Wembley By-election: lowest poll on shortest day?

Despite being a sunny and mild day, polling was very slow in the Wembley by-election today. By mid-afternoon a quick tour of polling stations indicated we will be lucky to see a turnout of over 25%. Some observers suggested that early darkness on the winter solstice may make people reluctant to leave their homes to vote this evening.

Library campaigners get Great Britons Award and Transformation Team get a Rotten Borough Award

The Independent on Sunday  has named the Brent Library Campaigners as among the 50 Greatest British 2011

And so, this being as close to the end of the year as this newspaper shall get, we have the temerity to name our 50 Greatest Britons of 2011. These are the people who have been, to our world-weary eyes, the most admirable. Some are very well known; others, we feel, have not had their full due. We hope that this humble list helps to put that right

 

Brent library protesters
Library campaigners
Residents fighting the closure of six libraries in the London borough of Brent represented the outrage felt by much of the nation's readers and researchers about cutbacks by staging a round-the-clock protest outside Kensal Rise Library, which was opened by American writer Mark Twain 111 years ago. The campaigners were the first in the country to seek a judicial review into library closures.

Yesterday Brent Council's Library Transformation Team received the Library Award from Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs column, for closing six of the borough's 12 libraries in 2011. Last week the Team got an Award from Brent Council for their work.

Veolia knocked out of WLWA multi-million contract

Human Rights campaigners in West London were celebrating today following the news that controversial multinational Veolia had failed to be short-listed for the lucrative 25 years residual waste management contract covering the boroughs of Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Ealing, Richmond and Brent.

More than 600 residents had written to the West London Waste Authority  requesting that Veolia be excluded on the grounds of racist practices in recruitment and grave misconduct through its active participation in violations of international and humanitarian laws and norms in the illegally occupied territories of Palestine. Last month Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign held a well-attended public meeting on the issue at Willesden Green Library.

Although, as is usual in these cases,  Veolia's failure to be short-listed cannot be directly attributed to the campaign, the WLWA joins a growing list of unsuccessful contract bids by Veolia.

The ground now shifts to environmental issues with the WLWA's consideration of 'solutions' submitted by the remaining 4 bidders to dealing with West London's waste.These will include possible new processing sites and environmentalists will be watching closely to see if any incinerators are planned,

Here is the statement from the WLWA website released yesterday:

The West London Waste Authority (WLWA) has short-listed four bidders for a long term West London Residual Waste Services contract covering the boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, and Richmond upon Thames.

Cory Environmental Ltd, E.ON Energy from Waste leading a consortium with Tata Chemicals Europe Limited with significant sub-contractor Grundon Waste Management Limited, SITA UK Ltd and Viridor Waste Management Ltd will now be invited to develop detailed solutions as the next stage in the competitive dialogue process that is being employed.

The contract involves treating up to 300,000 tonnes of residual waste per year generated by a population of 1.4 million people, and covers all aspects of treatment including any necessary transport, the operation of transfer stations, and contracts for outputs such as energy, refuse-derived fuel, recyclates etc.

Bids were invited from “single entity” companies, consortia, or joint ventures. The WLWA has offered its three waste transfer stations at Brentford, South Ruislip and Park Royal as part of the procurement but also welcomed proposals involving sites within bidders’ control or which they intend to acquire.

The next stage of the tender process will be the submission of detailed solutions by the short listed bidders in spring 2012. Two final bidders will then be selected to submit final tenders in autumn 2012. The preferred bidder will be selected in spring 2013. The new services will start in April 2015, but WLWA is exploring with bidders the opportunity for an earlier start to begin diversion from landfill as soon as possible.

West London already recycles or composts almost 40% of its household waste, more than any other sub region of London. The new contract will allow continued flexibility to increase recycling up to at least 50% by 2020 and WLWA will focus even more on waste minimisation schemes in the future.

Veolia's contract with the London Borough of Brent ends in 2014.

Brent Council: Who's in charge?

The relationship between the Chief Executive of a council and its Leader varies between councils. That between Brent's Chief Executive, Gareth Daniel and Councillor Ann John. Leader, has come in for comment because it sometimes appears that the usual roles have been reversed: Gareth Daniel is the political leader and Ann John the manager of cuts. It is more likely that the roles have begun to merge.

Back in 1997 the Local and Central Government Relations Research No 55 stated:

Chief executives’ view of the future is coloured by their role in local governance. Interview evidence suggests most of those active in local governance think it can be developed within existing legislation.

A few would like to see the position of the chief executive strengthened at the expense of councillors, who would see their role reduced to broad policy and scrutiny. A strengthened chief executive might resemble an unelected mayor. If elected mayors were introduced some existing chief executives, it was suggested, would stand for election, a comment that reinforces evidence of a local leadership role taken by some chief executives.

Certainly Gareth Daniel had to take such a role in 2005 when he ran the council in the interregnum after the NOC election when the political parties were unable to agree coalition arrangements.

More recently his Newsletters to council staff have revealed further information about the relationship and particularly his stance on the cuts::

All councils have a legal duty to live within their means and to set a balanced budget and the Executive was clear that this is what will happen.  But they were also equally clear that they wanted to think and plan ahead at least to the end of their current four year term and to do their utmost to protect frontline services.  This approach will give us all a degree of confidence about the future and some assurance that our political leaders have both the ability and inclination to take control of events. (November 2011)

This month's Newsletter sees him taking a political stance that criticises those fighting the cuts:

I have been particularly struck recently by the electorate’s response to the financial problems facing the public sector.  It’s not that I am surprised that the British people don’t like paying more taxes, fees and charges – who does?  I am also not that surprised when local people protest against plans to close a much-loved local facility whether it is a library, a school, a clinic or a post office.  People understandably don’t like losing things that they value or which they see as important parts of their local community.  But what I do find surprising is the degree to which the public seems to be in denial about the very existence of a financial crisis at all and their curious belief that councils and other public services should somehow solve their financial problems without making any changes to service provision.

More controversially he then seeks to instruct council employees, already working harder because of staff reductions, experiencing frozen wages, and with further cuts hanging over them, to persuade the electorate to accept the cuts:

It is now the job of every council employee to help explain these facts to the very best of our ability.  It’s probably unrealistic to expect people to praise us for taking tough but necessary decisions – that really would be a surprise!  But the public do have a responsibility to live in the same real world that we ourselves occupy.  No grown up can simply ignore the economic realities and pretend that councils should continue with ‘business as usual’ regardless of the serious financial problems facing the country in general and local government in particular.  While many people are quick to condemn public servants for taking difficult decisions, the public cannot be allowed to think that difficult decisions can themselves be avoided.  That is the economics of cloud cuckoo land.

So I would like to ask all members of staff to see 2012 as the year in which we really try to get the message across to local people about the Council’s approach to budget reductions, service improvement and value-for-money.  Of course some people won’t listen whatever we say but I believe that the majority of people are open to argument most of the time.  That is our opportunity to make our case, to explain the really harsh climate in which councils are now having to operate and to win public understanding (if not actual support) for the approach we are taking.  The only alternative to the One Council programme would be even worse cuts to frontline services and even more unpopular decisions that would upset even more local people.  Brent Council has a good story to tell when it comes to budget savings – let’s all make sure we start to communicate our positive message with pride and conviction.  [Daniels' emphasis] (December 2011)

 Several councils have recently decided to do without Chief Executives. Such a decision would save Brent council Daniels' salary of £194,550 plus 20% on costs.  Unsurprisingly SOLACE , the Chief Executives' professional organisation, makes the case for Chief Executives:

The role of the Chief Executive and Leader are closely linked but are not wholly discrete –they are overlapping and complementary which brings its own set of tensions. One of the key roles of the Leader and Chief Executive should be to construct trust at a point of tension and potential conflict between the different
worlds of political logic and managerial logic. It is important that there is mutual understanding of each others’ roles, and this relies on good communications.

A Leader must be able to impart to their Chief Executive their understanding of the group and of the wider political context and imperatives without such communications being seen as disloyal. The Chief Executive needs in a similar way, without eroding the loyalty owed to colleague officers, to be able to discuss with a Leader their managerial capacity or incapacity to deliver on a particular agenda. This is not just about interpersonal skills but about mutual grasp of each other’s worlds.

A wise Chief Executive commits to their Leader unconditionally, and understands this as including roles of confidant, mentor, partisan, speech writer and PR consultant. When it works, the relationship between Leader and Chief Executive is an exceptional thing (My emphasis)

Brent 4th highest in England for eviction risk

Shelter's Eviction Risk Monitor published this month lists the London Borough of Brent as the 4th highest local authority in England for the proportion of mortgage and landlord possession claims. The three higher local authorities are all in Greater London: Barking and Dagenham, Newham and Haringey. The total between October 2010 and September 2011 in Brent is 2,435 a rate of 22.4 per 1,000 homes. These claims do not necessarily translate immediately into evictions but show how many people are struggling to meet their housing costs. The report, perhaps obviously, shows that high risk is associated with high local unemployment levels.

We already know that the number of evictions in the borough has increased prior to the housing benefit becoming operative and the Council expects an increasing number of claims for temporary housing in the new year. Temporary accommodation will have to be provided far away from Brent and 'temporary' may mean for up to 10 years.

Even without the cap, increasing unemployment, frozen wage; and higher energy and food costs, mean that people are finding it hard to pay their mortgages and rent. Shelter research suggests about one third of  families are struggling. At the same time, just when families will need it most, the Coalition government is proposing removing legal aid from debt, housing, welfare, employment and family disputes. The Legal Aid and Punishment of Offender's Bill enters its committee stage in the House of Lords today.

Nothing could show more starkly how Coalition policies are impacting on the most vulnerable. The video above gives an insight into what it will mean for families.

SHELTER REPORT

The Green Deal and private landlords - issues raised by Barry Gardiner MP

The issue of the Green Deal on energy and its implementation in private rented accommodation is one that has come up locally. Barry Gardiner MP for Brent North has now received written answers to his questions on the matter as set out below from Hansard:

Barry Gardiner (Brent North, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what process his Department plans to follow to determine whether a landlord has carried out the maximum package of measures funded under the Green Deal or Energy Company Obligation for improving energy efficiency in housing under the provisions of the Energy Act 2011.

Gregory Barker (Minister of State (Climate Change), Energy and Climate Change; Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)

We expect the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) will be a key inspection mechanism as it will outline which measures have been installed in the property using the Green Deal and if there are remaining measures which could benefit from Green Deal finance. Local authorities, as the enforcing body for the private rented sector regulations, will have access to this information through the EPC database.

The regulations, including details of the enforcement mechanism, will be subject to a public consultation.

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 19 December 2011, c991W)
 

Barry Gardiner (Brent North, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what measures he plans to put in place to protect tenants from eviction in cases where they request energy efficiency improvements.

Gregory Barker (Minister of State (Climate Change), Energy and Climate Change; Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)

The issue of retaliatory eviction in the context of the Green Deal was raised during the passage of the Energy Act. In response I established a working group to consider stakeholder concerns, and report to DECC and Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Ministers with recommendations. The report is due to be submitted to myself and the Minister for Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend Grant Shapps before Christmas.

 Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 19 December 2011, c991W)

Car Diet: Is There Life After Car?

My recent comments on cars as an issue in the Wembley Central by-election has elicited this Guest Blog from Molly  Fletcher:

We gave up the family car two years ago, or rather, our car gave us up. It blew up in Chiswick, West London shortly after we’d set off to go camping. The cost of repairing it was more than the car was worth, so for the first time in thirty five years, we became car less. Surprisingly, it has not been a nightmare, and looking back over the last year, being car free has brought numerous benefits. I can trace a definite improvement in our lives that started on that day.

This is an astounding statement. All my adult life I had owned a car. In the beginning it represented independence from my parents, then later it was for carrying my own children around. Having a car gave me choices, rather than relying on lifts or public transport, which was slow, expensive and unreliable. Our culture is now totally geared to car ownership, it is what we aspire to. The car we own shows our status and marks our position in the hierarchy. But something has flipped in the equation. In the real world, cars are now the slow, expensive, stressful ones. They no longer mean freedom, in many ways they imprison us.

Cars have hijacked the idea of ‘the journey’ as a pleasant experience. We sit in endless traffic jams, crammed in our disconnected worlds, pumping out a carbon cocktail. In three minutes, a car burns as much oxygen as a human being uses in a whole day. We are pushed to our limits by the rudeness of other drivers. We are left abandoned at road works, screaming and cursing at the invisible workers on the signs. If we dare to stop and catch our breath, packs of hungry traffic wardens appear from nowhere. And all is overseen by those sinister invisible cameras, watching our every move in case we step out of line.

I thought going on a car diet would be hell, but car cold turkey wasn’t that bad. We are a family of five, with three grown up sons and, living in the middle of a city we are lucky to have plenty of other transport options. We realised that actually we were hardly using the car before it died. It used to sit outside in the street and without moving, silently drain away money in tax, insurance, parking permits and rust. When we did use the car, that little voice was always at the back of our minds, coming up with vital reasons why we just had to drive: it’s raining, I haven’t got time to walk, it’s dangerous not to, I have to carry a feather round the corner, the Big Shop, I’m paying for it anyway, so why not? Our excuses were infinite. Having a car to hop into was the dietary equivalent of having a fresh doughnut stall outside our front door.

After giving up the car, we travelled much more. We started to cycle and walk, we took trains, Tubes, buses and car-shared. Occasionally we used Streetcar when we needed to carry heavy or bulky loads or we had them delivered. Of course there are people who really do need to have a car: old and disabled people, babies, or if it’s late at night or in rural areas where there are no alternatives, the car is king. But we are able-bodied, fully-grown and most of our original car journeys were under two miles, so without a car option, we had to find alternatives.

With all the extra cycling and walking, we became fitter. At first, I thought of two miles as a long cycle but over the year, my fitness and horizons have stretched. Now I think nothing of cycling ten miles – five miles there and five miles back and I really enjoy the cycle. And bikes are fantastically fast. I once cycled 3 miles from our home in NW London to teach in a school behind Buckingham Palace in 22 minutes, yet it took me 50 minutes and £5 on public transport. We also find that Tubes and buses aren’t that reliable, but when we set off on a bike, we know we’re going to get there – punctures are rare, if you’re careful. I reckon making yourself highly visible on a bike means car drivers see you and it considerably reduces the risks. Looking up your route beforehand, you can plan a way that’s back street and cycle-lane rich with light traffic. 

When you’re on a car diet, you have to get your act together with different clothing and equipment for different weather. Weather - you remember that stuff? It used to be there when we were children, weather and the Great Outdoors. Do you remember how exiting it was to step outside your front door and feel the wind blowing, the sun shining, the frost in the air? Well, it’s still all out there. The saying ‘there is no such thing as bad weather, just bad clothing’ is true. With bikes, you have to get your gear ready to grab and go by the front door. The list is quite extensive: hi viz, wind/rain proof clothing, bike helmet, lock, lights, and keys. Another plus for bikes, is they are like sturdy little pit ponies that can carry huge loads. I regularly carry a £100 pounds worth of shopping on my bike with the help of panniers, a back pack and basket it’s no problem.

Some times, there is no way round it and we need a car for work or to transport elderly relatives. This is where sharing a car with a friend comes in. We live close to each other and she still needs a car for her work and taxiing children around. So paying part of her annual insurance and having us use the car sometimes, helps her to not use it so often. It’s encouraged her back into cycling, something she was very nervous about initially, but she has really taken to it now. Sharing a car with her has also strengthened our friendship, in the same way sharing child care does with other parents from the same school. Car sharing means you have to be on your best behaviour. You can’t slob out and leave your apple cores and old sweet wrappers on the floor, as you would in your own car. You must leave the same amount of fuel in the tank as when you picked it up. It seems a small price to pay for what seems to us now, the luxurious privilege of driving a car.

Walking is also fast, it’s easy to walk 3 or 4 miles an hour which is the average speed of a car in London, so you might as well be walking and getting free exercise at the same time. You also see more, you start to notice the seasons changing, the buds exploding, the leaves turning and the birds singing. Walking rather than driving, has made us connect more with our local area. We have joined our residents association and our Transition Town group (transition from high carbon to low carbon). Our residents association have achieved a lot. We have got rubbish cleared, more police on the beat so the crime rate has dropped, graffiti cleaned up and trees planted, and we had a very jolly street party. 

We have become born again train lovers. It feels so relaxing to be driven safely, in comfort by someone else with total responsibility. People say trains are too expensive and slow compared to the car but we have found it to be the opposite. We booked ahead last year for a friend’s New Years Eve party and got to Cumbria by train in 3 1/2 hours, half the time our car would’ve taken and for a fraction of the petrol costs. We went to Berlin by train, leaving our house at 7am and arrived in the centre of Berlin by 7pm. If you take into account travel time out to and from the airport, check in time, security checks and waiting for baggage the other end, there’s not a lot in it. Speeding smoothly along, you can see wonderful scenery out of picture windows, rather than the dreary motorway hard shoulders in a car or tiny cramped aircraft windows. We have also been to Spain, Switzerland and France by train, none of which we would have attempted by car. On a train, you can read, walk about, stretch your legs, go to the loo when you want, or go get a cup of tea. Instead of dreading long journeys as an ordeal, now I really look forward to blissful hours of reading.

Train travel means having to get much more disciplined about time keeping. Cars appear to give you more choice, but not having to decide where you’re going until the last minute, is actually more stressful. It’s false choice in the same way supermarkets appear to give you a huge range of fruit and veg from all over the planet, but they’re often unripe, tasteless and disappointing. The way cars allow you to plan multi stop offs in a day, is also an illusion of freedom. What it actually means, is that you only dip in to each, keeping an eye on the clock, rather than fully experiencing just one. Before giving up the car, we found it difficult to leave the house and so were frequently late. Now we have to decide, book the tickets and commit to an arrangement in advance. Coming by train we are able to let people know when we will be arriving and when we will be leaving. Then we don’t have to think about it again until the moment we grab a few things and leave the house to go to the station.

Luggage is much simpler without a car. When you have to carry what you take, you soon learn to whittle it down to a few bare essentials. These only take a few minutes to pack/unpack into a small bag that fits easily onto the rack above in the carriage. Trains are supposed to be unreliable but over one year, we’ve only had one journey where the train was delayed for an hour because a suicide on the tracks in a far off part of the system, ground the whole of the West country to a halt. Otherwise the trains have been on time to the minute and connections, seamless.

Another benefit of leaving car world, is we have rejoined the human race. We used to go from our house box, to our car box without a nod to the neighbours but sharing transport with strangers has made us less anti-social. People are so diverse, they have different faces and hairstyles, they dress differently, they’re all ages, shapes and sizes and different cultures. Other people are not as scary as they appear when looking out from inside a small metal box. They are often surprisingly kind and polite. When occasionally they’re not, I carry earplugs with me at all times. We always used to argue in the car, it seemed to be a flash point. We’d argue about whose route would have been better and whose music at what volume to have, we’d argue about arguing. In public, you can’t argue, so we have learnt to behave.

So being car free has made us fitter, more sociable, better behaved, less stressed and we enjoy travelling now. Our present culture revolves around the car and the burden of its escalating demands on our space, air and fuel. It’s time we shook ourselves free and taking Basil Fawlty’s lead, we need to show the car who’s boss. Step away from your car, there’s an all singing, all dancing Technicolor show going on out here and it’s really very lovely.

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.