Vote for the real alternative this evening!

Thanks to Coalition of Resistance

Brent library visits and issues plummet

The results of a Freedom of Information request by library campaigners on the number of visits and issues at Brent libraries since the closure of six of them have now been released. 

The March figures fit very squarely into the pattern which library campaigners described at last month's meeting with civil servants - usage rose (compared with March 2011) at the two libraries (Kilburn & Town Hall) with increased opening hours, but actually fell at all the other libraries. Total visits and issues at all Brent libraries both fell by some 30% compared with March 2011.

Campaigners now have figures for six months since the closures in October 2011. In those six months, Brent libraries had 20% fewer visits and 21% fewer issues than in the preceding six months. From October 2011 to March 2012 there were 18% fewer visits and 26% fewer issues than in the same months of 2010/11.

Click on righthand bottom corner to see full table Kilburn Library will soon close for 16 weeks for refurbishment at a cost of £650,000.

Ann John cleared of misconduct

The following statement was issued by Brent Council today:

Councillor Ann John OBE, Leader of Brent Council (Lab) was yesterday (2 May 2012) given the all clear by the council's Standards Committee. This follows her exoneration by an independent investigation looking into an allegation that she breached the council's code of conduct on a planning issue.

A formal complaint and request for the Committee to investigate Councillor John was made last January by Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Paul Lorber (Lib Dem). This followed his receipt of a leaked email from Labour Councillor Dhiraj Kataria sent to Councillor John and others.

In the leaked email, Councillor Kataria alleged that Councillor John had attempted to interfere with the council's planning process by seeking to influence a planning decision.

A detailed investigation into the allegation was conducted over a 12 week period by independent solicitor, and former Director of Casework for the Standards Board for England, Hazel Salisbury.

A report detailing Ms Salisbury's findings was presented to the council's Standards Committee yesterday (2 May 2012) for consideration. Ms Salisbury's report states that she found no evidence to corroborate any of the allegations made against Councillor John.

The council's Standards Committee was satisfied that Councillor John had not breached the council's code of conduct and unanimously agreed to release the report.

School budgets under pressure

Brent Council has written to local schools regarding budgets over the next few years. It is clear that there are difficulties ahead in terms of maintaining staffing and resourcing and  therefore the overall quality of provision:

The current economic climate and government announcements point to the fact that cash-flat funding settlements are likely to continue for schools over the foreseeable future. I would like to alert all schools of the need to construct budgets for at least the next 3 years on the assumption of cash flat settlements in order to identify any financial difficulties over the short and medium term.

The DfE requires under the Schools Financial Value Standard, that schools should be producing a 3 year budget forecast. Ideally, you should be using some kind of budget forecasting tool, to highlight any potential deficit issues, so that governors can start to implement, at the earliest opportunity, any possible cost reductions that may be necessary to maintain a balanced budget. If at any time you think there may potentially be deficit issues at your school, then you should contact the Schools Finance Team.

Vote for the 'People's Pain in the The Arse"!

With Jenny Jones in Wembley

I hope that whatever party you support you will outcome and vote today despite the dismal weather Our democracy, with all its faults, has been hard-fought for and we cannot afford to let it slip through our fingers in such difficult times.

This is my last opportunity to answer a couple of questions that have come up during the campaign.

One obvious one is what can one Green councillor out of 63 councillors do?  A good place to start my answer is to tell you what our Labour councillors have said about me. Apparently they think I am a 'pain in the arse' because of the campaigns I have been involved in (against the closure of libraries and nurseries, the redevelopment of Willesden Green without proper consultation, lack of a strategic plan for primary school provision, and the spurious leafleting licensing scheme, to name but a few). If that is what earns the title 'pain in the arse' then I retort: "I am the people's pain in the arse", much more fun than being the people's princess.

However, the clue in their perception is that I ask awkward questions, insist on full disclosure, and want proper debate on controversial issues and this I will be able to pursue as an independent Green councillor. Not so much a pain in the arse as a rocket up the backside of this complacent council.

A telling comment was made by a member of the Executive when I encountered them on a rainy day canvassing on Barn Hill. I was chatting in a friendly way to a younger member of the Labour Party when the Exec member came up and said, "Do you realise he's the Opposition". I swear I could hear the capital 'O' in her voice along with the definite article.. With no Lib Dem standing and a lacklustre and nearly invisible campaign by the Conservatives, who appear to be relying on automatic support from their traditional supporters 'on the Hill', this is true in the context of the by-election. However, it is also true in a broader sense as the Greens in Brent have consistently, week after week, issue after issue, been the most vocal opposition to the Labour Council's attacks on local people and their services and nationally the lone voice of Caroline Lucas has consistently challenged Coalition policies.

As I am also able to work with others on common issues I will work constructively, as other Green councillors do across the country, on proposing sensible policies on issues such as environment, support for local businesses and high streets, public transport, cycling, crime, education and training and employment.

If you vote for the Labour candidate you will be voting for the 40th Labour councillor out of the 63 member council. His election will make no difference whatsoever to how the council runs things. Because of the Labour group's rigid control from the top and the cabinet structure which gives all power to the Executive he will have little influence, along with other backbenchers, on policy and will be expected to rubber stamp Executive decisions.

He will be limited to casework, taking up individual residents' concerns and having a say on the spending of Ward Working funds. Without being on the council, Greens already do that, and I have extensive casework experience from previous work as a trade union representative and working with families in need when I was a primary headteacher.

We need a Green breakthrough locally and this is a chance for Barnhill voters to make a difference.

 I am now off to do a final round of leafleting...

VOTE GREEN ON ORANGE TOMORROW

AND IF YOU LIVE IN BRENT'S BARNHILL WARD

VOTE MARTIN FRANCIS - GREEN PARTY

The Orange Ballot Paper is the most important one in the GLA election.  It is based on proportional representation so EVERY VOTE COUNTS.  The more votes we get on that list the more Green Assembly members we get to influence and hold to account whoever is elected Mayor.

"We're going on a Gove hunt, what a beautiful day, we're not scared!"

Michael Rosen, broadcaster and writer, publishes an entertaining blog HERE as well as monthly letters in the Guardian.


This one LINK is particular relevant as some Brent schools consider converting to academies:

Dear Mr Gove,

 Letter from a curious parent

I know you're proud of your policy of creating academies, but something happened on 23 April that pressed my panic button. You told the Commons education select committee that eight academy schools have been served with "pre-warning notices" because they are severely underperforming. I immediately thought, how come? Aren't academies the solve-all, the system that will rid us of "underperforming" schools? For the record, let's say it out loud: we now know that academies can and do fail. Perhaps, though, I should suspend my judgment, because the great advantage of the academy system is that the moment something goes wrong, the parents' complaints will be heard and the secretary of state will be on to it?

Let's look closer. First, we're not allowed to know what or where these academies are. With local authority schools, we have accountability and transparency with online Ofsted reports, sometimes followed by local newspaper headlines and TV fly-on-the-wall documentaries, but with academies, we have the schools that dare not speak their name. And we have the academy accounts that dare not be made public.

Even so, should I have confidence that the matter is being handled competently? It doesn't seem so. The education select committee chairman, Graham Stuart, tried to work out whose job it was to deal with what parents think about these underperforming academies. Was it the Young People's Learning Agency – now closed – where parents with children in local authority schools used to go with their complaints, or perhaps the Education Funding Agency?

No one in the world, least of all you, seemed to know. When some parents (who are presumably under some kind of gagging order to not reveal where this is going on) called the YPLA, they were told this wasn't in its remit. The Special Education Consortium seems to have approached the EFA to find out if this was in its remit. Nope. The EFA said that dealing with complaints about academies wasn't its problem either. I'm sure you would agree that it's a shame these parents can't talk to the press about their frustrations in this matter.

The problem was: it was no one's problem. Not the YPLA's, not the EFA's, not yours. It's not good enough, is it? In fact, it's a scandal. Can I make an observation? Over the last 20 years, your predecessors and you have been very keen to point the finger at what they say are "underperforming" schools. You have even taken action to force through a conversion job, turning a "failing" local authority school into a seemingly un-fail-able academy (not so un-fail-able, huh?). Yet when we look at your own process of governance, we find it's underperforming. It's not enabling parents' complaints to be heard. That makes it not fit for purpose. What's more, you didn't know about it. You're underperforming as well.

That to one side, should we be confident these academies will improve? All we hear from you is that if things don't get better, "action" will be taken. What is this action? I read this week that you're very keen to up the involvement of the Church of England in education. Perhaps you have a plan up your sleeve where clerics from areas where congregations have shrunk could be redeployed taking over failing academies?

While we're on religion, can I ask you about the Bibles? I have a clear memory of you saying that you were going to put Bibles in every school. Did you buy the Bibles? If not, why not? Alternatively, if you did buy the Bibles, where are they? In a self-storage depot? I can see them now: thousands of brand-new Bibles jammed into steel boxes in Safestore just off the A1 near Biggleswade. Maybe they're waiting for your team of CofE recruits. And how much is it all costing? I do hope it's not another case of underperforming.

Leaflet Licence Call In motion published

The Call In Overview and Scrutiny Committee will now be held at a later date due to a technical issue regarding the timing.

This is the Liberal Democrat motion:

Item heading 11. Control of distribution of free literature on designated land

Reason(s)

(1) The report does not quote the relevant passage of the act, nor explain that interpretation of the act would be a matter for the courts.

(2) The report does not explain the evidence base for the problem. There should be a context paragraph explaining why they think the problem will get so much worse, why existing measures are inadequate and what action other London boroughs are taking.

(3) The report should either time limit these powers or make explicit that they are being requested permanently. At the moment the report implies they are just for the Olympic period from the way it is worded.

(4) The issue of enforcement, in particular the circumstances which would lead to action by council officers, is unclear.

(5) Equalities issues are dealt with inadequately: for example many small businesses in Brent are owned by members of particular ethnic minorities and small non-commercial group which are not charities or political organisations may be disproportionately affected given the level of fees proposed.

(6) The report does not sufficiently make clear whether small organisations which are not charities or political organisations and do not cause litter will be compelled to take out licenses and risk fines. 

Actions the Executive could take:

Clarify how the controls will be enforced and who they will affect.

Consider whether further information is needed about the equalities impacts of the decision

Recommend that if the council goes ahead with the proposal it should consult on and adopt a code of practice for enforcement of the controls, including guidance as to how officers will use their discretion, particularly in the case of small unlicensed distributors (commercial and non-commercial) who are not causing littering.