Support these vital trade union motions at Green Party Conference

Please support these motions at Green Party Conference

A homogeneous Green Party leadership?

The possible new Green Party leadership trio

The results of the Green Party leadership will be announced at the Green Party Conference in Birmingham today and I am 99% sure that Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley will be crowned as the new co-leaders of the party.

Party rules mean that there will therefore be only one deputy leader.  In many ways the deputy leadership contest was more interesting than the leader contest with a wider field of candidates in terms of ethnicity and class.

The front runners for deputy are the incumbents Amelia Womack and Shahrar Ali. Womack rose up through the Young Greens and Ali was the first BME deputy leader of a British political party.

Only one can become deputy if Lucas-Bartley wins the leadership as Womack pointed out at the Cardiff hustings:

'I also see, as many of you might realise, if job share wins the leadership there will only be one deputy leader. And I'd like to see the money that goes for two deputy leaders at the moment - if that does happen then that money goes towards payment for the leader of Wales Green Party..'

Some observers see that as possibly inadvertently infringing party rules which forbid candidates from implying or promising 'in any statement to voters, including at hustings, that they will give any monies, goods or services to any part of the Party dependent on their election....' although, unless the vote is very close, numbers at the hustings were unlikely to be sufficient to affect the result.

On-line voting has been used for the leadership for the first time this year and it has increased turn-out significantly in a party with increased membership. My hunch, with on-line voting complemented by strong social media, particularly that of the Young Greens, is that Womack, widely seen as very capable and an excellent communicator, is likely to win the  deputy leadership.

It is right that 'capability' is a major factor when electing leaders but Lucas-Bartley-Womack does present a homogenous white middle-class profile at a time when the Green Party has been attacked for being less diverse than UKIP - a jibe with more than an element of truth.

To make an electoral breakthrough the Greens need to appeal to working class and BME voters. Our policies are relevant to both groups but the task has been to put those over to voters beyond our 'natural constituency'. This has been accomplished by some Green Party actvists, including deputy candidates such as Andrew Cooper and Shahrar Ali,  but the challenge remains.

There is another factor which relates to leadership style. Ali contributed a combatative approach to media interviews taking on some very difficult tasks such as the situation around the attacks on Stop the War.  His approach has come in for some criticism - 'coming out fighting' is not the Green Party style according to some- but it added a vital ingredient to the leadership mix that may now be missing.

Whatever the result later today it is clear that the membership, as well as the leadership, has a challenging task on its hands, particularly when Jeremy Corbyn is attracting many who previously voted for the Green Party.

NUT prepared to work with other unions for SATs boycott in 2017 if government does not make changes

From the NUT
 
Commenting on the publication of provisional 2016 Key Stage 2 results, Kevin Courtney, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, the largest teachers' union, said:

Today's provisional 2016 KS2 results need to be taken with a large pinch of salt. They are the outcome of a chaotic process of assessment, hastily introduced and badly designed. A system in which nearly half of those assessed are told they have not met the expected standard is not a system which is working well for pupils. A system in which the relative performance of local authorities varies so widely from one year to the next will not command public confidence.

The data tells us little about educational quality that we can trust. Yet it will be used to judge the performance of schools, and in hundreds of cases to judge them as failing. This is completely unacceptable. Teachers and head teachers believe that there is no case for intervention, action or ranking of schools on the basis of data which is meaningless as a measure of quality.

The case for a complete rethinking of assessment in primary schools is overwhelming - this deeply flawed system must not be allowed to do further harm to pupils and to teachers in 2017. The National Union of Teachers calls for the suspension of current arrangements for testing, and for the development of alternatives which can command public and professional support. If the government is not prepared to make the changes needed, then the Union is prepared to work with other unions to boycott both KS1 and KS2 SATs.

Public's interest led to details of Davani 'exit payment' being revealed

My attention has been drawn to Minutes of Brent's Audit Committee which give further infromation on Cara Davani's 'pay-off' from the Council. The Minutes do not explain why no disciplinary action was taken against her in 2014 after the Employment Tribunal and why (and by whom) a decision was made in May 2015 to seek legal advice on ending her employment with Brent Council.

Extract from minutes of Brent Council’s Audit Committee meeting held on 30 June 2016 (item 7 – Draft Statement of Accounts, 2015/16)

‘The Chair drew attention to note 30 of the draft accounts, which appeared on page 56 of the printed agenda, and asked officers to clarify the process by which the exit payment to the former HR Director had been agreed, as this was known to be a matter of interest to some members of the public.

Conrad Hall explained firstly that the Council acknowledged that the entire sequence of events reflected poorly on the Council.  He added that the Council was not required to publish the figure, but had chosen to do so. Technically under regulations the note was only required to disclose the remuneration of the Chief Executive, officers reporting directly to the Chief Executive and statutory officers.  The Council’s former HR Director met none of these criteria in 2015/16, the year of account. Nonetheless, officers had decided to publish the figure because of the known interest in it, which was felt outweighed the statutory obligations.

In terms of process, Conrad Hall explained that in May 2015 advice had been sought from a leading QC specialising in employment law.  The QC had been recommended by the Council’s Monitoring Officer from a framework contract operated by the London boroughs legal alliance.  His advice, in conference, had in summary been that the Council lacked good grounds to conduct a fair dismissal of the Council’s former HR Director for a variety of reasons, and had it attempted to do so it was likely to have been found to have acted unfairly by an Employment Tribunal.  Conrad Hall further advised that had such a course of action been attempted then the Council had been notified that a substantial claim would have been submitted by the former HR Director and that under those circumstances the decision had been taken to seek to settle matters by way of a compromise agreement.  Conrad Hall added that the terms of the final settlement, essentially one year’s salary plus notice, (which were broadly similar to payments to some other senior managers) had been notified to the external auditor.   Whilst the auditor was not required legally to ‘sign-off’ such payments, he nonetheless had the power to intervene in cases where he felt the Council was acting inappropriately, for example if he considered the payment excessive.  Phil Johnson confirmed this and that he had chosen not to exercise his powers to intervene.  Conrad Hall concluded that the terms of the settlement had therefore been negotiated bearing the commercial considerations in mind.  In response to a question from a member of the committee, Conrad Hall confirmed that the Council’s former HR Director had not been subject to disciplinary or capability proceedings, which would have been a decision of her then line manager.

Members asked why the situation had reached the point it had and further enquired of the process followed.  The Chief Executive explained the circumstances at the time and pointed out the improvements that had since been made to the HR procedures concerned, as referenced in the Annual Governance Statement reported under item 9 on the agenda.  The Chair suggested that consideration be given to what information could be made available on this matter that would provide a time line and demonstrate to members how lessons learnt had led to new improved procedures being introduced.’

Labour's leadership candidates answer NUT's questions on education policy

An emergency motion has been tabled for Green Party Conference this weekend on Jeremy Corbyn's proposal for a National Education Service:

The Green Party notes that Labour are proposing a National Education Service. Conference desires that the Education Policy Working Group (EdPWG) set up a monitoring group that will evaluate and criticise the detail of Labour’s plans in line with GPEW Education Policy. External Comms will defer to this group on an ongoing basis regarding official GPEW comments on Labour’s National Education Service proposal.

The NUT, which is not affiliated to any political party has put questions to the two Labour leadership candidates to help inform union members who have a vote in the leadership elections. Corbyn elaborates on his proposal which so far has been quite sketchy.

Questions for Jeremy Corbyn from the National Union of Teachers

www.jeremyforlabour.com

I have called for the establishment of a National Education Service that will deliver the highest quality education to every person in the country, from young to old, free at the point of delivery. Education has never enjoyed the loyalty and commitment at the national level that has been enjoyed by the National Health Service. The National Education Service would ensure that, as the NUT says, education is and is seen to be a human and civil right and a public good. As such it is vital that education spending and investment do not suffer cuts but must be at a sufficient level to ensure that all children and young people (and indeed older people) have access to a good quality education, which allows them all to reach their potential. Real terms funding cuts for schooling are damaging and short-sighted; by ensuring education is held in the same regard as our NHS, we will make sure that future governments cannot so easily push through cuts in funding, and we are committed to reversing this government's austerity measures, recognising education spending as vital for future prosperity and individual's own well-being.

Would the Labour Party under your leadership argue for increases in overall school funding which would avoid real terms cuts in funding per pupil?

Yes. We will not repeat the error of this present government in imposing cuts on real terms schools funding since the 1990s, since it is very clear just how damaging this is. The National Education Service will ensure that properly-funded, high-quality education is delivered for all our

What will Labour's position be towards the national funding formula which will lead to increased funding for some areas, but cuts in funding for other areas?

In terms of funding, there is a discussion to be had about a national funding formula to ensure that the education service is well funded everywhere. However, any funding formula must be about levelling up and not cuts.

Following this year's SATs chaos, would you support an independent and research-informed review of curriculum and assessment in primary schools?

Yes. The Tories' continual meddling with the schools system, and desire to push through testing that is counterproductive to good education, has created the chaos we've seen this year that quite rightly so many parents have protested against. I am on record as saying that all children and young people need and deserve a curriculum in which art, music, drama, PE and citizenship feature. A narrowing of the curriculum has been brought about by a focus on literacy and numeracy because of the testing regime. Our children and young people are amongst the most tested in the world. Added to this, the fiasco of this year’s SATs has shown that we are in urgent need of a review. I would support such a review and  would want to ensure the voice of teachers was heard prominently in it.

If you are elected leader, will the Labour Party support the restoration of national pay and conditions for all teaches, including in academies and end performance related pay?

Labour would recreate a system of national pay and conditions with all teachers employed in schools with the same governance structures. This, in combination with trusting teachers to use their professional expertise and judgement in developing both curriculum and assessment should begin to address the issue of teacher shortage. And of course every child deserves to be taught by a qualified teacher, a teacher who has achieved that qualification through both classroom practice and academic study as in the PGCE. I want to see teachers given sufficient opportunities to train and develop during their own careers.

Will Labour campaign for the end of testing and league table systems that skew the content of education and are turning schools into 'Exam Factories'?

I believe that parents as well as teachers want the eduction service to move away from the exam factory culture which has developed in our schools. Blanket testing and league tables linked to performance related pay and a punitive system of performance management for teachers has led to a real problem in recruiting enough teachers to work in our schools. Endless testing becomes counterproductive. We get the best results for our children and young people, and for our society, when they are given space to develop and their talents are nurtured.

Will Labour support giving local authorities back the legal powers they need to open new schools and have democratic oversight of schools?

Democratic control through local authorities bringing together and supporting schools is the way to oversee education. Local authorities should clearly have the right and responsibility to commission and build schools where they are needed. The market based Academy and Free School programme has not ensured a school place for every child and is the wrong approach to a national service and entitlement. In reimagining and recreating the education function of Local Authorities, Labour would see supply teachers once again properly employed, with access to both the teachers' pension and the public money currently going to agencies reinvested in the education service.

On the issue of grammar schools, a Labour Government would not sanction the opening of any further Grammar schools, and we will do all we can in opposition to oppose their extension by the Conservatives.

Do you support recent calls from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, David Anderson QC and the NUT for an independent review of the Prevent Strategy?

I am aware of the good work the NUT has done on anti-racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and of the Union's critique of the Prevent Strategy and the call from David Anderson QC for a review. The Labour Party under my leadership would support a review and would want to hear from the NUT and other professionals about an approach to keeping children and young people safe but securing space and time in the curriculum to be able to discuss difficult and contentious issues. If classrooms are not safe spaces for such discussions children and young people may be at greater risk.

Should Labour support the right of public bodies to make ethical decisions in how they spend and invest public money, for example, by not investing in companies complicit in Israel's occupation of Palestine?

I am also aware of the international solidarity work of the NUT. In the case of Palestine, the union has a clear public position that supporting the Palestinian case and cause is not synonymous with anti-Semitism. I agree with and fully endorse that position. Local Authorities should have transparent, ethical investment policies, decided locally.

What will the Labour Party do to redress the imbalance of funding generally in Wales caused by the inadequacies of the Barnett Formula? Will the Labour Party seek to implement the recommendations of the Silk Commission regarding the devolution of schoolteachers' pay and conditions? If so, what protections will the Labour Party implement to ensure Welsh teachers do not become the poor relations when compared to teachers in England?

There is currently an imbalance between education funding in Wales and England. Under my leadership, national pay and conditions for teachers would be consistent across England and Wales. There is a need to reconsider how the education service is funded in Wales so that the current gap might be closed. There is, of course a discussion to be had with the Party in Wales as to how best this can be achieved. 

Owen Smith's response is in PDF rather than Word format and thus less easy to copy and paste into this blog. The PDF is below:

Green MEP backs Junior Hospital Doctors & calls Hunt 'incompetent'

Keith Taylor, Green MEP for the South East of England, has accused Jeremy Hunt of 'incompetence' and pledged to 'stand in solidarity' with Junior Doctors following the BMA's latest notice of industrial action.

Keith, a vocal supporter of the NHS Reinstatement Bill who sits on the European Parliament's Public Health committee, said:

It seemed inevitable that our Junior Doctors would announce further industrial action and it’s deeply saddening that they have been forced to this point by the intransigence of an incompetent Health Secretary.

That the BMA announcement comes just days after the government was forced to reveal its plans to shut down NHS services across England is a stark reminder of the perilous condition of our National Health Service after years of Tory mismanagement.

With a demoralised, woefully under-resourced workforce, a ‘7-day plan’ exposed as a cynical ploy to open up services to further privatisation, and a Health Secretary apparently charged with undermining one of our proudest public services; it is clearer than ever that this government cannot be trusted with the NHS.

A government that believed in a truly public NHS would put forward a contract that is fair and safe for staff and patients alike. A conscientious Health Secretary would cease his relentless attempts to smear a strained workforce tirelessly plugging huge rota gaps with good will alone.

Until that happens, I and other NHS champions will continue to join the overwhelming majority of the British public in offering solidarity to the frontline NHS staff fighting to protect our beloved health service. Industrial action remains the last resort for desperate junior doctors. The BMA has already made countless offers to re-open negotiations with Jeremy Hunt.

Celebrating Natalie Bennett, activist and leader

The day before the Green party's new leader (or co-leaders as expected) is/are announced, this video by Shootroots celebrates the contribution made by Natalie Bennett, current Green Party leader.  The video shows Natalie as much as an activist as an electoralist.  As Joni Mitchell sang, 'You don't know what you've got till it's gone'...

Wembley development: 'I feel trapped in a nightmare'

Guest blog from Jaine Lunn in reaction to Brent Council's plan to review the Local Plan LINK

I saw your blog and so wanted to comment/blog but am at a loss as where to start. Whilst I think in theory it is a fantastic idea to get local residents involved in the Local Plan review I feel once again Brent Council are just blowing smoke up our arses.  They don't really care, its futile to think that we will be listened to and our suggestions taken on board and acted upon, for them it's just a PR exercise.  They will do what they like and when it goes "Tit's up" they will blame Central Government - they made the laws.

As you know I live in one of the oldest streets in Wembley circa 1906.  I have lived here for 30 years, in the past 10 years I have paid attention to all propaganda delivered to my door on Wembley's UDP, Local Plan etc etc,  It has been changed so many times I have lost count.  I now find myself trapped in what I can only describe as an absolute​ nightmare.  Since the changes in planning laws thanks to Sir Eric Pickles, minister for Local Government and Communities, two office building's at the entrance to my one way street are in the process of being converted to flats.  Despite mine and my neighbours protests at every opportunity to planning, both have been given planning permission to do what the hell they like.  Both have been given permission to increase height by 2 floors.  Neither Developer is providing any social housing, or affordable.  Both buildings will house 1/2 bedroom flats, open plan, live in your kitchen type flats.  Neither one provides any out door amenity space, no balconies etc.  Some in one development does not even meet basic standards in terms of square metres and falls short by even the Councils minimum standards. But hey "they have a get out of jail card" as under permitted development they were not allowed to take action as to what is built within the fabric of the building,  only if they change the outside would they need planning permission.  This has been going on for 3 years and neither building is finished as yet.  When finished it will result in approximately 200+ ( taken from the developer's assessment) people accessing my street.  From 29 houses we will have increased by 60 additional homes.  Whilst they have some parking they are not able to accommodate every flat.

Brent House Annexe's ground floor flats will have their windows open directly on to the high road, despite it being in the Local Plan that they should be offices or shops at ground level.

You need to visit my street, take pictures and post the results. ( Brent Council have made changes to their system so you cannot upload numerous photos):

• Residents with permits cannot park.
• Broken pavements and knocked down bollards created by all the heavy goods vehicles delivering plant and supplies, parking on pavements as street is so narrow.
• Daily blocking access.
• Huge holes in the road as water, gas and electrics make constant upgrades to accommodate the extra facilities required.
• Constant disruption to Broadband and Telephone.  I have had loss to my service 3 times this year so far.  Directly due to all works in the street.
• Ugly hoardings which prevent any natural surveillance of entrance to street, people persistently driving in the opposite direction of the one way system.
• Trucks, Lorries, and workers vehicles parking on private property with gay abandonment.  With no consideration to the residents private parking.  Blocking access to garages, and their own parking  bays. Clogging up the CPZ. We rarely see any parking wardens during the day.
• They work Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays,  drilling and making noise. I have persistently called Planning enforcement who issue notices to cease and desist but to no action is actually taken. Despite being consistently in breach of planning regs, building regs, etc etc.
• Flytipping is a daily occurrence.  I use the "Cleaner Brent" app daily.  I have the proof.

Don't even want to go into the times that Veolia now think its OK to reverse down my street buzzer and lights flashing waking up everyone at 2.30 am, 1.30 am, Midnight was the latest time recorded, but regularly after 11.00 pm at night.

I have proof from Land Registry that the Brent Council (Len Snow being on the Board of Directors for Copland School) transferred the Public Land "Coplands Fields" to Copland School, which is now Ark Elvin who have gained 26+ acres for FREE, to use for the building of the school and MUGA facilities, despite us knowing that we are 50% down on green space for the amount of residents in the area.

The list is endless!

I have no confidence in the system anymore.  Even to the extent of citing the Human Rights Act, which affords people the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property it does not apply to us regular Council Tax payers.