Drastic Cuts In Mental Health Day Opportunities

The Council's proposals HERE for the future of Day Provision Opportunities for those with  Mental Health problems have been published. They envisage an eventual cut of  from the 2010-11 budget of £1,660,000 to £236,000 in 2012-13 with £480,000 cut this financial year.  The proposals involve the closure of Kingsbury Manor Day Centre and the administrative unit at Design Works. Kingsbury Resource Centre would continue at a reduced level of 4 sessions per week for up to 10 service uses. Four community development workers would be employed to run these sessions and help access community services for other users. The Report to the Executive states:

Users and carers had objected to the proposals during the consultation.

Service user concerns were wide ranging. For example, they:
• Do not want to lose the day centres as meeting places, where they have friends
• Do not want to lose the relationship they have with their key workers
• Feel vulnerable in the community.
• Are worried they will be isolated at home 

Carers concerns focused on the following areas:
• That changes are driven by the need to save money rather than improvements to the service
• The capacity of two workers, as per proposal, to meet needs of service users
• That many service users will need support to manage their direct payments
• The need for a percentage of service users to have a base to go to as they are too vulnerable to access resources in the wider community
• The need for a culturally sensitive service

Further objections were:

• The choice and community activities are not suitable for all
• Service users are vulnerable in the community
• They may become isolated
• There will be less respite for carers if activities are community based
• Personalised services will be more expensive and or unavailable
• The support mechanisms to prevent relapse will be reduced.

The Executive will vote on the proposal at their meeting on Monday June 13th

Teather in the hot seat?

Another meeting!  I don't spend all my time at them, honestly, but this is one where we might see a bit of accountability.

Headteachers and governors have been wrestling with the twin-pronged pressures of government policy changes and budget cuts. Conversion to academies is an active issue with Ark, Capital City,Claremont,  Crest Girls, Crest Boys academies and Kingsbury and Woodfield considering conversion. The prospect of a primary Free School is on the horizon. The Council's stance on academies has been somewhat opaque with Cllr Mary Arnold, lead member for Children and Families stating her opposition, but Krutika Pau, Director of Children and Families, putting forward a 'neutral' stance.

In terms of cuts, governors have found themselves in a difficult position regarding detailed budget figures from the council which were received very late in the budget making process, as well as having to make decisions about 'buying in' services from the council at increased cost and provided by fewer staff. School have often been tempted to buy-in services from external providers instead.

The two issues are connected because poor back-up from the Local Authority undermines arguments against converting to academy  status.

We are also in the rare position of having a local MP in the government with an education brief . Sarah Teather, Minister of State for Children and Families,  is currently leading on early years provision and special educational needs. Dr Rhodes Boyson, Conservative MP for Brent North, was the last local MP in such a position.

Sarah Teather will be speaking at the Brent Conference for Governors on Monday June 20th 2011. She will be speaking about the new Education Bill and Krutika Pau will be speaking about changes in Children and Families and her vision for her brief.

Gareth Daniel, Brent's Chief Executive will examine what he sees are the main challenges ahead and how they will affect schools and children's centres.

The event, at the Wembley Plaza, is free to Brent school governors, children's centre board members, associate members and clerks. There is a charge of £70 per person  for other interested parties.

Fighting Academy Conversions and Free Schools

Brent is facing the possibility of more academy conversions and a possible free school (see previous BLOG)  and so a forthcoming conference has come at a vital time. Although the Labour council has apparently been a little more proactive in the case of the Woodfield Sports College it is important that parents, education unions, school students and governors get involved.

On Saturday June 11th there is a conference on the issue organised by SERTUC (the TUC in London, the South East and Easter Region) and the Anti Academies Alliance.

There will be practical workshops for governors, parents, school students and staff and speakers include Lisa Nandy MP, Nigel Gann on school governance, Professor Stephen Ball from the Institute of Education, Christine Blower NUT, Mary Bousted  ATL, Patrick Roach NASUWT, Jon Richards UNISON, Megan Dobney SERTUC, and Alasdair Smith from the Anti-Academies Alliance.

The conference is at Congress House. Great Russell Street, WC1B 3LS from 10.30am-4pm.

To register e-mail sertucevents@tuc.org.uk

Further information HERE

School Crossing Patrols - a matter of life or death

I had a shock when someone told me that Cllr James Powney had blogged that he agreed with me about something. LINK I feared that I would lose all my friends in the Brent Labour Party as a result. I was reassured when I read his posting. He is at pains to write, "I disagree with much of what he says, most of the time". Phew, that's all right then!

He agreed that the Scrutiny and Overview Committee was used for political grandstanding rather than meticulous examination of policy proposals but sees that only in terms of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative opposition. Of course it also applies to the Labour administration and to Labour councillors who sit on the Committee.

I referred in my article to a Willesden and Brent Times  editorial that argued it has been residents who voted for councillors who have ended up doing the councillor's work by airing concerns about controversial decisions at council meetings.  The local press, especially the Willesden and Brent  Times, have been proactive in covering the council cuts and the library closures issue. Cllr Powney however, accuses them of being weak in not exposing Liberal Democrat hypocrisy. Strange really when the WBT editorial was commenting on its own story about poor attendance at council meetings of some Liberal Democrat and Conservative politicians.

My article covered various issues to do with local democracy LINK not least that of consultation. This is an issue that was controversial under the previous Lib Dem-Con coalition (remember the Wembley Academy consultation?) as well as the current Labour administration.

The latest example is the short consultation, over a school holiday, on the cutting of school crossing patrols. I have an interest because I kicked up a fuss about the lack of one outside Park Lane Primary School in Wembley when I worked there. The school is on a sharp bend and it is hard to see traffic coming in either direction (it used to be called Blind Lane before being re-named) and it is on several bus routes. We eventually won a patrol and Tracey, the officer appointed, became a much-loved member of the school community.

This is one of those issues which is literally a matter of 'life and death' (or serious injury) and one that deserves serious consideration. It is not enough to say that if schools are concerned they can pay for their own crossing patrol out of their hard-pressed annual budgets. The council has a responsibility for the safety and well-being of the community, especially vulnerable members such as children. We encourage children to walk to school for good environmental and health reasons but should not put them at risk. The lack of a patrol may result in parents going back to taking children to school in their cars with a resultant increase in  traffic congestion and pollution.

New Willesden Eco Group Meets on Tuesday

Following a great deal of interest at Brent Friends of the Earth’s Green Fair in Willesden Green, a new group Willesden Transition is being formed for eco-minded residents in the Willesden area.  Brent’s first Transition Town group, “Transition Kensal to Kilburn” started two years ago and now has over 450 members.

Environmental campaigner and Dollis Hill resident, Viv Stein, who came up with the idea of the new group says:

Transition is about local communities coming together to develop their own ways of making their neighbourhoods greener, friendlier, more sustainable and less wasteful places to live in.  It is about people finding their own solutions to deal with the very real challenges of peak oil, rising food prices and climate change, without waiting for politicians to take a lead.

Brent Friends of the Earth’s Green Fair proved there’s a great deal of interest in the Transition Town movement in the Willesden area.  We are now looking for local people from all over Willesden, Cricklewood and Dollis Hill to get involved to start this new group.

Transition Town groups are springing up in towns and cities all across the world.  Camden has around 10 groups, the latest is being launched in West Hampstead next week.

The “Transition Willesden” meeting is being held at the Rising Sun pub, 25 Harlesden Road, Willesden, NW10 2BY at 7.30pm on Tuesday 7th June.  All are welcome to come along and get involved.  For more information see http://ttkensaltokilburn.ning.com/events/transition-willesden-first or contact viv2000-transition@yahoo.com

Stop Global Warming - Change the World

Sunset over Fryent Country Park, Kingsbury

Jonathan Neale, novelist, playwright, historian and political activist, lead-author of the Million Climate Jobs report, will be introducing his book, Stop Global Warming – Change the World at Willesden Green Library on Monday June 6th at 7.30pm

Here are some comments from Jonathan Neale as a taster for what should be a stimulating discussion:

The threat from climate change is so large that a big programme of public works and government investment is needed. But this comes up against the ideology of neoliberalism – the idea that private is good and public is bad.

Government investment and regulation to fight climate change would challenge this ideology. It means that many governments try to take action through market instruments, such as carbon trading, instead.

If people saw that governments could intervene in the market to save the planet, they would start asking questions. Why can’t governments do the same in the health service? Business doesn’t want people asking those questions.

Climate change is a global problem and needs a global solution. But governments and corporations work on the basis of competition not co-operation. Dealing with climate change means dealing with that.

Stopping climate change is no small task. But action by ordinary people has led to huge changes in the past – from ending colonialism and slavery to developing the welfare state in Britain.
To stop climate change we’re told ordinary people will have to sacrifice. But the key is to shift to using different resources, not less. If we think that we can’t change how we do things then we’ll conclude that we have to sacrifice.

The real problem is that people don’t feel they can change how things are done. The best response I think is to look at the Second World War. All major countries shifted what their economies did because of the war effort.

Now we have to change the economy in the same way – but to save as many lives as possible rather than to kill as many people as possible.

It shows what is possible if the political will is there. What we have now is a lack of political will.
Governments will not take the measures needed to stop climate change unless we build a mass movement that forces them to. This is not just about the environmental movement.

It’s a matter of building all the movements for a better world, including the anti-war movement and the anti-globalisation movement.

We face a choice. We can rely on the rich and powerful to solve the problem from the top. Or we can look to the mass of ordinary people across the planet to force change and run society in a different way.

Have Fun Saving Our Libraries

Brent SOS Libraries still needs to raise £30,000 so please support these events (Click image to enlarge):

Housing Benefit Cap - the stark reality

Guest blog from Andre Rostant:

Cameron’s Big Solution

Myself, my wife and our eight young children have been told that, before January 2012, we must move to "the fringes" of London or further afield,... as a letter from Westminster Council benefits puts it: "to make sure that people on benefit are not living in accommodation that would be unaffordable to most people in work".

Our rent is £2000 a week for an ex 3 bedroom council house.Mr Cameron and Westminster Councillor Philippa Roe say we need to be “realistic”. To any reader who already has their pen out, let’s make something clear: under the new housing benefit rules,a “normal" married couple with two children, earning £48K a year between them and paying the median £530 a week for a privately rented 2 bed Westminster home will receive as little as £1.7K a year in housing benefit - leaving them to pay over £25K a year rent - that is 80% of their take home wage each week. That is: "the average rent for a two bed home in Westminster is now more than 80% of the combined ne tincome of two normal working people on typical wages" which, apparently, is realistic. 

Rent levels have nothing to do with housing benefit: I have asked landlords, including our own, and been consistently told that the market is “buoyant" and rents will not go down when benefits are cut.Official research also mainly suggestsit is “unlikely rents in inner London will drop significantly”. So, what is going on here? Many campaign groups have alluded to it, Karen Buck hinted at it but was constrained by political sensitivities and even Boris took his mind off avoiding Bob Crow long enough to comment. 

What’s going on is Cameron’s Big Solution: a policy of ethnic and social cleansing which slithered in over the back of the sparkling propaganda coup of holding up to scorn and ridicule a handfull of confused refugees (people fleeing war, persecution etc) - placed by chance in expensive accommodation by Councils, describing these refugees as “asylum seekers”.They also highlighed stories about benefit cheats and “scroungers” who in reality make up a small minority of those on benefits and whose motives and reasons are actually far too diverse and complex to lump into any meaningful category.They only just stopped short of depicting these people as rats.

As Mr Cameron crudely and tritely says: “immigration and welfare reform are two sides of the same coin”. Propaganda is wont to ignore inconvenient truths: UK benefit rates are not fabulously more generous than those of many other European countries, and the bulk of refugees are put in far from salubrious accommodation. Mr Cameron asserts that Immigration has put “real pressures on communities... on schools, housing and healthcare... significant numbers of new people… not able to speak the same language...not really wanting or even willing to integrate…” and, he says of the unemployed and working poor:“if they're out of work, or on a low wage, and living in an expensive home in the centre of a city [that] the decision to go back to work, or take a better paid job could mean having to move to a cheaper home, in a different part of the city, in order to escape benefit dependency.”

How is a poor manual worker going to simply make “the decision” to take a better paid job? The combination of benefit “reforms” will force poor people to move: families like mine, single poor people, including pensioners who have worked all their lives, hard working unskilled people, the disabled and the ill. People will die: not least unsettled pensioners, those whose medical or psychiatric treatment is disrupted, those who break down (Iknow at least one recent local suicide has been directly attributed to benefit cuts).

Already disadvantaged people will be rendered utterly destitute because of the reality that hard work counts for nothing while the money you have - pretty much however you got it - counts for much.Of course, black people and other minorities will be disproportionately afflicted, because we are, in reality, more likely to be poor. So, Mr Cameron will fix “undesireable” immigration, welfare dependency and parasitism by resettling us all, somewhere out of the way of “hard working taxpayers” of the big society: so that better paid work or, indeed, any work sets us free... 

I do work, as it happens, as do more benefit claimants than are unemployed - the OECD predicts that without rent subsidy low paid workers “will be restricted to poorer areas with few jobs” where we will “become locked in a cycle of worklessness” in other words: ghettoes.Where to from there?Well, barring a miracle, thousands of us, including my family and I, are on our way to “the fringes of London” or further afield, for a start.Perhaps the Government might offer to lay on trains for us...