At last some passion from a Labour councillor

It's good to see a bit of passion at last from a Labour councillor admitting the damaging impact of Council cuts rather than repeating the usual bland assurances we get from Cllr Ann John  that we won't notice the difference.

This is what Cllr Krupesh Hirani blogged after today's Libraries Appeal judgment: LINK

No left-wing Councillor relishes making the decisions that Brent is having to make to comply with the Tory-Liberal deficit reduction plan.

Even if you believe that the cuts are necessary and that the debt should be tackled within one Parliament (The Coalition Government’s original plan A on the economy), is it fair that Brent Council has to make cuts in the region of 27-28% of our controllable budget whilst other Councils are getting more money? Brent is making a staggering £104 million cuts over the next few years. This is from a controllable budget of around £280 million. Therefore the public will expect Brent to run £280 million worth of services with around £170 million. Every cut has a cost.

Core services include streetcare, waste collection, care for the elderly and disabled, libraries, administering and facilitating a school place for every child in Brent. It is impossible for all of these to not be affected when making a £104 million worth of cuts from a £280 million budget. All of this when at the same time, demand for services is higher. As the country is struggling to overcome the economic troubles due to the banking crisis, more people are out of jobs, more people are living longer leading to an increase in demand for care services. As unemployment rises, so does crime, therefore putting more pressure on anti-social behaviour teams at Local Authorities.

How can the Brent Tory Liberals defend Brent losing out on resources while other areas are having Budget increases? I have blogged about this before LINK.

Why should Brent have to cut more than others? If Brent Tory Liberal Councillors do blame Labour for creating the deficit as they have done at and the Coalition Government are holier than thou, are they still defending the level of cuts to Brent compared to others and supporting the damage made to Brent while other Councils are being given more money?

This contrasts with the Labour leaflets for the Wembley Central by-election which, so far, have not mentioned the cuts the Council has had to make.

Recognition that they are damaging, if not devastating, for the local community is the first step to mounting a campaign alongside residents and activists against the reductions in local authority budgets and the Coalition's aim to reduce local government.

Communites need, want and will support public libraries

 Margaret Bailey of SOS Brent Libraries and one of the appellants said after the Court of Appeal dismissed the campaigners' case:

Our legal team presented compelling evidence of damage to communities from Brent Council's library closures, so we are disappointed that the appeal judges have not found in our favour.

Closing half of our libraries has had a devastating effect in the most vulnerable members of our community, among them children and families, the elderly, the disabled and those unemployed or on low incomes.

Brent has always had the means to keep these libraries open, it just lacks the will. The overwhelming strength of public feeling over the last year shows that communities need, want and will support local libraries.

Secretary of State Jeremy Hunt has so far held back pending the outcome of this test case.

The thousands of letters and petitions he has received demonstrate that Brent  is neglecting its duties under the Libraries and Museums Act, and he must now hold a public inquiry into the actions of this council.

Brent SOS Libraries campaign will also present evidence to the select committee that clearly demonstrates Brent's failures.

We are grateful to the excellent and committed work on behalf of the community of our legal team, John Halford, Dinah Rose and Gerry Facenna and are taking their advice on our options in the light of this judgment.

There are now three balls in play:

1.  An appeal to the Supreme Court if they give permission. The Appeal Court refused permission for such an appeal today but the Supreme Court can be petitioned on grounds of the public importance of the case.
2. Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State, agreeing to a public inquiry following letters from more than 2,000 residents. So far he has not acted pending the outcome of the appeal.
3. Submissions to the media and culture parliamentary select committee investigating library closures. The committee, however, has no power to reverse the closures.

Appeal Court rejects library campaigners' case - Supreme Court next?

The Court of Appeal  today dismissed the appeal by Brent Library Campaigners over the closure of six Brent Brent libraries.  However the indefatigable campaigners are now looking to petition the Supreme Court over the decision.  They would seek a hearing on the grounds that the case raises issues of public importance in terms of library closures and wider public service cuts. It would be the first opportunity for the highest UK court to consider both the equality duties at the heart of the case and the legality of large-scale library closures.

The campaigner's solicitor, John Halford, of Bindmans LLP said:

Today's Court of Appeal ruling is very difficult to reconcile with what Parliament intended when it enacted the equality duty that obliges Brent, and all other local authorities, to properly grapple with the impact withdrawal of local services of this kind has on communities. The Court of Appeal appears to accept that there is a risk of indirect discrimination against significant numbers of people in Brent resulting from its plans to impose devastating cuts on local library services, but it has excused the Council from properly taking that risk into account before deciding to make those cuts. Our position is that this is simply wrong in principle. If the Supreme Court is willing to hear  this case, we anticipate the outcome being very different.

The full text of the judgment can be found HERE

Judgment on libraries this afternoon

I will be going along to the Royal Court of Justice in the Strand  with other library campaigners this afternoon to hear the outcome of the Brent SOS Libraries appeal on Brent Council's closure of six libraries.

The judgment will be handed down at 2pm by Lord Justices Pill, Richards and Davis.

Hindu Council intervene in Wembley Central by-election

Leaflet distributed in Wembley Central today

In what is likely to be controversial  move the influential Hindu Council of Brent has intervened in the Wembley Central by-election. I have blogged here LINK on the Council's removal of grants for the celebration of Navratri and other festivals and this is the main subject of the Hindu Council's leaflet which has been distributed to households in the Ealing Road area.

After accusing Brent Council of trying to appease the 5,000 'Save Our Navratri' petitioners with the 'token gesture' of a fireworks display this year, that was combined with bonfire night, they go on to say:

However from 2012 onwards Labour Councillors in Brent decided to SCRAP the support for Navratri and a number of other community Festivals.

Whilst stopping the Grant, the money would only go towards Brent Council's budget and not for our festivals and hence deprive Hindu Communities in Brent.

The leaflet goes on to state:

We really need to look at the Political Parties that supported us and will support us for the future.

And finishes:

 Ask the candidates for their views on Navratri Grant for 2012 and use your democratic vote accordingly.

The Ealing Road area of the Wembley Central ward has a very high Hindu population and the intervention, particularly given the 5,000 signatures and the number of Hindu Council affiliated organisations in the area, could make a significant impact.

On this blog and in the Green Party's magazine Green World I have questioned the Council's narrow definition of the Equalities Act which they used justify cutting the festival grants and also their intention to organise a hodgepodge 'Festivals Of Brent' event that would combine different festivals:

The bundling together of different religious and cultural festivals all on one day, at a time when they weren't actually being celebrated, seemed crude and insulting. The Hindu Council told the council that the Navratri Festival aimed to improve community relations, as it was open to all. (Community spirit, Green World Autumn 2011)

I went on:

 ...despite my own lack of belief, I see the positive role played by local faith/cultural communities. Rather than the extreme individualism of post-Thatcher neo-liberalism they provide a form of social solidarity that provides strong support in adversity. This has been evident in fund-raising for victims of earthquakes, tsunami and famine and was most evident recently when the community came together after the death of a Palestinian mother and her five children in a house fire.

It is worth noting that much of the Navratri grant came back to Brent Council in a roundabout way as it was used to pay local schools for the hire of halls over the festival period  and thus augmented the schools' budgets.

Facing some challenges in Wembley Central today

A challenge to Green canvassers

A sense of humour, if not a sense of the absurd comes in handy when canvassing, and certainly was essential today when I started out in the early morning rain in Wembley Central. I was particularly taken by a woman who wanted the nuisance street trees chopped down in a road that already had 90% of its gardens paved over. "Not natural green territory," my co-canvasser surmised. I  liked the 'garden gas-guzzler' above which, parked up tight to the garden gate,  challenged me to clamber over it to deliver my precious leaflet.

I was a little concerned at one house when, having rung the doorbell and trapped myself between the inner and outer door, I saw a notice proclaiming, "I am a soldier of the LORD and I will smite HIS enemies DEAD!" - turned out to be a potential supporter but I didn't stay to talk...

Otherwise the welcome was warm and the idea of an independent voice on the Council was well received. Some people complained that issues the victors had promised to raise at the Council elections had not been dealt with and these often related to basic matters such as fixing dangerous broken pavements and roads that required re-surfacing. There was anger about the amount of fly-tipping in roads such as Station Grove. The deterioration of properties let out on a series of short-term contracts was also raised. When tenants change, mattresses and other household effects are often dumped in front gardens or on the street with a detrimental impact on the local environment.

A troubling aspect was the number of  people blaming recent arrivals from Eastern Europe for various misdeeds  including street corner drinking and street robberies. The comments came from people who were themselves longer-established immigrants to this country.  As the economy deteriorates there may be a parallel deterioration in community relations.

The new waste collection system and reduced street sweeping was also an issue with some residents and it was clear from the blue bins full of residual  rubbish that the recycling message has still not been fully understood, perhaps because of language difficulties.

We will be out and about again tomorrow and if you would like to help e-mail me on mafran@globalnet.co.uk - bring your sense of humour with you! We are meeting outside Wembley Central station at 11am.

Willesden Green Library report now due at January Executive

I am grateful to Cllr. Ann Hunter (Lib Dem, Willesden Green) for this information from Brent officers on the redevelopment of Willesden Green Library.

A recommendation on the Willesden Green Redevelopment Project will be taken to the Executive on 16th January 2012. The Executive Report was delayed as officers required more time to ensure the proposals could meet the Council’s objectives. Please note I will be inviting the local ward Councillors to another briefing session the first week back after Christmas. 

Due to the programme delay it is now envisaged the Willesden Green Library Centre will be closed between, September 2012 – March 2014 (inclusive) to enable its redevelopment. However please note to secure vacant possession by September 2012, the WGLC decant will begin in July 2012. It is also envisaged a number of the third party tenants may vacate the site prior to July 2012. 

I presume the last sentence mean that the notice to Willesden Bookshop to leave by April 17th could  remain in place despite redevelopment work not starting until September.

I urge  Brent residents to rally around the bookshop and insist that they are offered some viable and affordable premises to continue their invaluable work.

We need a socially just and ecologically sustainable new economic order - Lucas

Caroline Lucas on the Guardian Environment Blog

In a month dominated by the political and economic crisis in Europe, those of us following events at the COP17 climate summit in Durban took what little hope we could from the talks.

Politically, there was some success in the form of a roadmap towards a new treaty to succeed the Kyoto protocol. The fact that this new agreement to cut emissions, which will have legal force, is to include the United States, as well as the fast growing economies such as China, India and Brazil, is encouraging.

Sadly, it says a great deal about people's faith in the UN climate negotiations process that, after so many summits and empty pledges over the years, an agreement "in principle" to tackling climate change without much in the way of substance could still be hailed as an overall success.

But at least we do now have an international consensus on the need to cut emissions. The real tragedy is that our government will completely fail to rise to the challenge in the post-Durban, euro crisis landscape - and seize the opportunity to build a different kind of economy.

Drowning out calls for the coalition to deliver on its green pledges and invest in the low-carbon industries which can help lift us out of recession and create jobs, are those who frame the debate as a false choice between "going green" and keeping the economy on track.

And drowning out news about critical decisions made in Durban has been the coverage of the prime minister's euro-sceptic swaggering at the Brussels summit, where he singularly failed to defend the interests of the people of Britain who, like Europeans, are threatened by a financial crisis that could result in the loss of their homes, their life savings and livelihoods.

Preventing financial meltdown was, after all, the purpose of the summit. Instead, Britain used the occasion to defend the interests of a tiny minority - the 1% - that are the cause of the crisis, and that thrive on the back of taxpayer-backed subsidies in the City of London.

In answer to my question to the prime minister this week: "Why did he choose to conflate the interests of the nation, with the interests of the City of London?" no real explanation was offered.

Meanwhile, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy appear hellbent on accelerating the crisis by intensifying austerity across the eurozone. This is likely to be explosive: in economic, political and social terms.
But for all their misguided approach to the consequences of the crisis - rising public debts - German and French politicians are clear about the causes: lax and loosely regulated financial centres like the Square Mile.
And in that analysis they are not wrong. The City of London is set, once again, to play a major causal role in the coming financial catastrophe.

The reason is not hard to find. This week we learned about the impotence of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in dealing with bankers at RBS that destroyed a bank, caused many to lose their jobs, and stripped British taxpayers of £45bn.

That's £45bn which could have been used to keep millions of young people in employment for a considerable time, to support renewable energy and energy efficiency measures to create jobs and help those in fuel poverty, or to pay more nurses and teachers.

Payday lenders have scuttled across the Atlantic to avoid the anti-usury laws of Canada and the United States, and found refuge in what the FT calls the "singularly attractive market" that is the City of London - where there are no usury laws.

According to Thomson Reuters, the City's "lax and loose regulation" allows companies, like the recently bankrupted MFGlobal, to gamble with money that belongs to clients and then " …to finance an enormous $6.2bn eurozone repo bet … a position more than five times the firm's book value, or net worth."

It is this kind of financial speculation that once again threatens not just Europe, but the global economy.
Occupy Wall St protesters at St. Paul's are exploring alternatives to this failed system of financial liberalisation. Even the Bank of England, in papers published this week, is considering a transformation away from deregulation towards a rules-based system, that constrains capital mobility and secures stability and "internal balance" for countries like Britain.

Our politicians should be debating these profoundly important issues. They should be leading us out of this global financial morass, towards a more just, stable and sustainable future.
But they are not. Across the political spectrum - from Ed Balls, to Ed Miliband, to Nick Clegg and David Cameron - we are governed by politicians that have all promoted and defended the current neo-liberal system: "light touch regulation".

They are all part of the design team that brought you credit crunch 1.0 and that is about to deliver credit crunch 2.0.

The fact that the government has confirmed it will not support a financial transactions tax such as the Robin Hood tax, or offer anything new to tackle tax avoidance and evasion, tells us all we need to know about the commitment to social justice amongst the cabinet's millionaire ministers.

So I want to appeal for a debate about how we transform our economic system away from today's failed economic order - designed to serve the interests of the City of London's 1% - and instead build a new one.
One that is socially just and ecologically sustainable. One that provides useful and meaningful employment for all and strengthens our communities. We can and must find a better way of bringing people closer together and building a better society, while operating within the limits of the ecosystem.

Why will my fellow politicians not engage in these debates? The system we have is catastrophically impaired, yet our leaders remain prostrate before neoliberalism - an ideology that has destroyed jobs and firms, ruined the life-chances of millions, while enriching crooks, thieves and oligarchs. I call on others to join me in calling on our political leaders to match progressive politics with meaningful action, and in taking a principled stand to challenge the deeply corrupt financial system that has plunged us into environmental and economic crisis.