Should Greens and Labour 'think the unthinkable' to topple the Tories?

Following on from the last article this is another Guest Blog, this time  from Davy Jones. It was first published by Labour Briefing LINK  I am no longer a member of the Brent Green Party Committee but need to make it clear that this is not to be seen as representing the views of Brent Green.  It is a contribution to a discussion which is also happening elsewhere (see Michael Calderbank's Facebook discussion of a Progress report by Danny Dorling.
 

JEREMY CORBYN’S AMAZING VICTORY in the Labour leadership election has rightly revived the question of how Greens and other progressives can work together with Labour. This was not easy during the recent General Election, when Labour nationally was supporting austerity and was well to the right of the SNP, Plaid and the Greens. Potentially, all that has now changed.

“There could be Labour Green candidates in many areas to avoid splitting the anti-Tory vote.”

As someone who stood for the Greens against a left Labour candidate in Brighton Kemptown, I am acutely aware of the need for us to avoid dividing ourselves against the most reactionary government in my lifetime. The Tories received the support of less than 25% of the electorate.

They are also trying to hold onto power permanently by redrawing the boundaries and hastening individual voter registration. We therefore have to “think the unthinkable” to topple the Tories.

The historic link of the Labour Party to the trade unions has entrenched the notion of it being the sole party on the left. Most other European countries can boast significant alternative left parties. Almost uniquely, the UK still retains the First Past the Post system for national elections, which is deeply undemocratic and reinforces the two-party domination of elections.

It is vital that Labour under Jeremy unequivocally comes out in support of proportional representation. This would at a stroke make it far more likely that joint work and electoral pacts might be considered across the left. But it would also signal that Labour understood that it risks never being elected and forming a government under the current electoral rules.

Above all, members of Labour, the Greens, the SNP, Plaid and other left currents need to come together in campaigning work – against austerity, tackling climate change, defending the NHS, bringing railways back into public ownership. This will help to overcome accumulated sectarianism, lack of goodwill and trust. Only then will electoral alliances or other bold steps feel realistic and essential.

Out of such collaboration, it would be logical to identify the key areas of policy agreement of Corbyn’s Labour, the Greens, SNP and Plaid – and to discuss in a constructive way where differences remain on other key issues.

From such discussions a Progressive Policy Platform could be developed across the parties of the left. There could be negotiations over whether an agreed single candidate could be found to stand on that platform to take on the Tories, with other parties considering whether they would stand down or run merely a token local campaign.

Possible Issues for Collaboration and a Progressive Policy Platform:

• Tackling climate change – supporting renewable energy, opposing fracking and nuclear energy; removing subsidies from fossil fuels
•  War & Peace – opposing military interventions in the Middle East; no to replacing Trident; ending the global arms trade
• Europe – for a progressive democratic Europe of social justice and solidarity
• Austerity and cuts to public services – supporting those fighting against the cuts, especially the attacks on local council services and democracy, and for increased investment in public services; closing tax havens and loopholes, forcing big companies to pay taxes and reforming the banking sector
• Privatisation – opposing it in the NHS and elsewhere, and for bringing other key services, such as rail, energy, academies, back into public ownership
• Housing – opposing Right to Buy, supporting private sector rent controls, and a massive capital programme of house- building including making existing homes energy efficient
• Democratic rights – Opposing the Trade Union bill; support for proportional representation; opposing the Immigration Bill and supporting refugees; for a fully elected second chamber.

“An even more radical option, namely that the Green Party affiliates to the Labour Party in the same way as the Co-operative Party...” 

Others on the left have suggested an even more radical option, though many Green and Labour members will be aghast at the suggestion, namely that the Green Party affiliates to the Labour Party in the same way as the Co-operative Party is affiliated.  Labour claims to be the broad church of progressive politics, it is argued – so why not invite the Greens (and maybe also the SNP and Plaid) to a affiliate if they wish to do so?

The parties would remain independent, but through affiliation, members would stand for election as Labour or Labour Greens, just as people currently stand as Labour or Labour and Co-operative Party members. So there could be Labour Green candidates in many areas to avoid splitting the anti-Tory vote.

Clearly, this would be a non-starter unless and until Jeremy Corbyn is able to ensure the Labour Party nationally adopts consistently anti-austerity and pro-environmental sustainability policies, as well as a thorough democratisation of the Labour Party itself.

No doubt, opponents will come up with lots of reasons why serious collaboration between Labour and the Greens will not work. But one thing is clear: the current situation of division across the left is not an option – unless we are prepared to put up with the most reactionary Tory Government for 100 years continuing in power, with its neo-liberal policies of trashing the planet and the economy. “Just one more push” simply does not off­­er any solution.

Can Red and Green work as a team?

People on the left are sometimes perplexed when I say I am a socialist and ask why then I am not in the Labour Party. This was easier to answer under the pro-austerity pro-neoliberalism previous Labour leadership but Corbyn's victory does raise the possibility of joint work and campaigning.

However, as an ecosocialist and member of Green Left I will still have differences even with Corbyn Labour. Some of the issues are covered in this Guest Blog by Mike Shaughnessy which was first published on the Green Left blog LINK

 

This is a write up of a talk I gave earlier this week to my local Green Party meeting in Haringey, north London, on ecosocialism.

Ecosocialism is a green political philosophy - it is an ecocentric and democratic socialism.

It is not like twentieth century socialisms, is more like nineteenth century socialisms and owes a fair amount to anarchist theory. Twentieth century socialisms had, if anything, an even more dismal record than capitalism on ecology.

Ecosocialism is anti-capitalist, and sees the capitalist system as the effective cause of the ecological crisis.

Capitalism commodifies everything, puts a price on it, which is exchange value, and uses the earth as a resource for production and sink for the dumping of toxic waste from the production process, usually free of cost. Climate change is the most spectacular aspect of the ecological crisis, but not the only one. Capitalism releases toxic pollution, into the air, land and sea.

Capitalism is unable to solve the ecological crisis it has set going, because the logic of the system is to ‘grow or die’. Growth that is exponential and the planet is now close to its limit of being able to buffer the damage caused by this required infinite growth, on a finite planet.

I’m going to say something about the historical lineage of the philosophy, threads of which can be traced back for as long as human beings have formed communities, where some elements of ecosocialism can be found in the way people have lived in balance with nature. And today, many indigenous peoples around the world still practice some of these forms of social and economic management.

In South America ecosocialism has found its way into government. Venezuela, until the recent right wing election victory, had a department of ecosocialism. Bolivia still runs forms of ecosocialism in government and has fought off many capitalist corporations plunder of the country’s natural resources, in mining and gas extraction on common land.

There is an English line too. The first stories to be told about Robin Hood, were of a man fighting against crown enclosures of common land. He has become famous for ‘robbing from the rich to give to the poor’, but in fact what he was doing, was fighting to stop the rich robbing from the poor.

Then there were the Diggers during the English civil war, who set up communes on common land and called for a ‘common treasury of the land’.

And William Morris, the nineteenth century socialist and craft movement champion. If you read his novel News from Nowhere, it describes an ecosocialist utopia.

In the modern age, ecosocialism emerged in the mid 1980s, in the west, in the United States, although you can argue quite convincingly that in the US in goes back to Murray Bookchin’s social ecology movement in the mid 1960s. And in the east, in India, where to a lesser extent ecosocialism emerged but more so in the philosophy of ecofeminism, which is a similar philosophy to ecosocialism. For example, ecosocialists agree with ecofeminists that the oppression of women in our society is part and parcel of the system's domination of nature, reproduction in particular. This is done by the capitalist system co-opting the prevailing patriarchal practices, to extract extra surplus value from the workers, in terms of unpaid domestic labour, without which the system could not function. 

And all for free to the system.

Examples of modern day ecosocialism can found be found in the Kurdish area of northern Syria called Rojava and the Zapatistas in Chiapas the most southern state in Mexico.

So, what are the component parts of ecosocialism? There are many, but I’ve selected four of the main ones:

Metabolic Rift    

Nature contains billions of ecosystems, all connected in a finely balanced way, to form what we might call the ‘ecosphere’. Capitalism, disrupts and eventually completely ruptures this balance, setting off chain reactions which cannot be cured easily. Human beings are ecosystems too, and the way the system forces us to live, causes a rupture between us and nature and leads to illnesses like stress, depression and obesity.

And to those who say the ways of capitalism are ‘human nature’, then if this is true, why have we only been living this way for a couple of hundred years? The only thing natural about capitalism, is that it was invented by creatures of nature, us. And we can just as easily un-invent it – and we should.

Ecosocialist writer James Bellamy Foster has managed to link this to Karl Marx’s notion of an ‘irreparable rift’ between humans and nature, in volume three of Capital.

The Commons

Historically, in Britain and other western nations, people were forcibly removed from common land as it was enclosed, with violence employed, to drive the people off the land and into the capitalist factories in the towns and cities. And today the same thing is happening in developing countries. By taking away peoples alternative way of providing for themselves, they are left with no choice but to move into cities and work often 16 hours a day for meagre pay in factories, where health and safety is non-existent, and female workers are routinely harassed and molested.

When I visited Senegal in west Africa a few years ago, one day I spoke with some fishermen who complained about the factory ships from the European Union, Russia and Japan that were hoovering up all of the fish, so much so, that the local fisherman couldn’t catch enough fish anymore to earn a decent living. Here was a system of managed commons which had fed local people for thousands of years and provided a livelihood for the fishermen, destroyed by the capitalist factory boats. Robbing from the poor - to give to the rich.

You have probably heard of the ‘global commons’ on the internet, peer to peer sharing and free software, which ecosocialists welcome, with the possibilities it provides for living outside of the capitalist system, to some extent anyway.

Ecocentric Production

This is a quote from my favourite ecosocialist writer Jovel Kovel describing our vision of ecosocialism: ‘a society in which production is carried out by freely associated labour, and by consciously ecocentric means and ends’.

I think this sentence covers the production process under ecosocialism neatly. The ‘freely associated labour’ bit refers to the absence of surplus value, profit for capital.

Production would be for ‘use-value’, not ‘exchange value'. It will require useful work only, doctors, nurses, teachers etc. and there will be no need for work such as pushing numbers around on a computer in a bank in the City of London, which is useless to humanity - and indeed harmful.

What is produced will be of the highest quality, and beauty, and made to last and be repairable. My laptop packed up last week and I put it in for repair. But they couldn’t fix it because they couldn’t get the replacement part – this laptop is only a little over a year old, but it is obsolete. Throw it away, and get another was the advice.

In Green Party circles you hear a lot about sustainability, or sustainable production, but we ecosocialists prefer the word sufficiency, or sufficient production. Only as much as is needed will be produced, and no more. It should go without saying that the production process will be in balance with nature too.

Radical Democracy

Democracy in an ecosocialist society will devolve all decisions down to the lowest possible level. A series of assemblies, local, town, regional and at least at first, national. The assemblies will be freely elected and each assembly will be subject to recall from the level below, and assembly members should serve only one term. Eventually, the state will be dissolved.

All of this must seem like a million miles away – and it is. But now is not the same thing as the future. The ecological crisis will get worse, if we carry on like we are, and will present opportunities where radical solutions are sought. We must be ready to seize these opportunities.

And where does this all leave the Green Party? Well, interestingly The Guardian newspaper, during last year’s general election campaign, twice, once by one of its columnists and once in an editorial, described the Green Party as ecosocialist.

I think what was meant by this, was concern for the environment and advocating things like nationalising the railways and energy companies – all of which is to the good, but it is not really ecosocialism. 

The Green Party seems to have some hazy notions which are heading in the right direction, but for some reason, fails to follow through this thinking to its logical end – ecosocialism.

We in Green Left, try to push it along a bit, so that the Green Party fulfils its radical agenda, which logically means parting company with capitalism and championing ecosocialism.  

Brent House development in Wembley High Road given the go ahead

Existing Brent House

The proposal

Brent Planning Committee has approved proposals for the redevelopment of Brent House in the High Road, Wembley.

The proposed development would be between the new Elizabeth House and Ark Elvin Academy, which is due to be re-developed LINK, and will stretch back towards the playing fields and St Joseph's Primary school.

It will consist of tw building sof between 8 and 10 storeys with retail/commercial space on the groubnd floot. The 248 dwellings will consist of 84 one bedroomed flats (although that might be reconsidered), 108 2 bedroom, 49 3 bedroom and 7 4 bedroom.

30% will be affordable rather than the 50% figure in Brent's strategic Plan. Henley Homes argued that above 30% would not be viable in terms of the return to the builders and Capita confirmed this figures.

It is projected that there will be 104 children in the development and play space is planned for, although the total amount of utdoor space is less than would be expected for this scale of development. Planners were told that this was constrained by the nature of the site and its quality compensated for the lower figure.

TfL will need to review bus transport in the area due to the additional population.

The mature trees, a feature of the site, (see top picture) will be lost in the redevelopment.

Wembley Central councillors submitted no comments on the proposal.

The plan - High Road at the top

Sending the Heathrow13 to prison threatens everyone's right to protest

Shahrar Ali (far left) deputy leader of the Green Party at Willesden Magistrates demonstration January 18th

 Caroline Lucas the Green MP has joined with John McDonnell MP and Michael Calderbank of Brent Central CLP to warn of the threat to the right of protest posed by possible jail sentences for the Heathrow 13, in  a letter to the Guardian: LINK

Last month, 13 activists were tried in court for carrying out a peaceful protest against the expansion of Heathrow airport (Report, Opinion, 25 January, theguardian.com). They were found guilty of aggravated trespass, and await sentencing on 24 February.

We believe it would be unjust for these people to receive prison sentences for their actions.

Sending peaceful demonstrators to jail would represent a massive threat to our right to protest in the UK.

Heathrow will cause 150 premature deaths a year by 2030 if it gets a third runway. Which is the criminal act?

Aggravated trespass would usually incur a fine. Prison is an utterly disproportionate punishment, and would mark yet another example of heavy-handed treatment leading to the suppression of political dissent in the UK today.

We also share the concerns of these activists. Our judicial system has judged the actions of the Heathrow 13 to be criminal. Meanwhile, the aviation sector threatens the aims of the Climate Change Act, while additional runways in London would worsen an already deadly air quality crisis. MIT estimates that Heathrow will cause 150 premature deaths a year by 2030 if it gets a third runway. Which of these is really the criminal act?

It’s ironic that this decision comes so soon after the UK government signed a global climate deal. We cannot take meaningful action on climate change while the aviation industry continues to expand. Efficiencies can be made, but they won’t outstrip expansion. There is no substitute for reducing the overall number of flights to keep global carbon emissions at safe levels.

The Heathrow 13 understand the dangers presented by a new runway in London. The judgment against them noted the “astronomical” costs incurred by a few delayed flights. We recognise that the costs of unchecked climate change and pollution will be far higher, and far graver. This is what our government and judicial system should be cracking down on, not peaceful protest. We stand in solidarity with the Heathrow 13.

John McDonnell MP Lab, Hayes and Harlington
Caroline Lucas MP Green, Brighton Pavilion
John Sauven Chief executive, Greenpeace UK
Piers Telemacque NUS Vice-president for society and citizenship
Tatiana Garavito Wretched of the Earth
Marc Stears Chief executive, New Economics Foundation
Dr Mark H Burton Steady State Manchester Collective
Richard Dixon Director, Friends of the Earth Scotland
Sally Davison and Ben Little Co-editors, Soundings Journal
Dr Richard Dixon Director, Friends of the Earth Scotland
Aaron Kiely People’s Assembly Against Austerity
Neil Kingsnorth Head of activism, Friends of the Earth
Sam Lund-HarketGlobal Justice Now
Dr Jo Ram and Joel Benjamin, Co-directors, Community Reinvest
Andrew Taylor People & Planet
Jenny Tonge Former Lib Dem MP for Richmond Park
Fionn Travers-Smith Campaign manager, Move Your Money
Hilary Wainwright and Michael Calderbank Editors, Red Pepper Magazine
Catherine West MP Lab, Hornsey and Wood Green
Nicolò Wojewoda Europe team leader, 350.org

There will be a demonstration in support of the Heathrow 13 outside the Willesden Magistrates Court on Wednesday February 24th from 9am. Details from #Heathrow13 Facebook below

The #Heathrow13 will return to court for final sentencing, having all been found guilty of aggravated trespass and entering the security restricted area of London Heathrow Airport’s (LHR) north runway in protest of plans to build a third runway. All 13 have been told by District Judge Deborah Wright that they "should all come expecting custodial sentences”,

Please come and join us OUTSIDE the court at 9am SHARP, together with Heathrow residents and others, to say that climate justice is the only appropriate form of justice here; that prison time for protecting the climate is a massive #Redline, and that we need to Stop Aviation Expansion & Stop Co2lonialism!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The full address for the court is:
Willesden Magistrates’ Court
448 High Road
London
NW10 2DZ
Nearest tube: Neasden OR Dollis Hill (Jubilee Line)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Come ready to express your solidarity, be it in song, spoken word, festival or dancing, as we co-create and animate our climate defence in support of the #Heathrow13. More details and itinerary to follow.

Note: the solidarity hashtags will be #Heathrow13 & #nonewrunways so please keep sending your support before and on the day!

Note: The sentencing hearing will start at 10am, but allow 30 mins for bag checks if you plan on coming inside the building.

Terrence Higgins Trust condemns government decision on Sex and Relationships Education

Already two months later than expected, having promised to comment by the end of last year, Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has ignored countless reports, evidence and calls - most notably from the Education Select Committee - to make personal, social and health education (PSHE) and sex and relationships education (SRE) statutory.

Instead, the government has announced it will work with a group of leading head teachers and practitioners to improve PSHE, but this will not include statutory status, and is hardly likely to have the breadth or scope to tackle Ofsted’s finding that 40 per cent of PSHE teaching is not of sufficient quality.

Shaun Griffin, Executive Director External Affairs, Terrence Higgins Trust said:

The government missed its own deadline in reply to the Education Select Committee on PSHE, and now reveals itself to have completely  ignored that report, and the recommendation of no less than four chairs of parliamentary committees. Quite incredible.

Confusingly, in its letter the government expresses concern around the variable quality of PSHE provision, yet rejects the obvious solution. If  PSHE and SRE is made compulsory in all schools, it will be treated as other subjects, with teachers getting the training they need, and enough time being allocated in timetables for quality lessons.

Countless reports have shown the value of statutory PSHE including a strong link to good academic performance. It is quite astonishing that the government should disregard the advice of its own committee and mounting external evidence that the current system doesn’t work. We have failed young people in our country with inadequate and unrealistic SRE, and we now look set to fail many more.

Contrary to the government’s current assertion, that the vast majority of schools already make provision for PSHE and SRE, this is only obligatory in the 40 per cent of secondary schools which are maintained. This excludes the growing number of academies and free schools, let alone primary schools.

As part of the Sex Education Forum , Terrence Higgins Trust, is campaigning for universal statutory status for SRE in all schools.

Greens back Junior Doctors: Government playing with fire over the dispute

Natalie Bennett, Green Party Leader, attended a picket outside Barnet General Hospital today to demonstrate the Green Party's solidarity with junior doctors. 

Greens oppose the creeping privatisation of our NHS and are fighting for a publicly funded, publicly provided health service free at the point of use.

Speaking from the picket, Bennett said:

The government is playing with fire with its bullying, disrespectful attitude towards the junior doctors.

There is a global shortage of medical professionals and almost everyone I have spoken to on the doctors' picket lines knows a colleague who has already emigrated. Many more are considering it.

Our talented healthcare professionals are a national asset who are being driven away by this government. We need to value, support and listen to our junior doctors.  

Instead, ministers are failing to address doctors’ serious concerns surrounding safe working conditions, and aren’t offering proper recognition for those working unsocial hours.

The government must rethink the way they're treating our NHS. As a start they should negotiate with the doctors in good faith, and put forward the offer of a contract that is fair and works for staff and patients alike. Until then we’ll continue to stand in solidarity with the junior doctors as they fight for what’s right.

Brent 'Independent Persons' ads due out next week

Fiona Alderman, Brent Council's Chief Legal Officer, has confirmed that Mildred Philip's Head of Brent Council Human Resources will be advertising for Independent Persons next week.

Philip Grant followed up Brent's failure to fill the posts with Carolyn Downs, Brent Council's Chief Executive on February 8th. LINK  The Independent Person fulfils the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 in addressing complaints about alleged breaches of the Members' Code of Conduct reported to the Standards Committee as well as a new role in the dismissal of 'certain statutory officers'.

Philip Grant commented:

I don't know whether Mildred Phillips would have got round to advertising the Independent Person vacancies 'next week' without a little reminder from me, via Brent's Chief Executive!

If you are interested in helping Brent Council maintain (or perhaps that should be 'improve') its standards look out for the advertisements.

Not convinced by Junior Doctors' case? WATCH THIS!

'Speak Up for Libraries' - Will our MPs respond?

Alan Wylie, Barnet library  campaigner spoke for many today when he made the case for publicly funded, professionally staffed libraries today at the rally that preceded today's Speak Up for Libraries lobby of MPs. As well as local libraries the plight of school libraries was also touched on by many speakers. School libraries are not a 'statutory requirement' (unlike prison libraries) and thus are vulnerable to cuts as well as pressure on space as schools expand to cater for increasing pupils numbers.  Most school libraries cannot hope to stock all the books that teachers and students may require but many local authorities have cut the education library lending service which previously had a comprehensive stock.

George Hamerton, who is a pupil librarian at his primary school wowed the audiencve with his calmly presented case for the prpotection of libraries.

A common theme of contributors, whether authors, library workers or users, often  speaking from their own experience, was the contribution that libraries made to hard up working class families who would otherwise not be available to afford books. This is as true today as it was for many of the speakers as they were growing up but closure of local libraries, school libraries and education library services means that the current generation is at a disadvantage compared to the previous generation - internet or no internet.

Barry Gardiner MP was not in London to listen to the views of Brent North residents who gathered to see him so here are the demands we would have put to our MP. None of the Brent or Harrow MPs have signed the Early Day Motion LINK

Demands 

Enforce the law that says local authorities must provide a “comprehensive and efficient” library service by developing and implementing, with the Leadership for Libraries Taskforce, statuto y guidance on the responsibilities of public library authorities

Acknowledge that libraries are important to people – especially during a
recession – by implementing policy during the 2016 Parliament which secures their statutory rights to a quality library service and recognises the contribution of libraries to overall policy objectives including economic prosperity, skills development, literacy, health and wellbeing and community cohesion

Give libraries a long-term future with a clear vision for their development and standards of service by including a programme of library development and modernisation in the 2016-2020 DCMS Business Plan

Ensure councils have enough money to provide quality services that are well planned and sufficiently staffed

Support the EDM 1025 (Early Day Motion) from Speak Up for Libraries Campaign :

That this House recognises that public libraries are hugely important to our communities; acknowledges that many have already closed or are under threat; welcomes the Speak Up For Library lobby of Parliament in support of the public library service on 9 February 2016; and calls on the Government to ensure that councils have enough money to provide well-staffed quality services to enforce the law that says local authorities must provide a comprehensive and efficient library service, to implement policy which secures people’s statutory rights to a quality library service and to give libraries a long-term future by including a programme of library development and modernisation in the 2016 to 2020 Department for Culture, Media and Sport Business Plan.

A personal view by Nan Tewari on the ASA outlawing the Brent CCG A & E poster

Guest blog by Nan Tewari (in personal capacity):

Last week the Advertising Standards bods issued a ruling telling Brent NHS CCG to buck its ideas up and stick to doctoring rather than spin doctoring.

OK, the ASA didn't actually say that but I do so wish it had!  Last week that intrepid ferreter out of  goings-on in Brent, Martin Francis, broke the story on Wembley Matters LINK, of the Advertising Standards Authority ruling against the 'A & E is only for life threatening emergencies 'posters.

Advertising is supposed to be accurate and advertisers of products and services have an obligation not to mislead.  One wonders whether GPs have now joined the ranks of those estimable professionals of the estate agency and second-hand car sales' worlds (with apologies as always to the honourable exceptions).  

Brent Patient Voice spent weeks corresponding with Brent NHS Clinical Commissioning Group when we first became aware of the posters emblazoned on hoardings and bus stops trying to persuade them to withdraw the misleading advert, to no avail.  Of course, it is bad enough that BPV had to 'become aware' of the posters and that BCCG didn't even bother to consult with us before launching their poster campaign.

To try to give regular readers a succinct bit of context, the relationship of BPV with Brent NHS CCG is akin to that of Philip Grant with Brent Council – enough said.

We pointed out that BCCG's own advice on its website had been uncannily accurate in stating that A & E is for life threatening emergencies AND other serious conditions.  A broken ankle isn't life threatening but I wouldn't hobble into an Urgent Care Centre with one; no siree, I'd take it straight to A & E even if I might have to wait more than 4 hours.  So clearly A & E cannot accurately be said to be for life threatening emergencies ONLY, so even more clearly, some spin doctory type had done some spinning and come up with offending poster.

You may well ask why cash strapped BCCG would COMMISSION (ha ha) said posters. entailing design, printing and pots of glue to stick said posters up.  Perhaps Transport for London was running a cut-price promotion on its bus stop hoardings and some clever COMMISSIONER at BCCG thought they could please their Department of Health masters by using public money to place the blame squarely on the public shoulder for the soi disant A & E crisis.

I say 'so called' crisis precisely because people presenting to A & E are assessed (triaged) at the front desk and then either treated by the on-site Urgent Care Centre or are referred through to the full A & E service, so for the most part, people are NOT accessing A & E in droves, inappropriately.

Anyway, the ASA rules and Brent NHS CCG makes contrite apology.......... well, in a parallel universe perhaps.  Instead, BCCG writes off the entire episode as insignificant because - it arose out of ONE complaint.   The fact that BPV has ELECTED patient reps on its committee counts for nothing.  In fact, BCCG has a proud tradition of wanting to hand-pick the patients it prefers to talk to rather than being respectful of the wishes of Brent patients themselves who have elected their own reps which allows those reps to act independently without fear or favour.

Contrast the BCCG arrogance with the approach of South Worcester CCG whose spokesman said: “We welcome the findings from the Advertising Standards Agency”.  [Ackn. Evesham Journal]

And finally, I leave you with news that BCCG's next advertising campaign will focus on ophthalmology, tackling colour blindness where BCCG hopes to persuade us that black is white.

In keeping with the tenets of this blog, herewith my Declarations of Interest -

Elected Co-chair of Harness Locality Patient Participation Group

Steering Group member of Brent Patient Voice (writing in a personal capacity)

A patient registered with a Brent GP practice

A very rare user of A & E (once falling over in school playground many moons ago)

Nan Tewari

Greenpeace frack Parliament's front garden #frackminster

Gandhi looks on approvingly

Greenpeace brough the fracking issue into the heart of government today when they erected a fracking rig in Parliament Square. This is their statement:

Take power now. Don't let yourself, any longer, be ruled by someone else.'

Greg Clark, Secretary of State for Commuinities and Local Government

Today we are fracking Parliament Square.

The government probably doesn't want fracking on its doorstep...neither do we.

In June last year, Lancashire council rejected a fracking application, but the government in Westminster plans to recall the council's decision, potentially forcing this dirty industry, and all its impacts, on local residents and councils. Meanwhile, the government is piling the pressure on councils around the UK to fast-track decsions on fracking.

By bringing fracking to the heart of democracy today, we are calling on Greg Clark, the Secetary of State for Communities and Local Government, to make the right decision.

Instead of siding with the fracking industry and railroading local residents and councils, he should uphold their decisions, letting the 'take power' and not ;beruled by someone else.'

To sign the petition to stop Greg Clark from undermining local democracy and forcing fracking on the UK, go to www.greenpeace.org.uk

#frackminster

Greenpeace

The rig is expected to be there until 5pm this evening, Why not pop down and offer your support.

 

 

Government 'shutdown of local democratic space' condemned

War on Want has issued the following statement regarding the  Newcastle City Council motion on local authority pennions and procurement policy:
 

War on Want welcomes the news that Newcastle City Council has voted to approve a motion opposing the government’s latest attack on local democracy.

The motion was passed unanimously, with full cross party support, at a recent council meeting. It is now official Newcastle City Council policy.

In November 2015, the government announced a proposal to block local councils from deciding how to invest their pension funds. Under the new plan, the government will have the power to veto investment decisions made locally on ethical grounds concerning human rights, arms trade, fossil fuels and much else.

Councillor Mick Bowman, North Heaton ward, said: 

This vindictive and ideologically motivated proposal, reminiscent of the­­­ notorious Clause 28 introduced by the Tories in 1988, is a blanket attempt to prevent local councils from having an ethical procurement and pensions investment policy.

Newcastle is a city with a proud commitment to human rights and many local councillors are active in social justice campaigns, including the movement for justice for Palestine, and we are determined to do whatever we can to block this proposal.

Ryvka Barnard, Senior Militarism and Security Campaigner at War on Want, said:

Newcastle City Council is fighting back, as are councils across the country, rightly concerned by the government’s attack on democracy and local decision making.

So much for George Osborne’s so called ‘devolution revolution’. The government’s action has consistently failed to match its rhetoric when it comes to localism and devolving power. This plan amounts to a shutdown of local democratic space and is a dangerous threat to the growing power of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which aims to end UK complicity in Israel’s abuses of Palestinian human rights.

Over 10,000 people have responded to the government consultation, rejecting the proposal.
The ‘Protect Local Democracy’ campaign, initiated by War on Want, has been endorsed by a broad range of groups concerned with the human rights and environmental implications of the proposal. UNISON has also expressed concern that the proposal will deny pension scheme members their right to have their pension funds invested in their best interests.