Brent meeting on March 14th will call for a General Election to end austerity

Brent Trades Council, Brent Momentum and the People's Assembly will be holding a joint meeting on Thursdy March 14th at the Learie Constantine Community Centre, Dudden Hill calling for a General Election in order to end austerity.  Speakers include Ronnie Draper from the BAFWU, Eddie Dempsey from the RMT, Kiri Tunks from the NEU, Sabby Dhalu from SUR and a speaker from the Peoples Assembly, Dr Aislinn Macklin-Doherty and our very own Cllr Jumbo Chan who will address Brent issues. Obviously each speaker will address one aspect of the fight against austerity-academisation, precarious workers, safety on the railways and the fight against the rise of racism.

The aim is to re-ignite a campaign against austerity and the cuts in Brent.

On Monday Brent Council will make yet another round of cuts transforming many services into a 'reactive model' which means for example, that you don't get litter picked up as a matter of routine but only when you contact the council about it, as well as the closure of children's centres and slashing environmental services.  With 60 out of 63 councillors Labour it will be interesting to see how many vote against the cuts budget.

The People's Assembly Conference back in December 2015 LINK passed a motion (below) calling for high profile resistance to cuts but this was not followed through when the Labour Party said that local councils must make 'legal budgets' and anti-cuts campaigns fizzled out as 'no cuts' budgets would have been declared illegal. Locally the anti-cuts campaign Brent Fightback died a slow death.

Conference calls for

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

Conference therefore resolves to

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

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

3.  Give a platform to, and amplify voice of councillors who vote against all cuts

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

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

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

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

The meeting above will take place after Brent Council's cuts, some of which go into 2020-21 have been approved and implemented. How many of the above demands are still relevant?

Resistance has now become a matter of calling for a General Election before the fixed term date of May 2022. Unfortunately huge damage has already been done to child and adult care,  children's centres, and youth services and the poor have to pay an increasing proportion of rising council taxes. If Parliament runs its full term it will be hard to rebuild services.

Radical solutions to local government financing are required as well as ways of making local councils much more democratic with full involvement of all councillors,  proper scrutiny and links to community organisations and campaigns.

The full list of budget proposals including cuts ('savings') can be found HERE

Last chance to help fund Grunwick40 commemoration

A message from Grunwick40

We've raised over £9,000 so far to commemorate the Grunwick strikers – that brave group of workers who stood up for their rights 40 years ago and inspired a generation, changing the face of trade unions as they did it.

The work on the exhibition has started and the commemorative mural is taking shape with some stunning art being created at the community workshops.

We believe that the Grunwick mural will be the first ever piece of public art to mark the contribution of Asian women in Britain.

The mural is expensive to produce and install but we want to make it as high impact as possible. The Grunwick strikers fought for justice for all workers and now we want to do justice to them with a colourful tribute that is big, bold and celebratory.

We need your donations to help make this happen. 

This is the final week of our crowdfunding campaign and your last chance to get the fantastic rewards when you donate.

Please give whatever you can afford.

We have some exclusive rewards for people who donate including badges, posters, DVDs and rare artwork from the 1970s, so please consider making a personal donation or asking your union branch to make one. Whatever the amount, every £ helps to ensure that the legacy of Grunwick is not lost.

Please make your donation by 12.30pm on Monday 25th April. 

CLICK HERE TO DONATE

Thank you. Yours, Grunwick 40 steering group

PS. Don't forget to spread the word, you can help by forwarding on this email, sharing our facebook posts or retweeting us!

Special Branch files give an insight into Grunwick Strike Day of Action

Arthur Scargill remonstrates with police at Grunwick picket (Homer Sykes Archive)

As preparations continue to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the Grunwick strike LINK fascinating Special Branch and Metropoitan Police files have been released LINK documenting their monitoring of this most political of strikes which included interventions by the Freedom Association and the National Union of Miners.

I well remember the sight of the NUM marching into Willesden on the Day of Action on July 11th 1977 and joining the demonstration in support of the mainly female and mainly Asian strikers. Locally the support of Cricklewood postal workers was vital.

Thanks to the Met you can read all about it!

Mansfield recommends abolition/suspension of Shaping A Healthier Future in a damning critique

The Mansfield Commission's Interim Report into the Shaping A Healthier Future consultation states of the programme that would rsult in the closure of four of the nine acute hospital sites in the North West London area and the loss of Central Middlesex A&E:  

The SaHF programme in our view was a preconceived solution that was imposed on the North West London health system without there being any clear problem that it was designed to solve. 

In particular there was no proper assessment of the needs of the whole area to which the health and social care system would respond.

 The following recommendations are made:

1.     We recommend that the SaHF programme is abolished / suspended, thereby saving a considerable sum at one fell swoop. 


2.     We recommend that an independent review of the North West London health system is undertaken under the auspices of a joint health and local authority initiative that builds its case on a thorough assessment of the needs for health and social care of local populations, at local levels. 


3.     There must be no presumption that so-called ‘reconfiguration’ of acute services is the solution to what may not be a problem at all. 


4.     In addition there must be no presumption that the solution will involve a top-down approach across the whole area as SaHF assumed; there should be an openness to consideration of local solutions possibly at the borough level where these can be shown to work. 


5.     The NHS and local authorities must agree to work together to achieve a joint aim to provide good accessible health and social care to all local populations within a sustainable financial model. 


6.     We recommend that the attempt to close Ealing and Charing Cross hospitals is immediately stopped; that a guarantee is given to sustain acute health services on these sites – with no more double talk from NHS leaders – until the above review is complete and any associated business cases are taken through to Full Business Case level, which is likely to be at least five years. 


7.     We recommend that in the light of current failures in the system in North West London there is an independent review of the emergency system under the auspices of the above joint health and local authority initiative; and that this as a matter of urgency examines the closure of Hammersmith and Central Middlesex A&E departments with a view to opening these, if that is what the review suggests is needed, and what local people want. Local people must be given honest and genuine choices; the opportunity cost of retaining these sites as A&Es must be made apparent. 


8.     We recommend that there is a review of primary care services in the region, and that following this review, immediate steps are taken to rectify any issues. However any investment must be based on a clear business case that relates costs and benefits to changes across the whole system. 


9.     Likewise we recommend that there is a review of OOH services in the region, to establish a clear case if it exists for OOH acting as a way of reducing demand for acute services, and also as a way of reducing total system costs. Following this review, any investment in OOH services must be based on a clear business case that relates costs and benefits to changes across the whole system. 


10.  In the case of changes that take place in primary care and OOH services as a result of the reviews outlined above, there must be a clear business case presented that makes a clear case for system- wide improvement arising out of these changes, and this should be consulted on with the relevant local populations; there should be no assumption that this is the population of the whole of North West London. 

The full report can be read here: 

The commission's final public session will be held at the Brent Civic Centre on Saturday 9 May 9am-5pm. Brent Trades Council and Brent Fightback are among those who have submitted evidence. It would be good to have as many health campaigners as possible at this session. More evidence will be heard

Butt on the rack says "We want to go back to what Labour stands for"

Speaking at an open meeting of Brent Trades Union Council yesterday evening, Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt admitted that some of the decisions the  council had made could have been made more wisely and that things could have been done differently. He said that he wants to take residents' views into account more in the future and that desire had caused some 'push back', which had culminated in the argument with Gareth Daniel.

He said that he wanted to take a detailed look at the council's budget, "How we provide services and why, reviewing every service."  He said that all directly employed council workers would receive the London Living Wage from October 1st  and that the council would be writing to schools to urge them to pay the LLW. He would be meeting with the London Living Wage Foundation to find ways of ensuring all the council's suppliers were London Living Wage compliant. He said that given the current difficult times the council had to do something positive to put money in people's pockets.

Other initiatives were to look at tenancies and how the council could improve standards without increasing rents, extend collective  energy procurement to include residents as well as council buildings and schools, and find ways of strengthening voluntary organisations such as the Credit Union, Private Tenants Group and the Law Centre.

He said, "We want to go back to what Labour stands for and why we are here."

In the discussion Butt was urged to recognise that the Labour Party was much more than just a council, it was part of the labour movement, and thus should be a campaigning  organisation against the capitalist system. He was asked how he was planning to organise a fightback alongside trades unions and the community.

Butt responded, "Me being here is just a start. I am willing to go anywhere, whether to a warm reception or a hostile one, to have a dialogue."

 He said that the Labour Group had appointed a new local organiser who would help get their message across and have a dialogue to move things forward, "We are starting campaigning and need to raise awareness. We want to make that change and if we don't our residents will suffer."

Asked about the budget process and council tax increases and urged to construct a needs budget as a campaigning tool,  he said that with the changes in the consultation system (The Area Consultation Forums have been replaced by Brent Connects) with a member/officer Any Questions type panel there would be more of a dialogue. Council Tax rises of 2.5% and 3.5% had been factored into budget planning but the council were waiting to see what other London councils were doing. The government's announcement of the settlement had been delayed until December but the council wanted an  indication before then. The council were also lobbying the government over the additional 60,000-70,000 extra residents indicated by the latest census which could be worth an additional £4m . This could negate the need for a rise in council tax because the council would only get 65% of the money raised by an increase He indicated that because of the delays the statutory consultation may run out of time.  He invited people to feed specific suggestions and questions into the budget making process.

When others present pursued the issue of making a needs based budget (ie deficit budget)  Cllr Butt said they were looking at campaigning  against the cuts. However, "We can oppose the cuts but budgets have to be set. We wouldn't be doing anyone any favours if the commissioners came in. They would keep only statutory services such as schools and adult social care. We would lose Sports Centres for example. We would land ourselves in more problems by taking that route. Instead we will have a dialogue which may mean working with other London boroughs. If you are asking us to take a lead, we will take a lead."

Outlining the sums the council needed to run services he said that government funding to Brent  was now £152m, was £192m, and by 2016 would be £110m.  Schools and Adult Social Care took £140m of this. The council needed £250m to run services so this total had to be made up from Council Tax and fees and charges.

Another speaker told Butt that a needs budget could not be set in the Town Hall, the council need to go out to voluntary organisations, trades unions and community groups - that was real democracy. He claimed that Labour had "forgotten what democracy looks like". In the absence of a fightback all sorts of rightwing nastiness and racism could arise.

Another speaker returned to the issue asking, "Are you considering a needs budget. It is a good propaganda tool showing what is needed and where the gaps are. Are you considering this or just administering cuts? We can't wait for the next Labour government. We need concrete exmaples of how you are going to fight."

Butt said that he was not ruling out a needs budget which would "show how much we have lost and how much we need". . Muhammed's new political advisor  he would be lobbying the Labour Party over how much cash needs to be put back into local government after the disproportionate cuts it had suffered.

On the issue of Willesden Green Library, raised by three members of the audience, Cllr Butt  said that he had met with Keep Willesden Green campaigners and had passed on their concerns to Galliford Try, planners and the Regeneration Team, and their points will be taken into consideration for the new plans being presented in December.. He said that the old Willesen Library was now being retained and this meant internal redesigns. The council were still looking at 92 private units at the back of the site and this was the only way to fund it.

He was challenged with  the alternative of a small amount of building and refurbishment and the loss of the cinema,  bookshop and car park in the current plans.   The questioner said, "It's like saying I need a new boiler so I will knock my house down! I've heard it called asset stripping."  Butt responded that a lot of the 'stuff' in the 80s building had come to the end of its natural life and the building was unfinished. The cafe and cinema  had closed as a result of not being used. "We need a mini Civic Centre in Willesden so people from this area don't have to travel all the way to Wembley and we need it an no cost to us."

On the plight of the disabled he said that he took the point about how they were being hit and that he was looking at helping them through the Council Tax Support Scheme: "If we have to lobby the government we will do so."

In answer to another questioner about the council's ambivalent attitude to free schools and academies and a possible forced academy in the borough, Butt said that they were a last resort to address the shortage of school places. He said that for free schools the council had set out criteria for partners that would keep the essential principles in terms of admissions, ethos and teachers conditions of service. He was urged to consider federation of schools and extending schools as an alternative.

Asked about the Counihan family, Muhammed Butt said that it was a difficult case. Brent had 18,000 families on the waiting list and only 900 properties available. The council hoped to provide 1,700 affordable properties by 2014. He said the only way  to tackle the problem was through regeneration and Section 106 funds  and the council needed to find developer partners. The situation would be exacerbated by the new Right to Buy scheme which would take out larger properties.

Clr Butt concluded by saying that the council had been rubbished by the press and had to admit it had got its messages wrong: "We need to get better, even if it means starting from scratch."

Pete Firm, chair of Brent TUC said that he felt the council were rolling over in front of developers. Labour seemed to be assuming it was going to win the next election, However, it should not be a matter of voting Labour because the alternatives were worse but Labour putting forward policies that people would be enthusiastic about.