The global food and climate crisis comes home to Brent

                                                   A global issue                 Photo: Shahrar Ali

There was a good turn-out for the community briefing on climate change and its impact last night thanks to the hard work of organisers Lia Colacicco of Brent Friends of the Earth and Ken Montague of the Brent Campaign Against Climate Change.

Introducing the meeting I spoke about the recent death of Jeff Bartley who as a Brent council officer championing the environmental cause had worked with many in the audience. I said that the best tribute we could pay him would be positive actions arising from our discussion. The meeting was partly a factual briefing but also  the beginning of a discussion to formulate a community response to the crisis.

As I was chairing I was unable to take copious notes but a detailed record of the meeting will be available at a later date.  However I can tell you that the illustrated review by Phil Thornhill (National coordinator of the Campaign Against Climate Change), of the latest scientific evidence of the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap, by area and by volume, brought home vividly the urgency of the situation and the upcoming climate catastrophe that it represents.

Phil  explained that the effect of the melting ice was to change the temperature gradient in the northern oceans which in turn was reducing the power of the jet stream. Severe droughts in Russia in 2011 and the USA this year, and recurring floods in Pakistan, were due to the jet stream becoming more sluggish and erratic.

He warned that Arctic sea ice will have completely disappeared in the summer months by 2016, which was the clearest evidence of rapid man-made climate change. The result would be an increasing number of severe weather events, affecting the price and quality of food around the world.

We are rightly so involved in the immediate crisis regarding the economy and the attacks on the welfare state that it is sometimes difficult to also keep a focus on this danger facing humanity.  However the climate crisis will  impact on the global economy as well as the local one, cause international conflict over food and water resources, create great movements of populations and in the process raise issues of social justice. Anger over rising food prices contributed to the social unrest behind the Arab Spring and failing harvests will increase the pressure on the world food market.

Kirtana Chandrasekaran, Food Sovereignty Programme Co-coordinator of Friends of the Earth International spoke about food supplies in the context of climate change.

She started with the startling fact that 1 billion of the world population is hungry while another 1 billion is obese.  It was estimated that 3 - 5 million people a year were dying as a result, and since 2008 two hundred million people had been pushed into hunger. She said it was not so much a question of there being a lack of food but the way it is produced and how it is distributed being the problem. 70% of the grain produced is used to feed animals.

Each spike in food prices puts millions more people into hunger.  She said that the evidence so far is that in temperate countries the impact of global warming may not be very extreme but in tropical countries it may cut crop yields by 30-50%. 

Agriculture, including emissions and deforestation accounts for  30-50% of global warming. Kirtana pointed to large scale industrial agriculture and its link with oil - in essence it converts oil into food and the rising  price of food closely matches that of oil. US farms use 5 times more energy to produce a kilo of grain than farmers in Africa. Kirtana gave the example of the food /emissions chain where grain grown in South America is shipped to Europe, fed to animals, which then excrete methane into the atmosphere.

What was needed was 'agricology' where ecological principles are applied to growing food. Rebuilding the soil and organic methods can 'lock' carbon into the soil. Potentially 70% of climate change mitigation, including a reduction in intensive industrial cattle rearing, livestock diversity and reduced meat diet could be achieved through agricultural change. Kirtana pointed out the absurdity of the fact that we exported almost exactly the same quantities of chicken breasts and milk as we import.

Local food growing and more food growing spaces in cities could contribute to a more sustainable agricological agriculture even here in Brent.

Kirtana concluded by saying that these measures were possible and in a way injected a degree of optimism into the discussion. She was at pains to say that she was not advocating vegetarianism or denying people emerging from poverty the right to desire meat, but that an all round reduction in meeting would both help mitigate climate change and also help those in the west  have healthier lives. Research by Oxford University's Health Promotion group of FoE found that eating meat no more than three times a week would save 45,000 lives a year.

In the ensuing discussion Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt spoke about some of the measures that Brent Council had taken and the council's eagerness to do more  at a local level (a local Brent currency like the Brixton Pound was mentioned) and asked for ideas to be sent to the council.. Ken Montague talked about how the year on year rise in food prices since 2007  had created a health crisis for the poor who were no longer able to eat healthily.

Brian Orr of Brent Green Party and the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, drew attention to the seriousness of the global climate crisis and accused politicians of an 'abysmal' failure to rise to the challenge and suggested, with the example for the recent US presidential election,  that they were frightened to reveal to the public the true extent of the threat.

Viv Stein told the audience about the work of Transition Willesden in encouraging local shops,local  food growing including demonstration allotments at Kilburn Station, and harvesting of otherwise unwanted fruit. Lia Colacicco spoke about her work with residents encouraging environmental action not through Facebook or Twitter but by face to face contact and joint work  with friends and neighbours in the local area. Tariq Dar from the Pakistan Community Centre said that they were involved in a joint project with the London Sustainability Exchange. Tim Danby of Marley Walks Residents Association spoke about the positive fact that this meeting was attended by the most diverse audience of any that had been to a climate change in Brent.

The meeting concluded with calls to support the National Demonstration Against Climate Change 'Get fractious' marchon December 1st  LINK which would include the erection of a fracking rig  Downing Street to demonstrate how dependency on oil was bringing about increasingly dangerous and damaging oil extraction methods which would continue to build up the emissions contributing to made-made climate change.

The threads that emerged: work with residents, work with schools, transition, food growing, council action and lobbies of politicians at a national level have the potential to be woven into quite a strong strategy. The December 1st  march, the Schools' Climate Conference and Competition due to take place in  March  2013 and Parliamentary lobby in June seem well placed milestones for the next few months. Another meeting will be held in January 2013 to move things forward.

I think Jeff would have been pleased.

'Never mind the polar bears, what will we eat?' Wednesday - be there!

I will be chairing this meeting on Wednesday. It is all too easy to forget the huge climate change threat facing us when we are simultaneously campaigning on economic and social justice issues. Of course catastrophic  climate change will affect both issues. This is a briefing meeting for campaigners, councillors, voluntary organisations, residents' associations, trades unionists and the general public.

'They're out to get you,' Butt warned

'Your main opposition comes from within the Labour Council Executive, the Labour Group on the council and some senior council officers,' opposition leader Paul Lorber told Labour Council leader Muhammed Butt last night. Butt's wry grin seemed to indicate that he recognised a grain of truth in the statement.

Lorber's comment came in response to Butt's speech for the Budget First Reading Debate where he lambasted the vindictiveness of the Government's welfare cuts predicting that their policies would lead to the wiping out of the advances made by 13 years of Labour government:

This is the deliberate effect of an ideological experiment designed by  (the Conservatives) and shamefully supported by the Liberal Democrats. It is a social experiment based on the Conservative belief that the rich should have no responsibility for the poor.

 Butt outlined  a package of 'reforms'  that would provide resilience and protection for the community:

• Support for local business and their growth through working with them for shared objectives
• Paying the London Living Wage to direct council employees and encouraging contractors to do the same
• Create an energy cooperative to bulk purchase energy for residents
• Investment in an innovative employment support package
• A new deal for the voluntary and community sector helping troubled families and tackling health inequality

Butt said that the council would shift council resources from the 'treatment of problems to the prevention of problems'  and would 'squeeze contractors and providers' and get rid of 'inefficiewncy, duplication and waste'. He said that the council couldn't fight the residents' battles for them any more but could provide a 'dented shield'.

Cllr Butt said that the council budget had been reduced by 28% between 2010 and 2014 and that the failure of the government's policies had led to forecasts of a 7% reduction every year until 2020 at least. 

There was a conspicuous lack of detail on what that would mean in terms of cuts to council services except for a passing reference to looking at charges for services.

If there is to be any proper consultation on the budget, and particularly if there is to be any effective campaign  based on a needs budget, the specific cuts to services need to be spelled out as quickly as possible. Residents need to have a realistic view of what they face in the immediate future. Apart from the Living Wage and Energy Cooperative proposals the other 'reforms' are vague. It would be an insult to residents if the consultation just sought endorsement for the reforms and the gloss involved in 'community, fairness and growth'.

There was little evidence in Paul Lorber's speech that he had burned the midnight oil preparing a comprehensive alternative approach. He criticised the lack of substance in Butt's presentation but his own was a knockabout speech piling blame for the economic crisis on the Labour Government and more tellingly  emphasising Ed Balls' statement that Labour are 'going to be ruthless about public spending'. He ridiculed Butt's claim about strengthening communities when the council had cut grants to the voluntary sector, and supporting businesses when they had increased parking charges hitting reducing the trade of local businesses.  Conservative leader Cllr Kansagra  said little apart from drawing attention to the cost of legal action over the libraries and parking charges.

I thought there might have been more attention given to Sarah Teather's Observer interview about the welfare benefit cap. Cllr Jim Moher, in response to Lorber's quote from Ed Balls said it was not a question of 'whether we would make cuts but whether we would have made this scale of cuts' and went on to say there was no hint in Lorber's speech of the disquiet in Lib Dem ranks and amongst many Lib Dem councillors. The Sarah Teather 'elephant in the room' had been reduced to a hamster.

So what about the rest of the meeting?   I left before the motions but questions to the Executive included some effective ones from Cllr Alison Hopkins in libraries and Cllr Carol Shaw on the Willesden Green Redevelopment and a less effective one from Cllr Daniel Brown on the dangers of the failure to clear fallen leaves after the cuts in street cleaning.  Cllr Shaw criticised the cost of the Civic Centre perhaps forgetting that this was the brain child of the Lib Dem led previous administration - fully supported by Labour of course.

Cllr Hunter extolled the virtues of making 'evidence based' recommendations on health and not 'political ones' thus not opposing the closure of Central Middlesex A&E. She quoted Boris Johnson approvingly on the virtues of cross-party support for the Olympics.

 Labour backbenchers asked questions that enabled Muhammed Butt to make attacks on various government policies including the cutting of the Early Intervention Grant. Cllr Krupesh Hirani drew approval from across the chamber when he spoke about the hard work of carers and even more when he took a swipe at adult care provision in Brighton and Hove where there is a Green led minority administration.(Background HERE)

Entertainment was provided by spotting the councillors and officers who had fallen asleep, those that were tweeting and texting surreptitiously under desks or cardies on their laps, and of course seeing Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala once again achieve a multiple orgasm just by listening to the sound of his own voice.

Passport not sufficient ID to get into Brent Council meeting

There was increased security at last night's meeting of Brent Council and a ticket system for getting into the building. When I arrived there was a small group of lobbyists outside from the Counihan Family Campaign and Brent Fightback. Brent Fightback had been giving out a leaflet making the case for the Council to set a needs based budget. Railings had been erected at the foot of the Town Hall steps and two police cars were in attendance.

When I asked if they were going to observe the meeting one of the lobbyists told me that the council meetings were so tedious and mind-numbing that she did not wish to go in.  Others however said that they had been denied entry by an officer from Democratic Services who stood at the door with a security guard. He told them that they were going to keep out the people who had caused trouble at the previous meetings. or who might cause trouble because previous meetings had been interrupted and they wanted the business of the Council meeting to be completed that evening.

The officer's action seemed particularly targeted at the Counihan Family Campaign but was applied in a blanket way to everyone who had been lobbying.. Three women who tried to get in were asked for ID in order to gain admittance. Carol, a retired TfL worker went all the way home to collect her passport and library card but the officer refused to look at it saying, 'We know you are part of the campaign' without saying which campaign.

I was granted admittance and a woman was also allowed in but only after she had to ask that the officer to ring  Carol Shaw, her local councillor,  to check her credentials.

When we eventually arrived in the public gallery we were the only two people in attendance with 50 empty seats and more on the floor of the council chamber.  After half an hour or so two young women joined us but soon got bored and went home. Ex- Democratic Conservative Councillor Robert Dunwell, who has his moments in the Town Hall, was happily trotting around the Council Chamber.

Clearly this raises issues about democratic accountability if the public are not allowed to attend full meetings of the council.  The 'Summons to attend council meeting' clearly states 'The press and public are welcome to attend this meeting'. How can democracy be seen to be done if the electorate are not allowed to see it in action? Is it legal or moral for the council to decide which members of the public are acceptable?

A further troubling aspects is the question of how the council has identified previous and potential trouble makers?  I have never been a conspiracy theorist but is there a list or photographic record? Does the council believe in guilt by association? If you are opposed to council policy does that make you a 'trouble maker'. Would library campaigners have been asked for their ID?

Interesting Lib Dem Cllr Jack Beck who tweets as @digitalliberal tweeted during the meeting:

Brent Fightback at the Town Hall tonight, very unimaginative literature, looks like a member of the Brent Labour Party wrote it. 

So a Labour Council bars entry to a group of people, some of whom are Labour supporters, who are advocating a policy supported by many on the left of the Labour Party as well as other socialist groups including Green Left,  as well as those supporting a Brent family suffering as a result of the housing crisis.  l Muhammed Butt,   leader of Brent Council went to speak to Brent Trades Union Council earlier this year at a meeting attended by many members of Brent Fightback. LINK  He stressed that he wanted to have a dialogue with them and return to 'what Labour stands for and why we are here'. Asked how he would organise a fightback against Coalition cuts he said:

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

In the same meeting he said that he had not ruled out a needs based budget.We are entitled to ask, what has happened to that dialogue, but more importantly, what has happened to democracy?

Recently I attended an Extraordinary Meeting of Barnet Council where the Labour group had tabled a motion of 'no confidence' in the Conservative Leader of the council calling for him to be replaced. Feelings were running high but not only was the public gallery full but the council had provided seats in an overflow room with a television link. Officers from the council politely greeted us and showed us to the viewing room. There was some spirited heckling but the Mayor was able to keep things under control and a proper debate took place.

Can Teather detoxify in time for 2015?

Michael Gove and Sara Teather in happier times

Sarah Teather's interview with the Observer on Sunday has given rise to a rash of speculation about her future intentions.  Not everyone has been impressed by her statements against  the benefit cap suggesting that they are based on pure political opportunism.

On the Tom Pride blog LINK the spoof quote from Teather says:

Clearly we couldn’t give a toss what happens to people in safe Labour seats, but it is immoral of the government to try to save money by attacking the worse off people in marginal constituencies such as mine. It’s time the government stopped attacking the most vulnerable people in society such as Liberal Democrats  -  and found ways to reduce future levels of unemployment amongst the hardest-hit MPs in the country like me.

The General Election result was close between Lib Dems and Labour in 2010:

Sarah Teather	Liberal Democrats	20026	44%	Elected
Dawn Butler	Labour	18681	41%	Not elected
Sachin Rajput	Conservative	5067	11%	Not elected
Shahrar Ali	Green Party	668	1%	Not elected
Errol Williams	Christian Party	488	1%	Not elected
Abdi Duale	Respect	230	1%	Not elected
Dean McCastree	Independent	163	0%	Not elected

Since the General Election the Lib Dems in Brent have returned to grassroots campaigning, particularly over library closures, but have not managed to remove the taint of betrayal over Coalition policies. They did not stand a candidate at all in the Barnhill by-election where Michael Pavey had a comfortable win for Labour and the Conservative vote fell away. The Lib Dems have refused to call by-elections in two seats where their councillors have moved out of Brent. Expecting defeat they are putting off the evil hours while .Labour is on the doorstep most weekends.

In 2010 Sarah Teather fought a left-wing campaign based on her record in opposing tuition fees, opposition to the Iraq war,  support for the Palestinian cause, bolstered by a visit to Palestine and a record of efficient casework. As a result she probably captured some votes from Dawn Butler, the Labour candidate who had been caught up in the expenses scandal.. LINK

However, this left-wing platform left her exposed when she became a minister in the Coalition. When I carried a copy of her 2003 speech against tuition fees on this blog in December 2010 it got the highest ever number of retweets I have ever received.  The shift in her position was glaring and left her open to charges of hypocrisy. Her closeness to Michael Glove an an education minister and her acquiesce in Tory academies and free school policies further alienated her previous supporters.  As a minister Teather moved away from supporting the intergration of children with special needs and disabilities into mainsteam education, earning further approbrium.

Teather saw the Pupil Premium as a popular policy that would help her claw back some  of her support and her press team were active in trying to claim the subsequent increase in some Brent school budgets were result of her personal intervention.

When Teather absented herself from the vote on benefit reforms right-wing Tories rose against her but others on the left thought she should have gone further and resigned at this time.

She appeared to be writhing on the end of the Tory's Coalition hook and was finally put out of her misery in the recent reshuffle.

Here claim that she left the Coalition to concentrate on her constituents has been challenged by campaigners who say that if she is truly going to do that she should be opposing the closure of Central Middlesex A&E and the privatisation of the NHS, come out against the cuts in local government funding, and oppose the housing benefit and welfare benefit caps.

The question is, having addressed the latter in the Observer, how much further will she go to fundamentally challenge the Lib Dem's collusion in the Coalition?  Is her own collusion in the Coalition such a toxic legacy that she can never escape from it? Is this this the first of a series of distancing  statements that she hopes will give her a firm base from which to fight the 2015 General Election?

Will we see her at the head of marches again in the months ahead?

Dawn Butler has signalled her determination to gain Labour's nomination again in 2015 although it is by no means certain that she will succeed. A candidate may well emerge from among the ambitious youngsters on the current Brent Council Labour Executive.

Speculation is rife on the UK Polling website LINK with even a mischievous suggestion that she may defect to Labour, which would certainly put the cat among the pigeons!  Another possibility mooted by some is that she is preparing the ground for a senior position in the Lib Dem leadership with Nick Clegg  likely to go ahead of the General Election.  Teather showed that she can be ruthless when back in 2006, then a junior Lib Dem spokesperson,  she signed the letter calling for Charles Kennedy to resign. Will she do the same for Clegg?

.If she is sufficiently detoxified by 2015 she may by then represent the acceptable (and rather different) face of the Lib Dems for a potential coalition with Labour. This seems most unlikely at present but an awful  lot can happen between now and 2015.

Music, chat and politics as Green Party leader visits Wembley

Natalie Bennett joins Brent Green party members at Sunday's social

Natalie Bennett addresses members

Brent Green Party hosted a social for members and their guests at The Torch, Wembley on Sunday. Music was provided by a Cajun band and new party leader Natalie Bennett chatted to members about Green Party policies and her aspirations for the party.

In a set piece speech she talked about sustainable transport and the Party's policies on 20mph speed limits in built up areas, integrated public transport, renationalisation of railways and opposition to HS2. She linked the transport issue to issues of health and equality.

Green Party condemns Israeli attack on Gaza and challenges other parties to join them

I joined hundreds of others at the demonstration against Israeli attacks on Gaza on Saturday. It appears that the attacks are as much about the upcoming Israeli elections and the need to exercise military muscle to gain votes as they are about rocket launches into Israel.

The Green Party has condemned the attacks.

 Green Party International Co-ordinator Dr Derek Wall said: 'The Green Party deplores Israel's attack on Gaza.  There can be no peace in the Middle East without justice for the people of Gaza.  The attack which has killed many civilians, announced on twitter and widely seen as part of an election campaign is both cynical and sordid.  The Green Party calls for an end to violent incursions in Gaza.’

Israel has sought to justify the attack by arguing it was responding to rocket attacks on its citizens from Gaza by Hamas. The state says ‘more than 200’ rockets were fired, one of which killed three people, and wounded a four-year-old boy and two babies.

While The Green Party accepts that the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is too complex to be regarded as ‘black and white’ it also notes that Israeli commentators and peace campaigners are despairing of their own leaders’ seeming unwillingness to engage in a meaningful peace process – the only way the senseless killing of civilians in Israel and Palestine can be brought to an end.

 We also believe that in common with previous Israeli military acts, this latest attack – the most intense since 2009 – is out of proportion both to the activities Israel argues led to its response, and to the ongoing disputes between Israel and dispossessed Palestinians.

Dr Wall continued: ‘The conflict will only end when Israel is prepared to discuss a plan for peace with Palestinians. Violence only leads to more violence.  The killing power of Israel puts their state at a huge military advantage however without justice, the future of both Palestinians and Israelis is bleak.’

 The Green Party notes with sadness reports that mere hours before he was killed in the latest missile attacks, Hamas military commander Ahmed Al-Jabari had received the draft of a permanent truce between Hamas and Israel.

And we hope other political parties, and people across the world will join us in our condemnation of the attacks, and call for meaningful, lasting peace in one of the world’s most violently, and tragically, disputed regions.

Dr Wall said: ‘We challenge other UK political parties to condemn Israel's violence and to support an inclusive process for peace and justice. Green Party members support the ongoing protests against Israel's military attack.'

What future for Brent's ash trees?

An ash plantation in Fryent Country park earlier today

It won't really be clear until next Spring and Summer how many of the ash trees in Brent have been affected by ash dieback disease. A considerable number have been planted in Fryent Country Park over the years and contribute greatly to the beauty of the woodlands. With their own open canopy they encourage rich growths of small trees, shrubs and plants beneath the trees.

Brent Parks Department told me:

The spread of the disease, knowledge and best practice are in a fast-changing situation.  Obviously we are vulnerable due to the large number of Ash trees in the Country Park and elsewhere in Brent.

There is very little that we can do protect trees if the disease does spread.  The movement of Ash trees is prohibited so we won't be planting any.  Dried timber is thought to not carry the disease and can continue to be used for timber or fuel; and on my reading of the government Order, felled greenwood can also still be moved for these purposes providing it is not from an area where Chalara is present.  The Government has accepted advice that diseased mature trees should not necessarily be removed in woodland.  Experience from continental Europe is that 10-20% of Ash trees are resistant. 

In practical terms the main protection is not to move Ash material from site to site; and certainly not infected material.  If the disease is also air-borne, then there is little that can be done to directly stop movement through the air.  Longer-term, the important of diversifying woodland would be a good policy, though there are some areas of Britain where Ash naturally dominates woodland, and also in secondary woodland.

Brent Parks will be monitoring the health of ash trees in the Country Park and elsewhere in the borough.

Caroline Lucas, Green MP, has expressed concern and called for changes in government policy to deal with the issue on the Guardian Environment website LINK

To stand a chance of safeguarding our trees and plants, the government must respond to calls from the scientific community for far more radical controls on biosecurity.

According to a growing number of tree disease specialists, this should mean using quarantine for other iconic trees such as oak, pine and plane, and banning imports if necessary.

If plants known to be carrying pathogens were quarantined, as they are in Australia for example, we might be able stop at least some diseases spreading and slow down others. If quarantine conditions are not met, then an import ban should be urgently considered.

Furthermore, as set out in an early day motion by Zac Goldsmith which I co-sponsored, we need guarantees from Defra that the forestry authorities will get the resources they need to ensure both a rapid response to other disease outbreaks and improved screening in future.

Finally, ministers should also look again at the forestry grants system, which perversely seems to encourage imports from overseas and perpetuates the great tree trade. In particular, late decisions by the government on the grant agreements mean that UK growers are often left with no time to grow the saplings here, forcing them to source from abroad.

The potential cost of inaction on these issues is incredibly high. With the Woodland Trust warning that ash dieback could wipe out between 70-90% of our ash trees, it's more urgent than ever that the government listens to the warnings and takes the long-term view – recognising that investment in resources now to safeguard our natural heritage is money well spent.

Teather 'terrified' of impact of benefit cap on Brent families

Sarah Teather, Liberal Democrat MP for Brent Central has spoken out today on the impact of the benefit cap on her constituents. LINK

This is an extract from the Observer's story:

In an outspoken interview with the Observer, the Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather, who was sacked from the government in September, says the policy will have devastating effects on many thousands of children whose lives will be disrupted as their parents are forced to uproot from their homes.

Teather predicts that there will be a "reverse Jarrow march" in the run up to next April, when the cap comes into force, as families head out of London in huge numbers, in search of new homes.
Accusing ministers of a deliberate attempt to denigrate those who cannot find work, Teather says she saw clear evidence while in government that the policy would not save money and that it would inflict immense social damage.

While accepting that the wider aim of encouraging people off benefits and into work is the right way forward, she says that imposing a cap on people who live in areas such as her own Brent Central constituency in north London, where rents are high, will have a "horrible" and "traumatic" impact. She also claims that the primary motive behind the policy, which has strong public support, was a desire to court popularity by unfairly demonising the poor.

"There are all sorts of things you have to do when times are tight that have negative consequences but you do them for good purposes. But to do something for negative purposes that also has negative consequences – that is immoral," says Teather. She praised Nick Clegg for showing "immense courage" in limiting some of the effects of welfare cuts and urged her party to fight as hard as it possibly could to prevent more. She said many people in her constituency, which is one of the most ethnically diverse and deprived in the country, did not realise what was about to hit them next April.

Middle-class families were also ignorant of the huge impact of the changes on those around them, particularly on children, because of the caricatures peddled by government and the rightwing press about those on benefits. She believes the effects may only sink in when children from "nice middle-class families who send their kids to the local primary school come home and say 'my friend has just disappeared'. I think then it might hit home and they might realise a whole set of children have disappeared from the class."

Teather added: "I am frankly terrified about what is going to happen. A lot of these families do not know what is going to happen to them … How good is the education system at working out where that child has moved to? How good is the child protection system going to be at working out where children have moved to? I don't feel confident of that."

The local council estimates that more than 2,000 people in Brent will end up losing at least £50 a week when the cap comes in. At the top end, 84 families will lose about £1,000 a week. Many will be driven out of the area, including thousands of children.

She accuses parts of government and the press of a deliberate campaign to "demonise" those on benefits and of failing to understand that those in need of state help are just as human as they are. With vivid outrage she describes the language and caricatures that have been peddled.

"Whenever there is any hint of opposition they wheel out a caricature of a family, usually a very large family, probably black, most likely recent immigrants, without much English, lots of children, apparently chaotic, living in a desirable neighbourhood that middle-class people would like to occupy. That is the caricature and of course it is a partial spinning of the truth and it allows the demonisation to take place.

"I would really urge particularly Conservative colleagues but people in all parties to be careful. I don't think we can afford to preside over a society where there is a gradual eroding of sympathy for people at the bottom end of the income spectrum and a rapid erosion of sympathy for people on benefits."

The background to Brent's 2013-14 budget

Mike Bowden. Assistant Director of Finance for Brent Council, gave a PowerPoint presentation to the Budget and Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Thursday setting out the background to Brent's 2013-14 Budget. This does not appear to be available on the council website so I have extracted some of the key points below.

For clarity any explanations or comments from me are in italics (ie words in italics are not Mike Bowden's responsibility).

BUDGET MONITORING 2012/13

• Quarter 1 forecast was overspend of £2m
• Latest forecast is small underspend of £0.1m
• Departments are on track to deliver within budgets
• Need strong foundations to manage risks from 2013/14 onwards (this implies radical actions including cuts and possibly council tax rise)

 NON-EARMARKED RESERVES

Target for 2013/14 of £12m

• Reserves at 31/3/12                £10.3m
• Budgeted increase 12/13           £1.0m
• Projected increase in 13/.14       £0.7m

External audit - acknowledged improved financial resilience and recommended that we should should continue to build level of reserves (It was revealed more than a year ago that Brent had some of the lowest reserves in London and Audit Commission followed this up with recommendation for increase)

BUDGET GAP:

Medium Term Financial Projections:

• 2013/14      (£0.2m)
• 2014/15        £2.5m
• 2015/16        £7.5m

BUDGET GAP - July 2012

Assumptions for 2013/14 included

• Council tax increase 3.5% (it now looks as if Eric Pickles will trigger local referenda for any increase over 2%. Any rise will impact on the poor as well as meaning more people default on payment)
• Existing planned savings of £7m are delivered
• Cost avoidance included through one council projects
• New Council Tax Support Scheme would meet shortfall in Council Tax Benefit Funding (scheme going before Special Council Meeting on December 10th)

UPDATE ON 2013/14 BUDGET

• Government Autumn Statement will not now  be delivered until 5th December 2012
• Provision Local Government Settlement will not be known until 20th December 2012 ?? (subject to confirmation)
• Impact on council's  decision making timetable
• Government's regular announcements - uncertainty over true impacts

Developments

• Council tax free - New one off grant offered by Government
• Top -slicing - EIG (Early Intervention Grant) £4m (includes provision for 2 year olds but see Muhammed Butt's statement LINK) Academies£7m (partly to council and partly to schools)
• Census - £4m (due to increase in Brent's population but it is not certain we will get it)
• Council Tax Surplus - £1.8m (one-off) (Council more successful in collection this year - uncertainty that will continue after council tax benefit changes and increasing economic pressure on families).

Uncertainties and risks

• Further changes by central government
• Housing Benefit subsidy regime/Temporary Accommodation (shift of costs of housing crisis to local government)
• One Council Savings (presumably whether they are successful)
• Review of pressures (housing, adult and children's social care)
• Opportunities for additional savings  (I interpret this as 'What's left to cut without causing damage or merely shifting pressures within the council's budget)

COUNCIL TAX

Temporary council tax freeze spending:
2011/12   £2.6m for 4 years
2012/13   £2.6m for 1 year
2013/14   £0.8m for 2 years

Ongoing income foregone of 3 year tax freeze = c£7m per annum (what will lost if council puts up Council Tax. Previous reports by Clive Deaphy (ex Director of Finance) referred to the need to strengthen the council's Council Tax base)

KEY ISSUES FOR 2013-14

• Late settlement = decision making later than usual
• Need to maintian focus on long-term position > Recognise that funding will continue to diminish > Fundamental change to Council's approach and services required (this again implies cuts, decision to no longer deliver some services, more out-sourcing etc. Bowden commented that a 'resilience budget' was required and the council needed to ensure that short-term decision did not affect long-term prospects)
• Flexible approach to ensure capability to withstand risks
• Opportunities for tactical savings that do not undemine future prospects
• New commitments to be funded by offsetting savings

______________________________

Readers will see that there are plenty of issues to raise questions about here and hence the public's disappointment at the Scrutiny Committee that councillors failed to ask searching questions. Labour councillors had probably been briefed already so thought it unnecessary to question in public. Conservative councillors did attend and Lib Dem Alison Hopkins was in the chair.  However Cllr Brown did not attend and nor did his Lib Dem alternates Cllr Green or Lorber. There were no questions about how the compressed timetable would now include consultation with the public, community organisations and trades unions. Councillors asked only one question of Muhammed Butt who, along with Cllr Ruth Moker, specifically attended to answer questions after Bowden's presentation.

BUDGET DECISION MAKING TIMETABLE

Before funding announcement:

19th November - Full Council - first reading debate

10th December  - Executive - council tax surplus

10th December -  Special Council - council tax support scheme

After funding announcement

22nd January 2013 - General Purposes Committee - Council tax base - business rate base
5th February - Budget and Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee

11th February 2013 - Executive - council tax level recommendation
25th February 2013 - Full Council

There's more to solving London's housing crisis than just building houses

Darren Johnson, Green Party Assembly Member for London has produced a thought provoking report on London's housing crisis LINK

This is an extract:

There is no doubt that housing in London is far too expensive, whether you want to buy or rent. The Mayor says this is because we haven’t built enough homes, and that building more is the single-most important thing we can do. But my evidence shows that we are unlikely to make housing affordable through supply in the next decade, meaning continued pressure on house prices and rents. Other solutions therefore have to be looked at. 

Government figures suggest we should have built more than half a million homes in London since the GLA was set-up in 2000 in order to keep up with a growing population and rising demand. In fact we built half as many.

Combined with irresponsible lending, this sent prices rising two to three times as fast as incomes. Prices are now so high that:

·   Half the population is unable to buy three quarters of the homes in London, with housing increasingly bought by investors rather than owner-occupiers.

·   Minimum wage workers can’t afford to rent the average room in a shared flat in any borough in London, and they struggle to get social housing as the stock has shrunk.

If supply were the main answer, the Mayor could push for two options:

·   Flood the market with enough homes to make house prices fall by at least 40% overnight to affordable levels.

·   Build enough to keep prices flat and wait up to 30 years for incomes to catch up with prices so that homes are affordable again.

Given our track record in the last decade, the current scarcity of mortgage finance, constraints on land supply and the shortage of people able to affordable any newly built homes, it is unlikely that private developers will build enough homes in London to achieve either of those options. Even if we kept prices flat, we can’t leave people stuck in overpriced and insecure private rented housing for 30 years while their incomes catch up.

For these reasons, I believe the Mayor needs to consider other solutions in addition to supply. Here are just a few other ideas that think tanks, academics and campaigners have put forward:

·   Constrain demand by putting controls or extra taxes on overseas investors and second home owners, or even by putting a tax on all land values to dampen speculation and stop developers sitting on large, unused land banks;

·   Give councils an incentive to release land for housing with community land auctions;

·   Build more social housing that can stay affordable regardless of supply and demand in the market, which would require either a dramatic increase direct subsidy, redirecting the Bank of England’s quantitative easing programme into housing, or freeing up councils to borrow at prudential levels.

·   Give private tenants continental-style rent controls and protections to slow the rise in rents and give people more stability than the current minimum of 6 month contracts.

Some ideas, such as taxing and auctioning land, are long-term policies to restructure our housing market and improve the level of supply. Others, such as rent controls, could also help tenants struggling with high housing costs today while we wait for supply to catch up.

Darren has published an article on Left Foot Forward elaborating his argument: 

Brent Greens oppose Harlesden incinerator plans

The site

Brent Green Party has joined opponents of the Energy Recovery Plant (locally known more directly as the Harlesden incinerator)  proposed for the Willesden Junction site on the borders of Brent.  They have sent the following objection to Ealing Council Planning Committee  LINK

CONTEXT

Brent Green Party is concerned about the negative environmental impact of the major part of the planning application, relating to the pyrolysis plant. We do not have equal objection to the anaerobic digestion part of the plant, since we recognise the potential benefit of utilizing CH4 released by biomass for energy rather than putting it in landfill, where it would be released anyway, contributing to climate change.

However, we cannot support the application taken as a whole and state our OBJECTIONS here:

AIR QUALITY

-         Insufficient modelling of potential air quality impacts and their assessment and foreclosure of the need for additional health impact assessments in line with Environmental Agency stipulations.

-         Insufficient assessment of the need for appropriate mitigation measures in light of potential air quality impacts at the planning application stage in line with EA stipulations.

CO2

-         Pyrolysis produces bio-oil and syngas which when combusted for energy, produce vast amounts of CO2, wholly inconsistent with the achievement of EU emission targets.

WATER COURSES

-         Contamination of London canals from run off pollutants during construction, not sufficiently mitigated by drainage measures.

-         Region is water stressed in terms of supply of mains water and site water demand will exacerbate this, in excess to the rainwater-harvesting techniques designed to reduce onsite mains water demand.

PEDESTRIANS

-         During construction, adverse effects on users of playground in Harley road, residential properties and pedestrians in Old Oak Lane Conservation Area, users of the Grand Union Canal and pedestrians walking through Metro Multi Trading Estate.

CONSTRUCTION

-         Adverse noise pollution during construction.

-         Medium to low risk impact of dust generated during construction.

-         Potential for ground contamination during construction period.

-         Potential for ground contamination from storage/handling of oils, chemicals & waste materials from the new plant, not met by proposal to place in storage facilities.

For these reasons we strongly object to the proposal in its current form.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Shahrar Ali, Spokesperson for Planning and Environment
Brent Green Party, PO Box 54786, London NW9 1FL
Contact shahrar.ali@greenparty.org.uk

'Transformational thinking' response to unfair Coalition budget cuts

In his speech to the Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee last night, Graham Durham drew attention to the unfairness of the central government cuts imposed on Labour local authorities compared with those run by other political groups.

Over the last 3 years Labour councils have lost an average of £107 per head, Lib Dems £38 and Conservative £36. The highest loss is the London borough of Hackney at £266 and the lowest North Dorset at £2.70.

The figures for Brent was £120.21 per person.

Durham, stating that this was a concerted attack on Labour councils asked councillors , "What job are we doing?"  and answered himself, "We should not be carrying out cuts on behalf of the Coalition posh boys!"

Condemning the council for complying with Coalition policies by sending families to Hastings he reminded Cllr Helga Gladbaum that she was once one of the councillors who alongside him had fought against making cuts.

He concluded by arguing that a Labour Council should not do this to the people of Brent and instead should set a needs budget.

Isabel Counihan was given her first opportunity to address councillors about the light of her family. She described the background to her family losing their housing in Brent and the impact of localised payments of Housing Benefit.  The family had launched a campaign which had received widespread community support.

She said that her family were one of thousands of homeless families in the borough and asked how the council could justify spending £102m on a Civic Centre in these circumstances. Isabel described how there had been another attempt to evict the family from their temporary accommodation where they could not afford the rent. At the same time she claimed that social services had threatened to take her five children into care. She had told them how expensive that would be, particularly a some would need special needs support,  compared with helping them with their rent.

Isabel Counihan concluded by saying that Brent had got its priorities wrong and backed calls for them to set a needs budget.  She invited councillors to join the Counihan Family March on December 1st.

After the deputations there was a presentation by Allison Elliott on the Adult Social Care budget. She claimed that the council, through a West London Alliance procurement had not 'reduced the service but had reduced the costs'. However she said that the reduction in costs could not be sustained and that there would be a budget gap of £6.87m in 2014/15 if nothing was done.  She said that the council would have to think differently in order to reduce the budget and that this would require 'transformational thinking' - which drew 'You mean cuts!'  and 'What's going to happen to the old people' from the audience.

There were sharp exchanges between Graham Durham and the chair of the committee, Alison Hopkins (Lib Dem) over the availability of committee documents for the public. At one point the police were called into to remove Durham when he protested  but Hopkins managed to procure some copies of the documents for the public.  However police were called again when Graham Durham asked questions from the floor about the council budget, claiming that councillors were failing to ask challenging questions of Mick Bowden, or the council leader or deputy who were present. He demanded, 'You are here to scrutinise - do your job!'. Five police officers and CPOs remained in the public seats for the rest of the meeting which worked out at about one for each member of the public present,

The case for refusing to make 'impossible choices' in Brent budget

This is the speech I made at this evening's Budget and Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt and Deputy, Ruth Moher, attended but were asked only one question. Muhammed Butt confirmed that carers working for the private companies provided adult social care for Brent would not necessarily get the London Living Wage. All other questions on the Budget were addressed to Mick Bowden, Deputy Director of Finance.

I paraphrased towards the end of my speech when my 5  minutes deputation time began to run out.

I start with the assumption that none of the present administration stood for election in order to make cuts that would be to the detriment of the quality of life and the life chances of Brent residents.

I also accept that the Coalition Government’s increasingly discredited approach to austerity is the motor for local authority cuts. I would further argue that this is an ideological attack on local government and local democracy which leaves councils with the job of local implementation of the Coalition agenda.

Under Ann John’s leadership it seemed that the Council was seeing itself in the role of ‘managing’ these cuts with the argument that they could do this without harming services. After the leadership change there has been a slight change of emphasis but there appears to be a contradiction in the stance of Muhammed Butt, the new leader.

In his Priorities statement for the Full Council, Cllr Butt says:

The first priority must remain protecting the integrity of the Budget and making savings.

 But in his blog, he likens the Council’s task to the ‘impossible decisions’ that would have to be made in cutting a third from a household budget.

Again in his press release on the Early Intervention Grant Cllr Butt said that he is dedicated to making sure that no child in the Borough is left behind at a time when' impossible choices' have to be made due to the highly punitive cuts imposed on local authorities by the Coalition.

The issue is clear: maintaining the integrity of the budget and making cuts will mean making ‘impossible choices’ that will inevitably, whatever the council does in mitigation, damage the most vulnerable.

Of course Council officers will stress the legal requirements during the budget process but councillors are not just ‘managers’, they are also politicans and need to adopt a political response both to protect local government as a democratioc entity and to protect local people.

I have likened their position to that of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who, despite having his limbs cut off one by one and left (‘Tis but a scratch’ ‘Your arm’s off’ ) as just a bloodied torso, remains defiant and totally unware of the impossibility of his plight. The cruel twist is that the Coalition gives the Council the job of cutting off its own limbs!

The question for this year’s budget making is should the Labour Council continue to make ‘impossible choices’ and continue to cut off its own limbs.

My answer to that quuestion is ‘No’. Doing the ‘impossible’ is also doing the morally unjustifiable.

The impossible is compounded by the constant moving of goalposts by the Coalition, the Council Tax Benefit changes which will not only put more families into poverty and increase the number of defaults, the increased temporary housing costs caused by homelesslessness after the Housing Benefit cap, increased costs for Adult Social care, the permitted (but not encouraged)  increase in Council Tax without a local referendum now established at 2% (3.5% envisaged in forward planning) and anyway such an increase would again hit the poorest in the borough. Only yesterday I heard that in one month 63 children, affected by the housing benefit cap, have moved from a local primary school.

To truly represent local people the Council needs to devise a ‘needs budget’ which reflects the true cost of services that the people of Brent need to maintain their quality of life, consult on this in imaginative ways including going to the community in schools, community centres, places of worship and publicise it, and make sure that people understand who is responsible for the cuts being imposed and the implications of more cuts. Gathering mass support in this way through local action, and working with other councils, especially London ones, for a common approach, could begin a concerted campaign against Coalition policies.

Ken Livingstone, back in the days of the GLC, mounted a fierce challenge against Margaret Thatcher from his County Hal base.  Yes, it didn’t succeed in its immediate aims but did help undermine her in the long-term with an alternative popular agenda.  Brent Council could be in the forefront of such a campaign.

Tributes pour in for Jeff Bartley champion of the environment

Environmental and fair trade campaigners across Brent have been paying tribute today to Jeff Bartley, the Brent Council officer who led on these issues who died on Monday. Along with others  I was due to meet with him this afternoon to further plans for a School Climate Change Conference to be held in the Spring.

I have sent the following message to his colleagues at Brent Council:

I am so sorry to hear about Jeff's passing. He was an unfailingly kind and considerate man who in his understated way was passionately committed to the environmental cause. It was a pleasure to work with him on the Schools Climate Conference and on other issues within the borough.  He was a good man who will be greatly missed.

Here are other tributes that have been sent on to me:

Peter Moore, Vice Chair of Brent Fairtrade Network::

I am shocked and saddened to hear the news of Jeff’s death. As the former Chair of Brent Fairtrade Network I have greatly valued working with Jeff over the last 5 years. Jeff was such a reliable supporter and friend of our work. The strength of his values was clear and his personal commitment to causes such as Fairtrade and his loyalty to the work of the Council as a whole shone through. I shall miss him greatly and his family and colleagues are much in my thoughts.

Jayanti Patel, Chair of Friends of Eton Grove Park:

For many years Jeff has been one of our strongest supporters among Brent Council staff. He was a strong supporter of our annual "Queensbury Eco-cultural festival" in Eton Grove Park and always pointed us to the right department in Brent Council where he could not help us. Being members of the Executive committee of Brent sustainable forum we worked closely with Jeff on environmental issues in Brent.

On behalf of Friends of Eton Grove Park, we would like to express our most sincere and heartfelt condolences on Jeff's passing. He was the senior Council Officer liaising with and offering support to Friend of Eton Grove Park and we are extremely grateful for all that he did for us.

Ken Montague, Secretary of Brent Campaign Against Climate Change:

Jeff was a good man and will be sorely missed. He was completely committed to his job and to fighting climate change.

Viv Stein, Co-ordinator, Transiiton Willesden and formerly Brent Friends of the Earth and Green Zone board member

During the past 8 or so years I have known him Jeff was keen to involve community groups in Brent in environmental projects, and always asked me how the various groups I was involved with were getting on.  Whether it was setting up the Brent Sustainability Forum, the Green Zones project or developing Brent's Climate Change strategy, he has overseen a raft of programmes designed to make a difference in Brent.  He will have had a tough job to tackle these areas of work at a time of harsh budget cuts across the Council, and his passing will be a great loss to the Borough and its residents.

The Brent and Kilburn Times has posted  story about Jeff on their website HERE

I will be happy to post messages from any other individuals or groups. Please send via e-mail.

Willesden Town Square Inquiry to be held by independent Inspector

The French Market on part of the proposed Town Square

Brent Council has decided to to appoint an independent Inspector to conduct a non-statutory local inquiry in the application for the plaza between the current library and  the now closed bookshop, and the Victorian Library, to be designated a Town Square.

The decision was made on the basis that it will be a simpler and clearer process if the Town Green/Square application was decided before the library redevelopment planning application goes to Planning Committee. If  planning permission had been granted before a successful Town Square registration then the planning consent could not be implemented. This is because the plans submitted by developers Galliford Try build on the space concerned to make room for  the building of flats to the rear of the new building.

An Inspector has been appointed and is expected to hold the local inquiry in the week commencing 17th December 2012. Currently the closing date for comments on the planning application is December 6th 2012 but this is subject to revision.

Planting started in Chalkhill Park as it nears completion

Planting of trees and shrubs has started at Chalkhill Park which is due to be completed this month. However some residents have expressed concern about ground conditions with signs of depressions where the top soil has settled and flooding in the area of the children's playground. This along with the need for grassed areas to be completed and robust enough for thousands of little feet, may delay the opening.

The park notice board is now in place and some park seats have been installed. Although there is great excitement about the park some people are worried about it being treated properly by residents and fear for  the survival of young saplings. Obviously the local community has  a vital role to play in ensuring that the park is respected. In the longer term a proper maintenance plan by the Parks Department or out-sourced gardeners, will be essential.

Johnson: Bring London fire engine contract in house after PFI failure

Darren Johnson, Green Party Assembly Member for London has called for the London fire engine contract to be brought back in house as a ‘sensible long term solution’. He was esponding  to news that the private company which owned the contract for London’s fire engines has been put into administration. A temporary arrangement for the contract with a new company is in place for the next 18 months.

Darren Johnson said:

The sensible long term solution is to bring the contract in house and scrap the PFI arrangement. Many other fire authorities have a straight forward leasing arrangement. I hope that both the Mayor and the Government will see sense and recognise that the experiment with PFI has failed. We shouldn’t be taking financial risks with something so essential as our fire engines. Government funding guarantees for PFI credits could be better spent on developing an in house contract.