the opposition of many to the role of the army in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Similarly the religious contributions, with the exception of one from a Syrian born Christian, emphasised the perceived similarities between religions with a claim that they were all about making connections between people and living in peace.

Since the Woolwich murder it has sometimes seemed that the Muslim religion is in the dock and has had to mount a defence in the wake of the killers' justification of their actions. Muhammed Butt in the opening speech made it clear that the actions and claims were nothing to do with Islam as a religion and did not reflect his personal interpretation of his religion. A Rabbi made a warm tribute to the strength and solidarity of Brent's Muslim community while a Muslim leader emphasised the importance of educating young people about the religion so that they were not led astray by extremist ideas.

A contribution that drew applause was one that said it was not enough to make speeches about Brent's unity: unity would only be brought about by day to day actions in the community and that everyone had a responsibility to make this happen.

Crucial day for future of Gladstone Park Primary School

Gladstone Park Primary School parents yesterday presented a letter to Michael Gove at the Department for Education, backed by 572 petition signatories, calling for the school to be allowed to continue its current improvement strategy without being forced to become a sponsored academy.

They backed the request up with data evidence that showed the strong progress now being made in years 3-5 where Ofsted had previously found weakness and HMI's and the local authority's approval of the strategy now in place. Any change in school status would disrupt this progress to the detriment of the school and its pupils.

Today some of the Gladstone Park governing body will be meeting with Michael Gove to discuss the school's situation and I understand that Sarah Teather MP will also be attending the meeting. Sarah Teather lost her position working with Michael Gove in the last government re-shuffle and has since distanced herself from some Coalition policies, particularly those concerning welfare.

Frontrunners emerge in Labour battle for Brent Central nomination

Patrick Vernon and Catherine West are emerging as front runners in the contest for Labour's selection of a candidate to challenge Sarah Teather in Brent Central at the 2015 General Election.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari who was mentioned in early speculation confirmed this morning that she will not be standing. Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala, butt of frequent teasing about his job at an investment bank in the City but with excellent local credentials, has yet to reveal his hand. Sabina Khan is also holding back but promises a different,  if not unique, campaign. Amina Ali is due to address a Labour meeting soon and Dawn Butler has arranged a private Brent Central viewing of Ken Loach's Spirit of 45 in Harlesden on April 29th sponsored by the GMB and LFC.

Catherine West's address  to the Kensal Green ward meeting impressed a number of Labour Party members of different tendencies who are usually at loggerheads.  It was her record as a 'doer' with the policy giving free school meals to all Islingon Primary children a real winner, that convinced some of the audience that she had sufficient weight to take on Teather.

Her approach can be seen from this extract from her address to the Labour Local Government Conference:

If Labour are to return to power in 2015, I don’t think any of us are naïve enough to believe spending will return to pre-2010 levels. In the short term the next Labour government need to reverse the Tory policy of hitting the poorest areas hardest.

However, a message we all need to be communicating as local authority representatives is that the current model of local government needs to change. The financial model does not work anymore. We need a new relationship between central and local government that recognises WE are the people who know our own areas best and we are the people who should lead them. Going forward this means three things:

First, it is vital that the future way of funding social care is decided quickly with defined financial responsibilities for the individual, the NHS and local government. Without this, all Councils will be bankrupt within a decade. Thankfully Andy Burnham has already announced that Local Government will play a role in integrating social care and acute care and Liz Kendall is in conversation with us as local leaders about the exact design of that commissioning.

Second, recognise the limitations of national employment programmes and devolve the budgets and responsibilities to local councils either individually or as part of a consortium such as the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities or Central London Forward. Once again local government’s intimate knowledge of our areas and their jobs market makes us well placed to lead on getting local people into work.

Third, generate economic growth through much needed housing and infrastructure projects. But crucially, to allow more flexibility than the last Labour Government over the procurement of this work so all of the contracts don’t go to the usual same few major construction companies and myriad sub-contractors that leach money and jobs out of local areas.

Communication matters. Our experience shows that when we focus on the issues that resonate in our communities and we communicate a clear alternative to the governments slash and burn approach we can win the support of local people. This will help pave the way for a Labour government in 2015.

'Sickened' Sarah Teather and Brent Lib Dems should disown the Coalition

Sarah Teather has said that is is 'appalled and sickened' by George Osborne's statement on the Philpott case and welfare benefits and today's papers report 'deep unease' amongst senior Lib Dems.

Sarah Teather MP, when in opposition and before she joined the Coalition government, had great respect among leftwingers in Brent but forfeited that by her actions and statements when in government. Since her sacking she has distanced herself from some of the Coalition policies, some would say she has rediscovered her conscience, others, more cynical, claim she is worried about losing her Brent Central seat. Whichever is the case the Coalition's policies are now so extreme and damaging that if she is really to stand up for her constituents she should be arguing for Lib Dem withdrawal from the Coalition.

So what of our local Lib Dem councillors? Where do they stand? There have been rumours that a Lib Dem councillor was preparing to defect to Labour but I have been unable to get any confirmation. Despite my political disagreements with Brent Lib Dems I do think that they include people of principle who must be sickened by their party's role in the Coalition.

I cannot deny that Paul Lorber has shown real commitment to the libraries campaign in the Save Barham Library group where he has been unstinting of his time and energy. Similarly I have respect for Ann Hunter's decision to leave the Labour Party over the war in Iraq. Recently Barry Cheese has been a passionate campaigner for keeping Central Middlesex A&E open and opposing privatisation of the NHS. Alison Hopkins has impeccable credentials a s a community campaigner.

So far Brent Lib Dems locally have been remarkably untainted by the party's role in the Coalition and they have been helped by Brent Labour's supine approach to making council cuts. The Lib Dems have been able to oppose cuts at the local level but avoid the electorate making a link with the Coalition's austerity measures. Although they have entered local government ostensibly with a view to making life better for people  Brent they have failed to challenge the Coalition's attack on local government.

 However as Teather increasingly distances herself from the government positioning herself for the fight of her political life at the General Election, chickens will start to come home to roost.

Brent Lib Dems though should go beyond electoral manoeuvrings and consider the principles and practicalities involved. Can they, as liberals, standby while major sectors of the population are stereotyped, maligned and scapegoated? Can they remain silent while families are disrupted, pulled up by their roots and made to move outside of Brent away from their family and friends. Are they going  to tolerate more children falling into poverty? Can they tolerate the poor being made to pay for the economic crisis while the rich get richer?

 Does the argument that by participating in the Coalition the Lib Dems are restraining the more extreme elements of the Conservatives hold water any more when anyone can see the extremism of current policies?

Surely Sarah Teather and her colleagues in the local party must now call on their party to leave the Coalition.

'A breath of fresh air' and 'a real person' to fight it out with Dawn

The fight for Labour's nomination for Brent Central looks set to gain national prominence as The Voice LINK profiles the three front runners: Patrick Vernon ('a breath of fresh air'), Amina Ali  ('a real person') and Dawn Butler for whom The Voice gives no details except that she is a former MP.  An indication perhaps of the paper's assessment of the candidates.

Neither of the local candidates, Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala or Sabina Khan are mentioned, nor the leader of Islington Council, Catherine West LINK said to have been approached by some local Labour Party activists.

The Voice quotes a local Labour source as suggesting the selection process could begin as early a September which could see the selection process for Labour council candidates running concurrently. A number of veteran councillors are expected to stand down.

What might be an excellent testing ground for the parlaimentary as well as the council candidates would be getting out on the street for a by-election and seeing how they go down with the electorate.

With a year to go before the council election won't the Reverend David Clues currently enjoying life in Brighton do us all a favour and resign, opening the way for a mini-contest in Dudden Hill?

Battle for Brent Central Labour nomination livens up

This morning's April Fool from website Left Future LINK which said Ken Livingstone was to stand as Labour Candidate in Brent Central revived my interest in the current selection process.

The Guardian Diary recently reported that it was to be an open (i.e. not all women) list and suggested this left the way open for Cllr Muhammed Butt to thrown his hat into the ring. This I very much doubt.

However things aren't looking so good either for locally grown talent such as Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala and activist Sabina Khan.  Instead  there seems to be a move in favour of a high profile canadidate from beyond Brent to take on Sarah Teather in one of Labour's London target seats.

Patrick Vernon with Trevor McDonald

One name mentioned is that of  well-connected Hackney councillor. film maker and equalities campaigner Patrick Vernon. Last year he was short-listed for the Manchester Central seat but narrowly missed selection. In November 2012  Brent Central CLP invited him to show his film 'A Charmed Life' to party members LINK and mutual interest may have grown from there.

You can find our more about Patrick on his blog HERE

Amina Ali

Another outsider cited is Amina Ali, this time from Tower Hamlets. Amina is a Somali activist who would create quite a stir. She is founder of Muslim Women for Labour and Somali Friends of Labour and has signed up to distribute Labour leaflets in Brent LINK.

This is rather out-dated but Amina talks about herself HERE

Meanwhile Dawn Butler continues to pop up all over the place as she continues to campaign for her 'Come Back' but it is hard to find many who back her wholeheartedly. 

Fellow Lib Dem MPs show Teather the way on forced academies

Although Sarah Teather MP cancelled her meeting with Gladstone Primary School parents last week two of her Lib Dem colleagues in the House of Commons, John Pugh and David Ward, made their opposition to the DfE's bullying tactics clear in the Westminster Hall debate on forced academies.

I hope she will take time to read what was said in the debate LINK and to read John Pugh's post-debate press release below:

In Westminster today, John Pugh MP led a debate about schools which are forced to become academies. Many other MPs supported John with similar concerns about ‘aggressive’ and ‘threatening’ representatives of the Department of Education. 

Under Ofsted’s new inspection framework, 123 primary schools across the country have been identified as ‘unsatisfactory’ under new Ofsted performance measures. 

Highly paid brokers are employed by the Department to manage the transition to academy status. The Department for health considers this to be the right way to tackle failing schools. Often, school governors and parents are not given a voice in the transition process.

The decision to remove the school from local authority management seems to be taken with little regard to the quality of the local authorities’ track record in education. Sefton, for example, has a strong track record in education. Further, it is the Department for Education, not the school, are also the ones to decide which academy group is best for a school to join.

Some schools have been offered money to change status. ‘£40,000 per school and an additional £25,000 for legal fees’ were offered to a cluster of Lancashire schools if they became independent from the local authorities, according to Lancashire Branch of the National Union of Headteachers. Many school governors have not felt able to give their names but have reported ‘bullying tactics’ by officials.

The Minister responded to John Pugh’s debate today by repeating the statement that the academies program had a track record of success. Previously, the Department for Education has said that is has no targets for converting schools to academies. 

John Pugh remains concerned that creating new academies has become the Government’s aim, instead of working with school governors to improve the quality of teaching for children and parents.

He said today:   

It is unacceptable that the Department for Education is employing aggressive tactics to push through unpopular changes on schools in this way. There remain many unanswered questions around the success rate and value for money of the academies program. Further, I have serious concerns about the removal of assets funded by the tax payer from local authority control. 

Two-way consultation must be undertaken by the Department for Education with governors and parents, before decisions are made. 

We don’t accept bullying in schools so why would we accept bullying from the Department for Education?

Teather cancels her meeting with Gladstone Park parents

Sarah Teather has cancelled her appearance at tonight's meeting with Gladstone Park Primary's Parents Action Group on the grounds that the meeting had been advertised to a wider audience and might raise the temperature when calm was required to maintain a dialogue between the DfE and the school.

She said:

I have spoken to the Secretary of State about Gladstone Park school and will continue to push the Department for Education to work with and not against the school. I am hopeful that a constructive solution is possible here.

My offer to meet separately with the parents action group as originally agreed remains open.

I understand that the parents will still meet tonight to discuss the campaign against forced academisation. 6pm Pakistan Coommunity Centre, Marley Walk, Station Road next to Willesden Green station.

An intensive week of parent action ahead on forced academies

Parents are taking on the dictator

 Following the formation last  week of an umbrella parents' campaigning group Parents Against Forced Academies (PAFA), this week will see the most intensive action yet opposing Michael Gove's policy of forced academies.

On Tuesday there is a Westminster Hall debate by MPs on the issue of forced academies. Ian Mearns Labour MP for Gateshead told the Save Gladstone Park Parents Action Group:

Let me start by saying that I am firmly opposed to forced academisation. I think school improvement is a vitally important process, but it is not contingent upon schools changing their status and becoming academies, but as you will already be aware that is not a view shared by the Secretary of State and his supporters. Interestingly the Chief inspector of schools, who heads up Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw, is on record as telling the Education Select Committee that academisation was not the recommended model for Primary Schools, given the different economies of scale for Primary’s, as opposed to their Secondary counterparts.

However, the dilemma is that many dozens of schools now are in a similar position to your own, and unless there is some coming together of the schools who are opposed to this process, I can only see the schools being picked off and ground down by the process.

John Pugh’s debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday is only a debate where Minister’s are made aware of the concerns of Members of Parliament and their constituents about various matters. It does not form part of the legislative process, but can be important in terms of getting issues on the record and a formal Ministerial response.

As a member of the Education Select Committee we are constantly trying to hold Ministers to account to justify their policies and the way in which they are implemented by the Department; and you can be rest assured that I will continue to thoroughly scrutinise all policies by the Government.

On Wednesday March 13th the Gladstone Park parents will be assembling at 3.15pm in the Year 3-4 playground at the school to travel down to Victoria together to join the NUT organised  'Gove Must Go' from Cathedral Piazza (assemble 5pm) to march to the DfE. Roke Primary campaigners will also be joining the march.

On Tuesday March 19th  Roke Parents will lobby the Harris Federation who are the academies group chosen by Michael Gove to become Roke Primary';s sponsor. Lord Harris is a major donor to Tory Party funds. The lobby is at 4.30pm outside the Harris HQ, opposite the Whitgift Centre, a few minites from East Croydon station. (Brent residents can get there directly from Wembley Central Station on Southern Trains - they run hourly at 6 minutes to the hour). Full address 4th Floor, Norfolk House, Wellesley Road, CRO 1LH7

Not content with that on Saturday March 16th  parents from the Downhills, Roke and Gladstone Park campaigns against forced academies will be guest speakers at the Anti Academies Alliance Annual General Meeting in London.

The Guardian describes the DfE broker's behaviour HERE

Equal Marriage: Greens celebrate while Tweeters rise up against revolting Teather

The Green Party was jubilant yesterday after the vote on Equal Marriage.  This has long been Green Party policy and has been championed by Green Party member Peter Tatchell.

Before the vote Caroline Lucas, Green MP, said:

 While the Conservative catfight over today’s vote will fade into insignificance, the momentous occasion on which MPs were given the chance to stand up for equality in marriage will be remembered for many years to come.

The majority of the public sees no reason why people of the same sex who love each other and want to marry should not be able to do so – and despite claims to the contrary, this legislation will not force any faith groups to conduct gay marriages.

 Like many of the constituents who have written to me on this issue, I support the aims of the government’s proposed legislation and will therefore vote ‘yes’ to same sex marriage in Parliament.

However, while I’ll be voting for equal marriage, I’ll also be calling for more far reaching reform to allow everyone – same sex and opposite sex couples – to enjoy a civil partnership or marriage, as they choose.

 This is a question of equal love. It’s not about asking for special treatment for gay couples or straight couples, it’s about everyone enjoying the same rights regardless of their sexuality.

Speaking for myself I have always been suspicious of the way marriage is extolled by the right-wing alongside 'hard-working families' but if people want to get married then I see no reason why it should not be open to everyone.

Yesterday the internet was buzzing with comment on Sarah Teather's vote against Equal Marriage and many pointed out that this contradicted the banners on the Lib Dem website. Teather herself posted a long statement that can be found here which said that she had reflected for a long time 'as a life long liberal and a committed Catholic'.

It was a free vote, despite Equal Marriuage being Lib Dem policy, and she pleaded for understanding of her position:

I have found this a difficult decision because of my work previously on gay rights issues, and my judgment is finely balanced. I recognise that others may reflect deeply on these issues and come to a different view, in good faith. But it is my view that where the extra protections offered to same-sex couples are marginal, and where the potential negatives to society over a period of time may be more considerable, I am unable to support the bill.

Although the vote today was subject to a free, unwhipped vote, I understand that my views place me out of step with most of my liberal democrat colleagues and party members. I have not often found myself out of step with party members over the last twenty years. But one of the things that always impresses me about our party is that we are liberal enough to accept that others may hold different views. Our party members hold strong views, but recognise and cherish the space for difference. I am proud of that.

Cherishing 'the space for difference' does not seem to include gay people wanting the commitment of marriage. It's pretty ironic that the left, having urged Teather to revolt on a range of Coalition policies, now find her revolting on one that many of them support.

Among the comments on Twitter were:

Presume Sarah Teather objects to post-menopausal women marrying men as it will "decouple the definition of marriage from family life"? Ben Soffa

Brent's LGBT pop is approx 16,000. Sarah Teather's majority is 3,000. Pukka Punjabi

Just caught news Teather voted against  equal marriage Voted for cuts, for savaging welfare, but against equality. Sounds like a Tory to me Mike Katz

Teather free to vote the way she wants but not when it involves breaking promises made to local constituents Chavalim Bodedim

And Sarah Teather . Up there with Huhne in the talking utter bollox stakes. Suzanne Moore

"Lib Dems are tackling the inequalities faced by the gay lesbian bisexual & transgender community head on" Teather's website & she voted NO! Tweet for Labour

Sarah Teather didn't vote against the massive cuts the Government has made to Brent Central. Just gay marriage. Social liberal, you see. Tom Miller

 I’m sure the large Evangelical population in Brent Central has nothing to do with Teather opposing equal marriage  Nothing at all  Mark Ferguson

 Another aspect of the vote was noted by many Brent tweeters when all six Muslim Labour MPs voted for Equal Marriage.

Butt challenges Teather to 'pick up the phone' and make a difference to Brent residents

 The early start to the campaign to win marginal Brent Central following Sarah Teather's sacking from the Government and her pledge to devote herself to her constituents,  was confirmed today when Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt wrote her an open letter accusing her of not standing up for Brent residents.

Writing on the Labour List website LINK today her said:

Dear Sarah,

As Leader of Brent Council, I was somewhat surprised to read in our local paper this week that you have been “working with the Council” on the issue of welfare reform, and are leading our efforts to mitigate the impact on our residents.

I was surprised because I don’t remember your help in preparing residents for the cuts in Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit that are going to devastate our community. Surprised because I don’t remember your help while everyone at the Council was refocusing their efforts on getting as many residents as possible into work and increasing local wages to minimise the impact.

Nor do I recall you standing up for residents by supporting our stance on the Living Wage, or helping reduce residents’ bills through our bulk energy buying scheme. I don’t recollect your offer of assistance in tackling slum housing and rogue landlords or in persuading landlords to accept lower rents rather than throw residents out on the street.

I can’t remember you lobbying Eric Pickles not to strip over £100 million from our funding or to give us the money our residents deserve for underestimating our population by over 60,000. Nor do I remember your help in supporting Brent’s food bank as they broke their own record for the number of vouchers given out in a single day over Christmas.

That’s because unlike the other MPs in Brent, you haven’t helped us or our residents with any of these issues – so far. 

If you really want to help our residents, instead of writing press releases claiming undue credit, why don’t you pick up the phone and ask what you can do to actually make a difference?

Our residents need someone to persuade this Government that they simply can’t take any more pain, they need someone to stand up for them in Parliament on a regular basis and they need help bringing together all partners in Brent to work together to protect them.

I look forward to your call; there is a lot of work to do.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council

General Election campaign starts early in Brent Central

 With Sarah Teather pedalling furiously leftwards to distance herself from the Coalition the Labour Party has named Brent Central as one of its target seats with a claim that they would need only a 1.5% swing to Labour to win the seat. LINK

Dawn and friend

 Brent Central Labour Party will be starting the selection of their General Election candidate soon. As, unless the Coaliton falls apart, the next General Election is not until May 7th 2015,   we can look forward to a long-campaign of press releases and photo-calls over the next two years or so.

Former  Brent South MP Dawn Butler has made sure she is seen at high profile events in the constituency and told the Evening Standard in October that she would stand to 'exonerate herself' over the expenses row she was invoved in when  an MP. LINK

Zaffar Kalwala

There have been rumours that thrusting young councillor Zaffar Kalwala is interested. He has certainly concentrated his fire on  Sarah Teather consistently over the last two years from his Stonebridge base as well as the council chamber LINK

It is generally thought that Teather's campaign last time was to the left of Butler's and some Labour Party members are opposed to her reselection, not least because of issues over her expenses when she was an MP and even the controversy over an endorsement of her by Barack Obama on House of Commons notepaper LINK although at the time she was stoutly defended by James Powney LINK  Her current website leaves a lot to be desired.LINK  However others dismiss Kalwala as a light-weight and rumours that James Powney is interested, having proved his mettle in making cuts, have been discounted.


It  looks as if the net will be cast wider and there is always a possibility that Labour nationally will sponsor a 'big name' candidate from outside of Brent.

Meanwhile locally it is unclear whether the twin strategies of Teather's rebellion and the local Lib Dems posing as anti-cuts activists and avoiding being tainted by the Coalition cuts will keep Labour at bay. There was some recent press coverage that suggested the Lib Dem vote in local by-elections was holding up despite the Coalition and that voters were separating local from national issues in their voting intentions.

Perhaps it is time for Brent Lib Dems to put that to the test in the two council seats where their councillors no longer live in Brent.

Greens call on MPs to vote against 'mean and miserable' Welfare Bill

Together we shout (We are Spartacus)

As the Commons debate welfare benefits and ex Coalition Sarah Teather wields her new found conscience the Green Party has called upon all MPs to reject the coalition’s Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. 

The Bill, which has its Second Reading in Parliament today, would raise benefits by 1% per year until April 2015. The current policy sees benefits rise in line with inflation, and so welfare recipients will have a real-terms cut. 

In the debate Caroline Lucas said that this was 'mean and miserable legislation' by a 'mean and miserable' government.

Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party, said::

MPs are being asked whether they are prepared to deliberately, with all of the facts before them, choose to significantly reduce the living standards of millions of their voters.

 

We can start with the one in five UK workers paid less than a living wage – who either as parents, or as householders, will have been receiving state support to enable them to continue to live. The responsibility should being lying with their employers - if they all paid a living wage the net benefit to the government would be about  £7.5 billion - but the government is showing no inclination to lift the minimum wage to a liveable level, ending the past decades of corporate welfare payments. 

We can also add in the hundreds of thousands of people surviving – not living, but surviving - on the measly sum of £71/week or less in job seekers’ allowance.

And we can add in millions of children. As the Child Poverty Action group says, the Bill can “only increase absolute child poverty, relative child poverty and material deprivation for children”.  Its figures show that having slowly got the rate of child poverty below 20%, the rate is set under this regime to leap back to 25% in a decade.

Not only is the cut immoral, but it is economically illiterate - facing the clear risk of a triple-dip recession, the government is planning to pull millions of pounds out of the pockets of people who, had they received it, would certainly have fed the money back into the economy in buying food, buying energy, and buying services.

The Green Party argues that the only ethical and effective way of reducing social security costs is to create jobs - not slash budgets. 

Natalie said: 

What we need to do in the longer term is change the direction of the British economy – bring manufacturing and food production back to Britain, restore strong, diverse local economies built around small businesses and co-operatives paying decent wages on which their staff can build lives and communities.

That’s a longterm project – but today we can think about the British people – the nurses, the soldiers, the teaching staff, the local government workers, and yes, the unemployed – and say no to the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.

That’s what Green MP Caroline Lucas will be doing in Westminster today. What’s your MP doing?

Central Middx and Northwick Park A&Es overwhelmed

Campaigners lobby Sarah Teather over the closures

The Evening Standard today reports that  Maeve O'Callaghan-Harrington, head of emergency planning at NW London Hospitals Trust, emailed local GPs  last week advising them that the casualty units at Northwick Park and Central Middlesex  were full. 

Northwick Park had 19 patients waiting for beds and patients were also waiting for beds at Central Middlesex. Central Middlesex A&E is already closed overnight and would be closed completely under the 'Shaping a Healthier Future' proposals. Central Middlesex A&E patients will be expected to go to Northwick Park instead and that is also where patients from the Urgent Care Centre would be transferred if the UCC cannot treat them.

The Standard reports Andy Burnham, shadow health secretary as commenting:

As this email shows London A&Es are struggling as it is and it is not at all clear how the Government can close so many without putting lives at risk. The planned closures in northwest London look drastic and the onus is on the NHS and the Government to provide clinical evidence for how they can be justified.

Local NHS campaigners have repeatedly drawn attention to the pressures on Northwick Park even before the closure of Central Middlesex A&E  and the absence of any kind of risk assessment on the possible repercussions for the safety of patients if the closure takes place.

Butt: The working poor, disabled and young families will be hit by 'Coalition Poll Tax' passed tonight

Brent Council tonight approved the Council Tax Support scheme that Council leader, Muhammed Butt, described as a Coalition Poll Tax that had been forced on the Council by the Government.

Butt, confessing that the scheme was the most unsettling thing that he'd had to do in his political life, said that the Council had been faced with 'equally nasty' choices over which vulnerable groups would be hit. The working poor, the disabled and families with young children would all suffer.  By definition, anyone entitled to Council Tax Support was vulnerable but 'some are more vulnerable than others.'  Pensioners and war pensioners had been protected and most now having to contribute would pay no more than £4.99 a week. He went on however to admit that was still  'a significant amount of money from people who, frankly, just don't have it.'

'Painful and difficult' changes had to be made with the better off claimants having to pay more and the amount of savings allowed reduced from £16,000 to £6,000.

Cllr Butt called for councillors to support the scheme that was 'as fair as it can be'.  Rounding on the Opposition benches  he declared, 'It is your government, your  Coalition, your actions that have brought this about, You are taking money from the strivers and strugglers, the vulnerable and the disabled and giving it to the rich. You should stand up and say sorry to the people of Brent.'

In the questions that followed Butt was asked why the scheme assumed a collection rate of 80% rather than 85%. He responded that  the Council had to make a realistic assumption when collecting tax from 24,000 people who had never paid it before. Lib Dem councillor Barry Cheese asked Butt to look again at the levy on young job seekers who were already under pressure with parents who themselves would be hard up. 

Lib Dem leader Paul Lorber asked why an £800,000 buffer had been set aside in a scheme of £5.1m and why reserves weren't used instead. A cushion of 20% was excessive. Butt responded that the buffer was normal prudential action. Lorber said that the reduction of savings allowance to £6,000 from £16,000 was too much and that this was often money put aside for a funeral.

Lorber went on to say that in the briefing that preceded the council meeting they had been told that they had to accept the scheme - there was no alternative.   He put forward amendments that would protect young job seekers for the first 12 months after their first claim, retain the £16,000 savings allowance and  reduce the minimum contribution to Council Tax from 20% to 15%.  Conservative leader Cllr Kansagra repeated his usual 'blame the Labour government' line and suggested that Labour was choosing to hit the poor rather than make the necessary cuts in services. Tory councillor HB Patel made a somewhat incoherent attack on the plans to increase council tax on empty properties and second homes - 'You are taking away money!'

Defending the proposed Council Tax Support scheme Cllr Powney said that the low level of council reserves had been criticised over many years and that the incoming administration had decided to bring them into line with auditors' recommendations. We had to recognise the difficulty in getting the 24,000 to pay up and that the monies available for the scheme would be eroded by inflation in subsequent years. He said that the £6,000 savings threshold had been chosen to be in line with the Coalition's proposals for Universal Benefit and that if he disagreed with it Lorber should the issue up with Sarah Teather and government ministers.

Labour voted down the Lib Dem amendments and the scheme was approved.

The Labour benches were unusually subdued, as were the Lib Dems, and it was clear that Cllr Butt was not the only one 'unsettled' by the measures that were being taken that will, in a few months times, lead to people's lives becoming even more difficult and some families having to choose between food, heating and paying their council tax.

What is even worse is that many of those that will be hit do not yet know what is coming...