Caroline Lucas on Lib Dem "Sell Out"

SEN support should be based on need not budget restrictions

OFSTED’s attack on children with SEN rights is deeply unhelpful says leading campaigning organisation, Alliance for Inclusive Education. 

OFSTED recommended that fewer children should be identified with special educational needs and therefore no longer be entitled to SEN support based on their needs.   

“Many parents have to battle for LEAs and Schools to recognise their child have special educational needs and that additional support is required to enable that child to flourish in school.   Any suggestion that SEN support should only be provided if it’s reasonable to do so will be disastrous for children with SEN.    We fear SEN provision will increasingly be considered as unreasonable to arrange by schools and LEAs at a time of big cuts in education budgets.   It really is unacceptable for ‘politically driven’ decisions to determine if and what SEN provision is reasonable for children.   This will result in families having to fight harder for a well-supported mainstream school placement for their children. ” says Simone Aspis of the Alliance for Inclusive Education.

As OFSTED have pointed out the quality of SEN provision is vital if children with SEN have the best educational outcomes for themselves.   Quality of provision is likely to be adversely affected when the savage cuts to education budgets are implemented.  

“It is crucial that the support children with SEN get in school remains based on need rather the budget,” says Simone Aspis

Alliance for Education would like to see a simplified legal framework so that all disabled children including those with SEN will have their needs and provision identified in a mainstream school.      

Brent Fightback now on Facebook

Follow this LINK to sign up

Fight for Freedom (Pass)

London members of Britain’s biggest pensioner organisation, the National Pensioners Convention (NPC) have accused local politicians of trying to alter the terms of the Freedom Pass without proper consultation.

The capital’s pensioners have issued a damning criticism of London Councils latest attempt to weaken the scope and management of the Freedom Pass; pledging to mount a campaign to oppose the changes.

On August 20, London Councils issued a consultation paper aimed at changing the Freedom Pass, but the deadline for views on the proposals is October 22 – at least a week before councillors in Bromley, Greenwich, Hammersmith and Fulham, Bexley, Westminster, Harrow and Hillingdon are expected to discuss the proposals.

Those behind the changes claim it will make minor amendments to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 in relation to the concessionary fares scheme for older and disabled Londoners – but there is serious concern that these changes will allow the 32 London Boroughs and the City of London flexibility to make unspecified changes to the concessions without consultation.

Campaigners are concerned that:

·        The “reserve powers” currently held by the Mayor of London to settle any dispute about the scheme’s future cost with Transport for London (TfL), would be handed to an “independent” arbitrator – who would not be accountable to Londoners. 

·        Certain overground train services could be removed from the current concession; seriously weakening the Freedom Pass and future services.

·        The plans would allow any single council to invoke the arbitrator - not a majority of London Councils - creating a recipe for outside political intervention every year and the constant danger of cuts in services.

Barry Todman, chairman of the NPC Greater London region said: “The Freedom Pass is enjoyed by 1.2m older Londoners and disabled people – and provides a lifeline for many who otherwise would be isolated and lose their independence. Very few local councillors seem to know about the changes – and the whole thing is being done without proper consultation of local people. It’s clearly an attempt to weaken the Freedom Pass by the back door.”

The NPC is calling on its members to lobby their local authorities and urge them to oppose the plans.

Greens oppose Royal Mail privatisation

Ref Number: 04-27-18 Photographer: Ian Britton www.freefoto.com

Green Party autumn conference has passed an emergency motion today, stating the party's opposition to the proposed privatisation of Royal Mail by Business Secretary Vince Cable.

Adrian Ramsay, the party's newly re-elected Deputy Leader, said the Greens were opposed to the privatisation of such an essential public service. He stressed "the fundamental importance of a strong, modern, publicly owned Royal Mail, which is available to all." Ramsay highlighted that although many people today prefer to use alternative forms of communication, the postal service remains of vital importance to small businesses and rural communities.

During a panel at autumn conference yesterday, Billy Hayes, General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union, also emphasised the opposition of both communication workers and the public to the privatisation of Royal Mail.

Whither Barry Gardiner?

Spot the knife

The Guardian reported on Saturday that Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent North, is one of several ex-ministers likely to put themselves forward for the forthcoming shadow cabinet elections.

Gardiner's ministerial career started at the Home Office and he went on the Northern Ireland, Trade and Industry and eventually DEFRA. It appeared to be a career in decline and this was confirmed by his appointment as a 'Special Envoy on Forestry' when Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair.

Gardiner, who had always been super loyal to the Blair government, rebelled for the first time when he criticised Brown and called for his resignation LINK . The Anti-Brown faction were quickly swept into oblivion when the banking crisis sent shockwaves across the world and Brown took on the role of saving it. Gardiner left his forestry post 'by mutual consent'.

In the General Election, rather than openly oppose Brown, Gardiner ran a campaign that didn't mention Brown and  references to the Labour Party in his literature were about as prominent as the 'Printed and published by' tag. He adopted green and lilac colours rather than the usual Labour Party red and his rosettes had his smiling portrait in the centre.His  quasi-independent campaign which centred on his public profile, personality and family rather than policy, was very successful and he won the seat with an increased majority. His difficulties with expenses when he faced a constituency meeting to explain himself, pursued by a Lib Dem lunch mob and Lone Ranger Atiq Malik, appeared to have caused him little damage.

During his time as a backbencher in the last months of Brown's premiership, and again now facing the Con-Dem government, Gardiner has been active in asking parliamentary questions and contributing to debates. Helped by his TV coverage friendly seating position just behind the front benches he has established quite a high profile.

Whether this will help him in the shadow cabinet elections remains to be seen. His ultra-loyalty  to Blair means that he is contaminated by his pro-Iraq War stance and his support for Labour's assault on civil liberties. With the Labour leadership contenders distancing themselves from the Blair government and New Labour his best bet is a leadership win by David Miliband. A win by Ed Miliband would mean that even if he won a place in the shadow cabinet it would be likely to be a junior position with an early exit date. Ed Balls, a close ally of Brown, would be even less likely to give Gardiner the time of day.

SIOE One Year On

Reading about the rising tide of Islamophobia in the US over the building of a Muslim Cultural Centre in New York caused me to reflect on the demise of the SIOE (Stop the Islamisation of Europe) in the UK. Little has been heard of them since the mass mobilisation against them at the Harrow Mosque on September 11th last year LINK and their failure to muster more than15, rather than the promised 1,500, at their subsequent demonstration in December 2009 LINK. It appear that their humiliation seriously weakened the organisation.

They are now seeking to build support on the coat-tails of the American protests and had planned demonstrations yesterday in support of the SIOA in Denmark, Norway, Germany, Bulgaria and Australia. A possible protest outside the US Embassy here in London  was given little prominence. It would be interesting to know how many turned out.

Meanwhile Harrow Mosque is thriving and pursuing the aim outlined on their website:

Our vision is to become a dynamic hub that seeks to meet the needs of diverse local Muslim communities and builds bridges with wider society. We are committed to a peaceful and prosperous Harrow where communities learn from each other and work together for the common good.   We will continue to host open days at the mosque showcasing our work, along with inter-faith events with other communities.    

Along with colleagues from the Brent Palestine Solidarity Campaign BLOG LINK I recently received a warm welcome at the mosque when leafleting for a boycott of dates grown in territories illegally occupied by Israel and our presence was announced to the worshippers. We have had similar experiences at other local mosques including Wembley Central, Brent Central and Monks Park.

Eid Mubarak to all

Greens will fight NHS privatisation

An emergency motion, passed unanimously at Green Party autumn conference, has strongly criticised the privatisation of the NHS.

The motion called for a campaign to have those health providers which have already been privatised brought back into the NHS, and for the NHS to be promoted as a public service free of commercial interests.

Caroline Lucas, Green Party leader said: "The White Paper spells out just how far the Tories and Liberals will go with their destruction of our essential services. They are planning on full privatisation of NHS service across England, a move utterly opposed by us. They have hidden their idea as Foundation Trusts and Social Enterprise, but as residents in Huntingdon have found with their local hospital this is just a short step from takeover by corporate giants."

"Health care is not a market and shouldn't be run as one. Buying and selling packets of treatment like widgets in a factory is the wrong way to provide health care. It is expensive, fragmented and destroys quality. Health care is a service, an essential one, and should be run as such. Health care does not lend itself to the business models of Tesco or Asda."

"The new government's ideas are a death knell for the NHS and we will fight these changes. The NHS is a public service and should be publicly owned and run as such. "