Clement Close – how Council housing began here

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant.

 

Clement Close was the subject of a recent blog, about residents’ opposition to Brent’s proposed in-fill scheme for this Council housing estate. But how did this estate come to be here, surrounded by suburban homes in Brondesbury Park? The answer lies in another time of acute housing shortage.

 

 

Some prefab homes in Clement Way, 1950s. (Photo courtesy of Brent Archives)

 

Even though they were in the middle of a major conflict in 1942, some members of the Churchill’s National Government were thinking ahead to how they would rebuild the country after the war. Housing people whose homes had been destroyed would be a major problem. One solution they came up with was the idea of temporary factory-made houses, and by 1944 local Councils were instructed to consider how many they would need, and where to put them.

 

One of the sites identified in the Borough Engineer’s report to Willesden Council on 15 January 1945 was the playing fields at Okehampton Road, where he thought there would be space for 135 “prefabs”, as they came to be known. The Council ‘noted’ the objections received by residents adjoining the playing fields, to the erection of emergency housing there, at its meeting on 19 February 1945. Despite this, at the end of May 1945 the Council applied for a loan of £31k from the Ministry of Health, for a period of ten years, and accepted tenders from two local companies to prepare a number of sites, including the Okehampton Road playing fields.

 

News of German P-o-Ws clearing a site for prefabs near Roundwood Park.
(From “Willesden Chronicle”, 22 June 1945 – Brent Archives local newspaper microfilms)

 

Because of the shortage of workers, German prisoners of war were used as additional labourers for preparing the sites, and work was underway at Okehampton Road by mid-June 1945. They would have been brought to work by lorry, probably from a large P-o-W camp near Watford. The concrete bases for prefab homes were laid out along a new street, called Clement Road (possibly after the new Labour Prime Minister!), linking Okehampton Road and Milverton Road, and a shorter road called Clement Way which came off of it.

 

The Clement Road prefab estate, from a 1959 O.S. map. (Source: Brent Archives maps collection)

 

There were several varieties of prefabs, and Willesden Council had expressed a preference for the Arcon design. But they had to take what was available, and what the Ministry of Works supplied for Clement Road was a “flat-pack” bungalow, made of timber and chipboard, supplied by America under the wartime Lend Lease agreement. While they had “all mod cons”, they’d been designed as married quarters accommodation for large U.S. Forces bases in the south of that country, so were not ideal for the British climate.

 

An American wooden prefab at 70 Clement Road in the 1960s. (Photo courtesy of Irene Ottaway)

 

 Despite this, the prefabs on the Clement Road estate provided popular homes for around 130 local families, for far more than the ten years they were originally expected to last. As they were made of timber, it’s surprising that only two (as far as I know) were destroyed in house fires – but when a fire took, hold the effects could be devastating. These photos from Clement Road in the 1960s were taken by a schoolboy who lived there. What he did not know at the time was that a baby had died inside this burning prefab.

 

Firemen tackling a blaze at a Clement Road prefab in the 1960s. (Courtesy of, and © Brian Aris)

 

Families on the estate were gradually being rehoused into permanent Council homes, but as late as 1962, some were being relet to other families in housing need. Eventually, the prefabs at the northern end of the site were cleared, and the permanent Council homes of what was to be called Clement Close were built in the 1960s.

 

 

Mrs Maisey, in the back garden of her Clement Road prefab in the late 1960s,
with Clement Close homes in the background. (Courtesy of Irene Ottaway)

 

The Clement Road and Clement Way prefabs were finally removed by the early 1970s. Most of the Okehampton Road playing fields, which Willesden Council had requisitioned for post-war emergency housing in 1945, returned to their original use, but this time as additional grounds for the adjacent secondary school (now Queens Park Community College). The northern end, accessed from Milverton Road, was kept for Council housing, as Clement Close.

 

Philip Grant.

 

(With thanks to the former residents of the Clement Road prefab estate, who shared their stories and photographs with the Brent Archives “Prefabs Project” in 2011.)

 

Editor's Note:

If you are interested in the extent of the bombing locally during the London Blitz (7th October 1940 to 6th June 1941) that led to the destruction of many homes go to this interactive site. The information goes to street level.

Where was “The Beggars Roost”? – a Wembley mystery

Many thanks to Philip Grant for this fascinating guest blog. My late older brother, David, had a lifelong passion for motorbikes that probably started with the 'Wembley Lions.

 

You were probably living in Wembley during the Second World War, more than seventy years ago, or have talked to someone who was, if you can answer this question. But even if neither applies to you, you may still be interested to know why I am asking.

I deal with email local history enquiries on behalf of Wembley History Society, and they sometimes set some fascinating puzzles. One arrived recently from a lady in the United States. She was looking around a Goodwill store (charity shop), and saw a very attractive coat of arms, hand-painted on a wooden plaque. She bought it, took it home, and then began to wonder what it was, and the story behind it.

The name “Wembley” was almost certainly a place, and she found out that the letters “ARP” stood for Air Raid Precautions, in Britain during the Second World War. By searching online, she discovered that there was someone she could contact who might know more about the history of Wembley at that time, so she sent me a photo of her plaque.

A.R.P. Post 12 Plaque, from Cheryl Hutton

 I have no doubt that this home-made coat of arms came from “our” Wembley, as the lion in the top right quarter is copied from the badge of the “Wembley Lions” motorcycle speedway team. They were based at Wembley Stadium, and were hugely popular during the 1930’s, when they were national champions several times. 
 

The blue and yellow quarter below it shows an air raid warden’s helmet, gas mask and rattle, so there can be little doubt that the plaque was first made for, and probably displayed at, ARP Post 12, in Sector 8 / 9 of the Borough of Wembley. But where was this, and why did the wardens call their base ‘the Beggars Roost”? Is the chicken (or “rooster”) a clue, and who is the beggar above it on the plaque? I don’t know, and would certainly welcome any information that readers, or anyone they can forward this article to who might be able to help, could provide.

Eighty years ago the Borough of Wembley was a separate local government area, with a population of just over 100,000 people. Even before the war, the local Council was making A.R.P plans, and starting to build public air raid shelters, in response to the threat from Germany. After war broke out, a full-scale air raid wardens service was mobilised, which at its height had 2,500 wardens, 95% of them unpaid volunteers. 

I know, from an elderly neighbour (the son of a warden), that the A.R.P. post for our 1930's-built estate was in the requisitioned garage of a local bungalow. His father was one of the first on the scene when a German "parachute mine" hit a row of shops in Kingsbury Road one night in September 1940, killing two mothers, a baby boy and a seven year old girl, in the flats above. This is an official "war damage" photo of the scene, taken the following day, which shows the sort of event that the wardens had to deal with (thankfully, not too often!).

Bombed shops and flats in Kingsbury Road, 1940

As well as the A.R.P. wardens, first aid and rescue teams were also organised. After the bombing raids started in earnest, in August 1940, nearly all civilians had to undertake "fire watching" duties (around 7,500 of the c. 9,000 bombs which fell in the Wembley area between 1940 and 1945 were incendiaries), so around 25,000 Wembley people in total were engaged in some form of Civil Defence work during the war. The Borough lost 149 civilians killed in air raids, including several A.R.P. wardens, with over 400 more seriously injured.

The “Beggars Roost” plaque, which somehow found its way to the U.S.A. after the war, is a reminder that the bombing of civilians, horrible as it is, is not just something that happens in far-away places like Syria or Yemen. It happened in Wembley as well, and the volunteer men and women of A.R.P. Post 12, and others like it, did their best to protect their neighbours from such atrocities. I hope that, perhaps with your help, I can find out more about them.

Philip Grant.

Shahrar Ali: It's not about Corbyn or Caroline - it's about Cameron's War

Shahrar Ali, Deputy Leader of the Green Party, speaking at 'Stop Bombing Syria' Downing Street demonstration yesterday.

What her constituents are telling Dawn Butler on Syria bombings

As anti-war demonstrators throng outside Labour Party HQ and Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn put their respective views to Channel 4 News on tomorrow's bombing vote it is worth looking at what Brent Central constituents have told Dawn Butler MP on her website survey.  The contributions appear to be running strongly against voting for bombing Syria.

Here are a few of the (unedited) comments from the 18 pages of comments on Dawn Butler's website LINK. Italics denote a new contribution:

The terrible attacks which took place in Paris are being presented as a rationale for bombing. Yet there is no evidence that further bombing will defeat ISIS, and there is much evidence that it can make the situation worse.

We should consider that air strikes in Syria have been going on for more than a year now, carried out by a coalition led by the US. In that time, ISIS has maintained and even increased its size, despite a large number of its members being killed. In addition, most members of the coalition have effectively ended military action. None of the regional states is at present involved, Canada has pulled out and Australia has suspended its bombing. Only France, the US and Russia are currently involved in attacks.

The shooting down of a Russian plane by Turkey underlines the danger of the situation escalating out of control. This is not a time to start further military action.

We should also reflect on the consequences of previous such interventions. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya continue, and terrorism has increased in all those countries, and many more, in the 14 years since they began.

Two years ago, Cameron lost a House of Commons vote to bomb Syria. Then he wanted to bomb Assad’s forces, but today he wants to bomb ISIS. The truth is that further bombing will do nothing to help the people of Syria. ISIS is a product of war, and has been helped to grow by Western allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

There is no comprehensive and clear EU plan in place to provide humanitarian assistance to the large number of refugees which will result from further bombing. In fact, the EU refugee plan is unravelling and the approach to refugees is highly fragmented. Nor is there a clear and unambiguous UN authorisation for the bombing of Syria.

Plans for military action are not subordinated to diplomatic efforts, but instead largely replace them. Also, it is not in practice possible to direct attacks solely at military targets. Evidence suggests that around 90% of drone strike victims are unintended casualties.

It is important that we learn from history. It is now widely accepted that Western interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have had disastrous consequences. There is no reason to think that Syria will be any different.

 I am not satisfied that there is any evidence that bombing will destroy ISIS; I believe that there is a stronger case that it will harm innocent Syrians more than ISIS. Furthermore, there is no system in place to help Syria re-build, as Assad is terrorising his own people.

 The intervention proposed – to add the UK’s specialised bombing capabilities to the US, which has been bombing Raqqa for months, and France, which has also recently bombed “command and control facilities”, “weapons depots”, “training camps” etc in Raqqa is retrogressive, learns nothing from failed ventures in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and just adds to the sum of total misery faced by civilians there. Just how many “command and control centres” can there be in Raqqa and how is it the US and French etc are so poor in “degrading” them???
Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been financing ISIL and offshoots of Al Qaida for years, but because monopoly capital here has too lucrative a relationship with the Gulf states, nothing would ever be done to destabilize that and they are allowed to continue unchallenged. Nor to upset Binyamin Netanyahu, ISIL’s chief recruiting sergeant in the Middle East.
The hypocrisy of Cameron and his cohorts is staggering.
There may well be a case for providing logistical and other support to existing fighters opposing ISIL, such as the Peshmerga in Kobane or the Yazidis in Sinjar, but bombing civilian populations or hoping to annihilate ISIL from the air is macho posturing of the “we must do something” school.

 I believe the root of the problem in Syria is Assad and that once he is removed, the people of Syria will be able to deal with ISIS. Their is no strategy to remove Assad, so no clear strategy on how to deal with the problem. Everybody seems to be aware that bombing will not bring about a solution and that ground troops are needed, yet this is not being proposed by the GOvt. In addition, the amount of bombing missions Britain can perform is negligible and will have very little military impact as a result, it is therefore morally unjustifiable given the almost certain likelihood of death to civilians.

 Islamic State represent an extreme and violent ideology which must be confronted. They will not be interested in any compromise, as they are directly opposed to everything about our way of life. It is vital that we join the international coalition and extend our action in Iraq to Syria too, as this is their main powerbase. The more we delay the confrontation, the harder it will be. The Labour Party has a proud history of standing strong against tyranny, and in this generation the fight is against the jihadist ideology. We must stand firm.

 I’m not a pacifist, so can consider military action as necessary. I am not sure bombing of Syria will be effective and stop Isis. To me it is slightly cowardly because the west is not prepared to put soldiers on the ground to help in the battle. More to the point does the west have a clear strategy once Isis is defeated? History suggests not. A vague idea to replace Assad is not good enough and a constant demand for free elections is a good idea but the west has to accept that elections don’t always go your way. 

To me the only way Isis will be defeated is by a ground war, supported by air power, a clear mandate from the UN, and a clear strategy for occupation, rebuilding and economic investment, and exit.
Finally the government has to say how it will pay for any military action. The history of government over the last 50 years is that we have wars but will not raise taxes to pay for them. I think a lot of people will take a penny on income tax if it increases our security.

 The terrible attacks which took place in Paris are being presented as a rationale for bombing. Yet there is no evidence that further bombing will defeat ISIS, and there is much evidence that it can make the situation worse.

We should consider that air strikes in Syria have been going on for more than a year now, carried out by a coalition led by the US. In that time, ISIS has maintained and even increased its size, despite a large number of its members being killed. In addition, most members of the coalition have effectively ended military action. None of the regional states is at present involved, Canada has pulled out and Australia has suspended its bombing. Only France, the US and Russia are currently involved in attacks.

The shooting down of a Russian plane by Turkey underlines the danger of the situation escalating out of control. This is not a time to start further military action.

 I was encouraged to read in the Kilburn Times that you are minded to vote against extending military action in Syria and I urge you to vote against the Prime Minister’s proposals.
I am sure that many people in Brent recognise that bombing Syria will recruit more young people to ISIS and increase the possibility of retaliatory action in the UK. It will also cause more people to flee their destroyed homes and country.
I hope you will have the opportunity to urge the government to learn from our interventions in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan and press them to work to strengthen those international institutions which contribute to peace.

 1. Bombing countries kills and displaces civilians, destroys the infrastructure, damages the mental health of all involved leading to fear and hate.
2. With so much emphasis on intelligence agencies mass surveillance, there should be a worldwide sharing of information to map out sources of funding for Isis, arms suppliers, customers buying oil from Isis in order take away/block funding, supplies, ability to sell oil and recruit.
3. Block ISIS’s communication channels, delete existing videos, photos, stop them communicating via Internet/satellite and mobile technology.
4. Focus on negotiated settlements between government and rebels. External supporters of government and rebel forces ( USA, Russia, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Iran etc ) will need to let go of their own financial/power agendas and priotise fate of civilians.
5. There should be effective mechanisms in place hold media corporations (including the BBC) and individual journalists to account when they spread misinformation leading to hatred, fear and confusion. If there is evidence pointing to countries providing support to ISIS, having agendas for regim change, selling weapons, buying oil etc public should be made aware of it. There should be more coverage of unfolding human tragedy (refugees camps, refugees drowning in the Mediterranean, civian deaths in Syria as a result of all the bombing)
6. Information should be released to public regarding:
i)legality of bombing the Syrian government, providing support to, training, arming rebel groups that oppose the government. Are international laws being broken? What is the UN position.
ii)legal position with respect to action against ISIS in Syria, can anyone go and start bombing Isis in Syrian territory because they are worried about the Isis threat to their own country or people? Does America/France have a legal right to bomb Syria, do we, UK have a legal right to join them? Who else has this right?. I am assuming Russia does have a legal right to be there as they were invited in by government?
I ii)Where did ISIS come from, who are they, are they the result of action in the region(Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt). Would removing Assad from power have an impact on support for ISIS?
iv) who are producing/dealing the weapons being used? What roles are being played by those with financial links to arms producers and dealers in this conflict.
v)What are the views of Syrian people? Has anyone bothered to ask those left in the country and the millions displaced across the world.
7. Why has America and France been so heavily involved in this conflict for so many years? Were they fighting Syrian government or ISIS? What led to Russian involvement? Who in the region are involved – why and how? If those involved in bombing are only doing so to help Syrian people, doesn’t any other countries want to join in. How much money is being spent on this conflict – where is the money coming from? Why isn’t there enough money to help feed/support/look after civillians caught up in the conflict – but everyone seems to have plenty of funds to bomb and attack Assad and ISIL.
8. People should be supplied with unbiased facts and evidence. Governments should take views of civilian population into account before entering into military action/war.

 Bombing certain geographic locations will cause great loss of civilian lives and only provide more breeding ground for this terrorist group. IS is not a simple target that can be located in Syria. Instead the terrorist attacks of the last decade and a half have demonstrated that IS has infiltrated our society. Political intervention needs to continue and at a faster pace, not senseless bombing to give the illusion that politicians can protect the public in this way. Bombs are a blunt measure when we need these finances to go to different causes: intelligence to cut off IS funds as well as their weapon, oil and human trade, education to show an alternative, and creating a sustainable economy that will make joining IS unattractive.

Brent Central constituents have really risen to the occasion with many thoughtful comments. It is an exercise in democracy that should not be a one-off. 

Lucas: 'Burning desire to act' must not ignore consequences of recent interventions

Caroline Lucas has published a piece on Huffington Post stating that she will not vote for bombing Syria LINK.

This is a key extract:

It's critical that the burning desire to act, to stop terrorists and keep us all safe, doesn't result in an approach that ignores the evidence of our recent interventions in the region - or their consequences. The civilian death count from the Iraq war and its aftermath is at least 147,000 and, according to Barack Obama, the resulting instability laid the ground for the rise of Isis. Post-Gadaffi Libya, which also has British fingerprints all over it, is witnessing Isis forces gaining power too. Isis thrives in the chaos brought about by Western intervention, which is why the unintended consequences of the 'War on Terror' must serve as a stark warning to anyone thinking of supporting airstrikes in Syria.

But let's be clear: the choice we're facing is not between military intervention and inaction. The Government can and should play a role in brokering peace and stability in the region. The Prime Minister could start by redoubling his commendable efforts to find an urgent diplomatic solution. Given that Isis flourishes where chaos reigns, renewed effort needs to be made to end the Syrian civil war The talks in Vienna are a start, but the process must be accelerated and continue to involve all proxies to the war. That diplomatic effort must also extend to Iraq, where the Abadi Government must be encouraged to reach out to the neglected Sunni minority - especially in those parts of the country where Isis is recruiting.

The British Government should also immediately suspend British arms sales to the Middle East and commit to a foreign policy that is consistent as well as ethical, particularly when it comes to our relations with countries that undermine human rights.

Updated: No support for bombing Syria at Barry Gardiner's meeting with constituents

Barry Gardiner with Jeremy Corbyn on Saturday's Climate March

In a 20 minute cogent presentation in a North Wembley church hall last night, Barry Gardiner set out his thinking on the Syria air strikes issue. He said that he was not a pacifist and that sometimes military action was justified. He had voted for the Iraq war but later went on to criticise the lack of an exit strategy, was one of only 13 MPs who opposed the bombing of Libya, and had helped persuade a change of policy by Ed Miliband's Labour Shadow Cabinet on the earlier Syria intervention mandate.

Gardiner said that he had a duty to constituents to consider whether an extension of existing UK military intervention would be counterproductive.  He considered the legal basis for intervention on the basis of a request by a state to intervene in their defence. Assad had not made such a request. The British Government had recognised the opposition as the sole representative of the Syrian people.

He discussed whether the  'Self Defence' criterion under Section 51 of the UN Convention was met. Action has to be necessary and proportionate and demonstrated by the 'overwhelming  necessity' for force to be used.

Finally in discussing UN Security Council Resolution 2249 which states that ISIS 'a global and unprecedented threat' to global security' and calls on member states who have the capacity to take action against them, he concluded that it was not credible to argue that there is no legal basis for UK government action. However, the question was whether it was right to do so.

Countering David Cameron's argument that air strikes on Syria would add capacity to the campaign against ISIS , Gardiner said that the same amount of assets would be deployed but now deployed in Syria as well.  It would not amount to a 'significant' military contribution and according to experts was not a 'war winning campaign' by any stretch of the imagination.

British expansion of the existing intervention in the region may feed radicalisation and do more harm than good.

Explaining that he preferred to use the term Daesh LINK rather than Islamic State, as the latter gave the organisation credibility as a 'state' and illegitimately appropriated Islam as a whole, he suggested that bombing bombing might kill many innocent people without significantly harming Daesh.

A cartoon shared widely over the weekend

Gardiner argued that without ground forces the Government's position was one of 'more hope than intent'. Discussing the current forces on the ground in Syria he said that the US had given up trying to train them and were now concentrating on supplying weapons and ammunition. 'A foolish approach' considering the disparate forces involved.

Cameron's suggestion that there was a 'moderate opposition' numbering thousands was a 'falsification of facts'. There were thousands of fighting forces under arms with different aims and rapidly shifting
alliances.  According the the Select Committee Report  so called 'moderates' had been squeezed out.

 Gardiner suggested that British troops could join a multi-national ground force co-ordinated by thw UN but only in tandem with a diplomatic strategy.

Rather than extending existing action the Government should be contributing to a diplomatic resolution of the conflict through the Vienna Conference.

In discussion, although recognising the legacy of Colonialism and Imperialism, Gardiner denounced as 'infantalism' the argument that history justified Daesh's murderous actions.  Challenged on whether, if the Government came up with a more plausible strategy, he would come back to consult constituents in another meeting, Gardiner said that an MP was not a delegate, and a church hall of people was not necessarily representative of all constituents.  He would read all the reports that constituents were unlikely to have time to read, weight the evidence and reach a judgement which he felt was in all constituents best interests.

On the question of whipping Gardiner said that he would not deserve to be MP for Brent North if he did not follow his conscience on such an important issue rather than the party line.

Responding to a question on the funding and arming of Daesh, Barry Gardiner said that the UK's relationship with Saudi Arabia needed to be rethought in the context of its export of its philosophy throughout the region. He said that Britain's involvement in the arms trade was a continuing problem, complicated by the fact that many jobs depended on it, but also needing to be tackled.

When discussion turned to what happened in Brent, Gardiner said that many in the Muslim community felt threatened by media coverage of the conflict. Leading figures in that community who spoke out powerfully against Daesh should be supported. We were fortunate that Brent is such a mixed community that no one group feels they can dominate.  He said that Labour had been critical of the Government's Prevent programme. It was a top down model rather than the bottom up approach that could harness forces at a community level. The thought that adolescent youth, at a stage in life when they were searching for their own identity,  could be inculcated with 'British values' was laughable. He was unable to attend the December 10th Prevent: Protectng Our Liberty?  meeting at the Interfaith Centre in Queen's Park because he would still be in Paris for the climate talks, but he welcomed the initiative.

No one at the meeting spoke in favour of the Government policy, or the approach of some in the Shadow Cabinet.  One woman who had been worried about what the 'French and Belgians would think of us if we did not support them' said that she had changed her mind during the course of the discussion.

The most moving speech of the evening was from an 8 year old girl who spoke eloquently about the bombing killing innocent people: 'It isn't right that some innocent people will be killed because of some bad people.'

Radio 4 Today report on the meeting is at 1.50 here LINK

Full transcript of Barry Gardiner's presenattion at the meeting HERE

The Green Party's Shahrar Ali calls on Labour MPs to support Corbyn and vote against bombing of Syria

Shahrar Ali spoke for the Green Party and thousands of others at Downing Street today when he called on Labour MP's to support Jermey Corbyn and vote against the Government's plans to bomb Syria.

On Thursday Hampstead and Kilburn Constuency Labour Party passed the following resolution:

“This meeting of Hampstead & Kilburn CLP opposes the move to authorise the bombing of Syria, gives its support to the Party leader in this and encourages our MP and the whole of the PLP to vote against should the Prime Minister bring the issue to a vote.”

There were 35 to 40 people present and the motion was passed with none against and 8 abstentions.

Vote NO to British airstrikes in Syria - join the demonstration today

DON'T BOMB SYRIA DEMONSTRATION SATURDAY NOVEMBER 28TH 

12-2PM DOWNING STREET

Next week MPs are likely to vote on whether the UK should carry out airstrikes on ISIS in Syria. The Green Party stands united on this issue – dropping bombs is not the answer.

Sign this petition urging MPs to vote against British bombing in Syria: http://bit.ly/1Ncy6WK

We cannot ignore recent history and the consequences of our previous military intervention in the Middle East. The government has not given clear answers to questions over how British airstrikes in Syria will increase our security here in Britain or help bring about peace in the region.

Instead of escalated military invention we need to step up our diplomatic efforts to choke off ISIS's finances, weapons, and recruitment. We should also suspend British arms sales to the Middle East and keep to our commitment on taking in Syrian refugees.

 If you'd like to know more about why we're against bombing Syria Caroline Lucas was on BBC PM yesterday explaining why she'll be voting no, you can listen to that here: https://t.co/RjTe5rd8XV (about 39 minutes in).

There is a protest tomorrow in London where Shahrar Ali Deputy Leader Green Party will be speaking. Details here, feel free to share details of local events also: https://www.facebook.com/events/1520504624933948/

Barry Gardiner to hold Sunday public meeting on Syria bombing proposal after claiming PM's position 'flawed'

The Brent and Kilburn Times LINK reports that Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent North, has organised a meeting on Sunday to hear constituents' views on the Government's proposal on the bombing of Syria.

The meeting is at 7.30pm on Sunday afternoon  at St Cuthbert's Church, Carlton Avenue West, North Wembley  Directions LINK

Barry Gardiner told the Kilburn Times:

I challenged [the Prime Minister] on his plans because I don’t believe he has yet justified them.

I still feel his position is flawed and don’t believe important questions have been adequately answered.

Any course of action must, in my view, improve the situation for people in Syria and protect Britain from the threat of terror.

I don’t believe anyone wants to see troops on the ground but air strikes alone will not be effective – and we have not been presented with a viable alternative.

So, as it stands, I am not prepared to support the prime minister’s proposals.

This is such a critical issue and decisions we make have the potential to impact so many lives – that I think it is only right to hold a public meeting to listen to the views of my constituents.

Tulip Siddiq outlines her concerns on Syria bombing

Tulip Siddiq, Labour MP for Hampstead and Kilburn has set out her views on Syria in a detailed letter to a constituent. I reproduce it below. I have offered, via Twitter, Barry Gardiner MP Labour, Brent North, an opportunity to put his views but have heard nothing back so far:

-->

I am writing in response to your email about the ongoing conflict in Syria, and in particular whether the UK should extend its air strikes against ISIL into the region. I appreciate the gravity of this issue, not least given Britain’s history of military conflict in the Middle East, so I hope you will forgive a substantive response reflecting the broad concerns you have raised.

To give some important background, the humanitarian impact of the ongoing conflict in Syria has been catastrophic. Various estimates suggest that since the civil war began in 2011, some 210,000-320,000 people have been killed, some 7.6 million have been internally displaced within Syria, and a further 3.9 million have fled the country as refugees. This is the worst humanitarian crisis in decades, and it is clear that many factions in this conflict,  not least the Assad regime, are guilty of war crimes.

This is now a complex and fast-developing conflict involving a range of internal factions, each of which have support from various external actors. At present, reports suggest that Assad’s grip on the country is weakening. He has lost control of half his territory, having ceded lands in the west to Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups; in the north to more moderate opposition groups; and in the east to ISIL, who declared a Caliphate stretching from Syria to Iraq in June 2014. No longer able to draw revenues from Syrian oil fields, his regime has become dependent on financial support from Iran and Russia; and Shi’ite Hezbollah militant groups and Iranian Revolutionary Guards appear to be becoming increasingly influential in his army. Regrettably, the recent involvement of Russia, who are now launching air strikes against all of Assad’s enemies, even moderate rebels, looks set to bolster his regime, increase the death toll and, ultimately, prolong this bloody conflict even further.

As you will know, in August 2013, following the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, there was a push on the part of the British Prime Minister and the US to launch air strikes to support rebel groups in the country. There were two important Commons votes on military intervention in Syria. Although I was not an MP at the time, I would have voted against these two motions. Whilst the US did ultimately initiate a programme of air strikes in Syria, I was glad when Labour MPs joined with backbench Conservatives and Lib Dems to ensure, against the wishes of the then-Coalition Government, that the UK did not participate in these operations. Incidentally, I also personally marched against the Iraq War back in 2003. I remain mindful to this day of the tragic effects that this war has had on the people in the region.

Since the vote in 2013, the situation has developed even further. ISIL has emerged as a formidable and dangerous force in both Syria and Iraq, and indeed in September 2014, Parliament voted in support of a targeted international bombing campaign in Iraq to fight ISIL forces, in support of Kurdish forces and the incumbent Iraqi government. Reports from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) also suggest that the Assad regime has continued its use of chemical weapons, launching chlorine attacks in Syrian villages; and has also withheld a portion of its chemical weapons stockpile, failing to report it to the OPCW. Efforts to broker a peaceful settlement at the Geneva II peace conference in February last year have also failed, in no small part because of al-Assad’s intransigence.

In the House of Commons in July 2015, in light of the continued conflict, the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon MP suggested that Britain might consider extending its air strikes against ISIS to Syria, joining the existing US operation there. Thankfully, the Defence Secretary has confirmed that should the Government decide to push for military action again, there would have to be another Parliamentary vote. Although the Prime Minister went back on this plan some months afterwards, with the recent tragic terrorist attacks in Paris, it looks like there may soon be another vote on this matter.

Were a Parliamentary vote indeed to take place, I appreciate that I would have a very significant decision to make as your MP, and I thank you for taking the effort to raise your concerns with me ahead of this. Personally, I am concerned about some of the rhetoric people have been using in support of intervention, and I will be pressing the Government to explain more clearly their rationale for further military action. I have four main concerns, which I have outlined below.

Firstly, I feel that neither the Government nor some in the press quite appreciate the complexity of this conflict, and how the situation has changed since the Parliamentary vote of August 2013. Indeed, in my view, subsequent events have entirely vindicated the cautious, multi-lateral approach of Parliamentarians during the vote in 2013. MPs at the time highlighted the difficulty in distinguishing between moderate and extremist rebel groups, and warned that bombing strikes could intensify the conflict, the later emergence of ISIL as a key force in the region only confirms this. Indeed, it is curious that the renewed calls for air strikes are being justified on the basis of a need to combat ISIL even though, in 2013, the target was the Assad regime, the Government have refused to acknowledge this, and many Ministers are conducting themselves as if we are to simply repeat the vote of two years ago.

Secondly, and linked with this, I disagree with the attempts of some Ministers and others to conflate this issue with the ongoing refugee crisis. Military intervention against ISIL would not solve the refugee crisis, if it could, it would have do already, as the US and others have been bombing Syria since August 2014. Furthermore, the bulk of the displaced people in Syria are the result of Assad’s attacks and not those of ISIL bombing ISIL forces will do little to address this problem. Regrettably, scant regard is also being given to the fact that as significant as Syrian refugees are in the ongoing refugee crisis, they are not the only source of refugees: last year, Britain accepted more asylum applications from Eritrea and Pakistan than it did from Syria.

Thirdly, any action that is taken in Syria must be multi-lateral, and pursued at a UN Level. I agree with Labour Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn MP’s calls for a UN Security Council resolution on Syria. He is also right, inclusive in this resolution, to push for the referral of suspected war crimes to the International Criminal Court,  this should include Assad. As a way of resolving this bloody conflict, I support the formation of a unity Government in Syria comprising more moderate factions in the country.  It is clear from their gruesome conduct that neither ISIL nor Assad himself can play a part in this negotiated solution. But the only way to secure this is if we work with our UN partners to achieve it, and Hilary Benn was right to call on the Prime Minister to push for this at the recent UN General Assembly meeting in New York.

Finally, there is an important humanitarian element to the conflict in Syria, and I do not feel that enough is being done to help those who should be the key focus of our concern: the innocent Syrian civilians themselves. Whether they are still in Syria, have been forced to neighbouring states by war or have made the treacherous journey into Europe, they are deserving our help. I disagree with the Prime Minister’s decision to opt-out of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees programme to help the refugees in Syria, and also his decision to deny help to those refugees already in Europe. I have written him a letter calling on him to reverse his position on these twin issues. Hillary Benn MP was also right to call, as part of the UN resolution, for the establishment of Safe Zones within Syria to shelter those displaced by war and relieve the pressures on refugees.

Please be assured, therefore, that I will continue to monitor this situation closely and update you on future developments. I will press the Government on the need for humanitarian aid and a negotiated, multi-lateral solution to the conflict in Syria, and challenge Ministers and others on some of the points they have made in justifying military action. I also remain ever mindful both of the consequences of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, and also the points raised by Parliamentarians at the important vote in August 2013.

Thank you again for contacting me regarding this issue, and do not hesitate to get in touch should you have any further queries or issues.

Best wishes,

Tulip Siddiq MP

Don't bomb Syria - weaken ISIS by cutting off its funds and arms supplies

I am publishing this letter to Dawn Butler from local activist Sarah Cox as a Guest Blog in the light of Dawn Butler's call for constituents to give her their views on the bombing of Syria. Butler's poll is HERE

 I have just sent this email to Dawn Butler. Please email her too. You can do it through the Stop the War Coalition website Home or write your own email LINK
 
Dear Dawn Butler,

Thank you for your very thoughtful reply to my previous email to you about the possibility of Britain joining in the bombing of Syria. I would like to ask you to consider again how dangerous and indeed counterproductive such a course of action would be.

I am sure you agree that policy decisions should be evidence based, not the result of knee jerk reactions or simply about this country's position in the world, so I am asking you to consider the following facts:

The US has been bombing ISIS positions for a year now and far from reducing the number of ISIS fighters or the area of land they control, both have increased. In fact it has been argued by some Middle East experts that US bombs act as recruiting agents for ISIS.

The bombing and invasion of Iraq did not bring peace and stability to that country, in fact ISIS was born out of the divisions in Iraqi society introduced by the US sponsored Iraqi government.
The bombing and occupation of Afghanistan have not brought peace or stability to that country, nor did NATO forces succeed in their stated aim of eliminating the Taliban, which still controls large parts of the country.

Allied bombing of Libya has not brought peace or stability to that country, in fact it has resulted in the creation of a chaotic failed state in which ISIS is able to recruit and organise.

Only today we learn that Turkish forces have shot down a Russian plane, claiming it was over Turkish airspace, while Russia insists it had not left Syrian airspace. How sensible is it to send more planes into the already crowded airspace over ISIS positions in Syria?

There are up to six million civilians living in the areas under ISIS control. Do you seriously believe that US, French, Australian, Jordanian, Russian and, if this country joins in, British bombs can distinguish between innocent civilians and ISIS supporters any more than the bombs dropped on Dresden (arguably a war crime by today's standards) did between Nazis and ordinary people suffering under Nazi rule?

Can there be any justification for dropping bombs on ISIS because they behead and inflict other barbarous punishments on the people in the areas they control, while continuing to supply arms to Saudi Arabia and other states which also behead and inflict barbarous punishments on people living in their countries? Saudi Arabia does behead people publicly, contrary to what David Cameron says, earlier this year they advertised for eight more executioners and recently sentenced a Sri Lankan woman domestic worker to be stoned to death, yet Britain regards Saudi Arabia, which arms and supports ISIS as a friend and ally.

Surely Jeremy Corbyn is right to say that the priority must be to cut off funding, support and arms supplies to ISIS and to seek a political solution to the immensely complex situation in Syria?

As for the threat of terrorist attacks in this country, I believe that indiscriminate bombing and increasing Western intervention in the Middle East make these more likely and that cuts to police funding will make us less safe. At the same time, a climate of rising Islamophobia, cuts to youth services and policies like the Prevent strategy that seek to silence debate about foreign policy or issues like Palestine could increase disaffection among young Muslims.

Thank you for taking the time  to read this. Please vote against further bombing of Syria and support policies that weaken ISIS by decreasing or stopping its funding and its arms supplies.

Yours sincerely,
Sarah Cox

Dawn Butler asks for constituents view on bombing Syria & reminder of Tulip Siddiq's stance

This has appeared on Dawn Butler's website:

You can find the above poll HERE

Here is a reminder of what Tulip Siddiq said during the General Election campaign:

Greens to take to the streets over Gaza on Saturday - 'End military co-operation with Israel'

A child outside the Israeli Embassy on Friday

The Green Party will have a strong presence at the national demonstration for Gaza taking place in London on Saturday, August 9th LINK

Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett said:

It is important that maximum pressure possible is put on Israel to end the bloodshed that has claimed more than 1,800 Palestinian lives, at least 80% of them civilians.

Gaza has been subjected to 28 days of vicious, deadly bombardment, its people living in fear and almost unimaginable stress and pressure. The medical system is close to breaking down, essential infrastructure has been smashed, and, as the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has said LINK , its institutions have been subjected to ‘criminal acts’.

Everyone on the streets in London and around the world on Saturday will be contributing to the growing international pressure for not just a effective ceasefire, but for the commencement of negotiations towards a permanent peace. We cannot allow this cycle of violence to continue.

 Derek Wall, International Coordinator of the Green Party of England and Wales, said:

The Green Party opposes the continuing destruction of Gaza by Israel; the huge loss of civilian life increasingly resembles collective punishment. A long-term settlement based on justice and promoting peace is vital.

Prime Minister David Cameron's one sided support for Israel enables the wave of killings to continue. We must all make our voices heard this Saturday to show that British people oppose this war. 

The Green Party is calling for the UK government to cease all military co-operation with Israel LINK.

Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, who has deplored LINK both Israeli incursions into Gaza and Hamas’ rocket attacks on Israel, has written to Cameron and Foreign Minister Philip 
Hammond to voice concerns over the UK Government's arms sales to Israel.

Reports suggesting that weapons containing components made in the UK are being used against Gaza - including weapons control and targeting systems, ammunition, drones and armoured vehicles - raise serious questions about the UK Government's complicity with the Israeli authorities.

The Government's failure to condemn Israel's actions is irresponsible enough; but recent evidence from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade suggesting that it has been continuing to arm Israel is nothing short of scandalous.

Over the past three weeks, London has held the biggest demonstrations for Gaza in the world, twice mobilising over 50,000 protesters. This Saturday’s demo promises to be the largest to date.

Note: Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity and Brent Stop the War will be attending the demonstration on Saturday along with many local activists

Sponsor Willesden to Wales cycle ride for Gaza medical aid funds

As the news from Gaza becomes every grimmer, a group of cyclists from Willesden have got together to organise a sponsored cycle ride from Willesden to Wales to raise funds for Medical Aid for Palestine.

Sponsorship is welcome from anyone who wishes to help those in Gaza injured by daily bombings and mortar fire. Hospitals are struggling with insufficient equipment and medical supplies, now often without power following the attacks.

Go to http://www.redmagic.co.uk/content/cycling-wales or give directly at http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/cyclemap

Jon Snow and Michael Rosen speak out for the children of Gaza

Jon Snow speaks about the Children of Gaza on returning home from reporting the onslaught

Michael Rosen read his poem 'Don't Name the Dead Children' at today's Rally for Gaza


followed by 'Then what?'