Break up of Brent's local authority school system continues

The headteacher of Preston Manor was annoyed at me when during September's Education Debate at Copland High School I included Preston Manor in a comment about academies. 'We are not an academy,' he said and then got more upset when I responded, 'Not yet!'. 

Anti-academy campaigners in Brent were always concerned that when schools became Cooperative Trusts there would be an almost automatic progression to becoming Cooperative Academies. This was denied by the Cooperative College when they spoke to local schools and trade unions.The Cooperative Trust model was sold as a way of staying within the locally funded network of schools but in a more cooperative way and alternative to private sponsorship.

Preston Manor is currently a Cooperative Trust foundation school but is consulting on becoming a Cooperative academy. The consultation started in November and will finish in on December 7th.  A meeting for parents took place yesterday evening.

In a letter to parents the headteacher said:

Earlier this term I wrote to explain that the Governors had agreed to my recommendation to apply to the Secretary of State to be considered for conversion to Co-operative Academy status. I stressed that over the last eighteen months Governors have discussed the potential benefits and any drawbacks or risks of conversion to Co-operative Academy status as well as listening to the views of staff, students and parents.

The Governors’ thinking has always focused on the best interests of the students and children at the school;  they are adamant that if Preston Manor does convert to Co-operative Academy status it would  continue to offer inclusive and comprehensive education to our students and children but would have the benefits of greater curriculum freedoms;   continue to embrace the Co-operative values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity; continue with the same admissions policy; retain national and local terms and conditions for all existing and future staff;  utilise the additional finances to improve the school even further, with a particular focus on teaching and learning, standards and progress;  continue to work collaboratively with other local schools to benefit students, children and staff;  continue to have a majority of Governors who are parents or staff; and  keep our school day and school year within the local context.

The joint education unions in a letter to staff and parents said:

The joint education unions welcome Preston Manor Governors commitment to having a full consultation over the possible move to academy status.

As supporters of locally accountable comprehensive state education, we view with grave concern this Government's plans to privatise the whole of the education system through academies and free schools. We expressed these concerns when the school was consulting over the move to Co-operative Trust status .

We hope that where our members oppose conversion the Co-op would respect this. The NASUWT has a good relationship with the Co-operative movement but remains opposed to Academies . As the Unions representing the overwhelming majority of staff we are concerned the impact that such a change of status could have on the children's education and the conditions of service for the employees.

Preston Manor is a good and improving school. Why does it need to change?

This proposal has nothing to do with improving education for pupils. If it was, your child's teachers would all have been calling for these changes . They have not, and are not.

Academies , though state funded, are in the independent sector- the tax payer pays but academies are democratically unaccountable locally. Academies are accountable directly to Michael Gove, Secretary of State. The whole of the TUC and its affiliated trade unions are opposed to academies .

As you know the teaching and support staff at the school are dedicated and committed to providing the best education for the pupils at the school. They believe that any change to the school  should  be one which makes a positive difference to children's educational attainment. There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that becoming an academy would raise educational standards . Rather, in the long term, we are convinced it will be the reverse and lower them.

Private companies are lining up to take over the provision of school services - and in future to provide and run all schools to make  a profit. They may price cut at the start but increase costs later. We see the Government's true privatising colours in raising tuition fees to £9000 and are now supporting private universities. Gove's long term intention is to privatise the running of schools and education

Though the current Head and Governors may promise things will not change, when  they  move  on  as happens over time , any new leadership can change things very quickly if the school is an academy . These would include for example determining the curriculum, pay, conditions and varying duties.

The only guarantee that national pay and conditions will continue to be applied to staff would be if Preston Manor did not become an academy .

Is there a financial advantage to becoming an academy?

If Preston Manor becomes an academy it initially receives some extra funding but only for only a short period of time . The Department for Education has stated that; 'the government is clear that a school converting to an academy will not have a financial advantage or disadvantage '.

We have requested a copy of the Preston Manor business plan but as yet it has not been forthcoming . We would urge the Governors to ensure that the financial implications are fully explored . Some heads present academy status as a short term funding expedient, but the consequences for the school are long term and serious. In the funding context , academies undermine the  key principle of accountability in public funding - they  are publicly funded , but not subject to the same reporting requirements as maintained schools.

 If Preston Manor becomes an academy it will leave Copland High School as the only community secondary school in Brent.

The shape of Brent secondary education will be:

South of the North Circular Road:
Newman College (Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided), Capital Academy (private sponsor), Crest Boys and Crest Girls (private sponsor), Queens Park (Cooperative Academy), Convent of Jesus and Mary (Converter Roman Catholic)

North of the North Circular Road:
St Gregory's  (Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided), JFS (Jewish Voluntary Aided applying for converter status),  Ark Academy (private sponsor all-through) Kingsbury High (Converter), Wembley High (Converter), Alperton High  (Cooperative Academy), Preston Manor (Cooperative Academy - all-through), Copland Hugh (foundation school)

Amongst primary schools Sudbury has become the first academy. A question mark may hang over Preston Manor's partner schools once it becomes an academy.  They are Oakington Manor Primary,  Preston Park Primary and  Woodfield Special school.

The break-up of the network of local authority, democratically elected secondary schools is almost complete. I expressed fear that Preston Manor's expansion into primary provision as a result of the Ark Academy would  inevitably lead to Preston Manor seeking academy status. To its credit it hasn't taken the private sponsor route and appears to be holding a fair consultation process but the decision, if it goes ahead, will still undermine the local schools system and open the way to further disintegration.
 

Butt condemns fire service cuts that will cause preventable deaths

Muhammed Butt's office has sent me the following statement. Please note that the 8 fatalities in Brent last year included the mother and five children who died in the Neasden house fire. Reports at the time said that the fire service was alerted at 00.50 and were fighting the fire 'around' 01.00 and it was under control by 02.50.   Firefighters from Willesden, West Hampstead, North Kensington and Park Royal fire stations attended.

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, has spoken out angrily today against Coalition cuts to fire services in Brent. Cllr Butt’s comments came as it was revealed that the fire service missed its own target of attending the scene of a fire within 6 minutes in 41% of callouts in Brent. Cllr Butt is extremely concerned  that Brent had by far the highest number of fire fatalities in London during 2011/12.

Of 2,384 fire service callouts since January 2012, 988 (or 41%) missed the fire service’s own 6 minute response time target. David Cameron has said that the key issue for the fire service is how long it takes to attend an incident.

In 2011/12 there were 8 fire fatalities in Brent, by far the highest of any London Borough. The next highest was Southwark with 5 fatalities, and most the London Boroughs had only 1. During the same period there were a total of 47 fatalities across London.

Cllr Butt, Leader of Brent Council said,

“I have huge respect for our fire men and women and the extremely difficult job they do, and these cuts to fire services are an absolute disgrace. Cameron, Teather, Boris and co are acting with complete disregard for the lives of Brent residents. 

“They must scrap their plans to cut fire services in Brent even further immediately. Sarah Teather must stand firmly on the side of her residents against her Government on this issue. How can they give money to millionaires while their cuts are causing preventable deaths in our poorest communities?”

Barry Gardiner, Member of Parliament for Brent North said:

“The Mayor may have the power to do this but he has no right to put the lives of my constituents at risk in this way.”

The global food and climate crisis comes home to Brent

                                                   A global issue                 Photo: Shahrar Ali

There was a good turn-out for the community briefing on climate change and its impact last night thanks to the hard work of organisers Lia Colacicco of Brent Friends of the Earth and Ken Montague of the Brent Campaign Against Climate Change.

Introducing the meeting I spoke about the recent death of Jeff Bartley who as a Brent council officer championing the environmental cause had worked with many in the audience. I said that the best tribute we could pay him would be positive actions arising from our discussion. The meeting was partly a factual briefing but also  the beginning of a discussion to formulate a community response to the crisis.

As I was chairing I was unable to take copious notes but a detailed record of the meeting will be available at a later date.  However I can tell you that the illustrated review by Phil Thornhill (National coordinator of the Campaign Against Climate Change), of the latest scientific evidence of the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap, by area and by volume, brought home vividly the urgency of the situation and the upcoming climate catastrophe that it represents.

Phil  explained that the effect of the melting ice was to change the temperature gradient in the northern oceans which in turn was reducing the power of the jet stream. Severe droughts in Russia in 2011 and the USA this year, and recurring floods in Pakistan, were due to the jet stream becoming more sluggish and erratic.

He warned that Arctic sea ice will have completely disappeared in the summer months by 2016, which was the clearest evidence of rapid man-made climate change. The result would be an increasing number of severe weather events, affecting the price and quality of food around the world.

We are rightly so involved in the immediate crisis regarding the economy and the attacks on the welfare state that it is sometimes difficult to also keep a focus on this danger facing humanity.  However the climate crisis will  impact on the global economy as well as the local one, cause international conflict over food and water resources, create great movements of populations and in the process raise issues of social justice. Anger over rising food prices contributed to the social unrest behind the Arab Spring and failing harvests will increase the pressure on the world food market.

Kirtana Chandrasekaran, Food Sovereignty Programme Co-coordinator of Friends of the Earth International spoke about food supplies in the context of climate change.

She started with the startling fact that 1 billion of the world population is hungry while another 1 billion is obese.  It was estimated that 3 - 5 million people a year were dying as a result, and since 2008 two hundred million people had been pushed into hunger. She said it was not so much a question of there being a lack of food but the way it is produced and how it is distributed being the problem. 70% of the grain produced is used to feed animals.

Each spike in food prices puts millions more people into hunger.  She said that the evidence so far is that in temperate countries the impact of global warming may not be very extreme but in tropical countries it may cut crop yields by 30-50%. 

Agriculture, including emissions and deforestation accounts for  30-50% of global warming. Kirtana pointed to large scale industrial agriculture and its link with oil - in essence it converts oil into food and the rising  price of food closely matches that of oil. US farms use 5 times more energy to produce a kilo of grain than farmers in Africa. Kirtana gave the example of the food /emissions chain where grain grown in South America is shipped to Europe, fed to animals, which then excrete methane into the atmosphere.

What was needed was 'agricology' where ecological principles are applied to growing food. Rebuilding the soil and organic methods can 'lock' carbon into the soil. Potentially 70% of climate change mitigation, including a reduction in intensive industrial cattle rearing, livestock diversity and reduced meat diet could be achieved through agricultural change. Kirtana pointed out the absurdity of the fact that we exported almost exactly the same quantities of chicken breasts and milk as we import.

Local food growing and more food growing spaces in cities could contribute to a more sustainable agricological agriculture even here in Brent.

Kirtana concluded by saying that these measures were possible and in a way injected a degree of optimism into the discussion. She was at pains to say that she was not advocating vegetarianism or denying people emerging from poverty the right to desire meat, but that an all round reduction in meeting would both help mitigate climate change and also help those in the west  have healthier lives. Research by Oxford University's Health Promotion group of FoE found that eating meat no more than three times a week would save 45,000 lives a year.

In the ensuing discussion Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt spoke about some of the measures that Brent Council had taken and the council's eagerness to do more  at a local level (a local Brent currency like the Brixton Pound was mentioned) and asked for ideas to be sent to the council.. Ken Montague talked about how the year on year rise in food prices since 2007  had created a health crisis for the poor who were no longer able to eat healthily.

Brian Orr of Brent Green Party and the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, drew attention to the seriousness of the global climate crisis and accused politicians of an 'abysmal' failure to rise to the challenge and suggested, with the example for the recent US presidential election,  that they were frightened to reveal to the public the true extent of the threat.

Viv Stein told the audience about the work of Transition Willesden in encouraging local shops,local  food growing including demonstration allotments at Kilburn Station, and harvesting of otherwise unwanted fruit. Lia Colacicco spoke about her work with residents encouraging environmental action not through Facebook or Twitter but by face to face contact and joint work  with friends and neighbours in the local area. Tariq Dar from the Pakistan Community Centre said that they were involved in a joint project with the London Sustainability Exchange. Tim Danby of Marley Walks Residents Association spoke about the positive fact that this meeting was attended by the most diverse audience of any that had been to a climate change in Brent.

The meeting concluded with calls to support the National Demonstration Against Climate Change 'Get fractious' marchon December 1st  LINK which would include the erection of a fracking rig  Downing Street to demonstrate how dependency on oil was bringing about increasingly dangerous and damaging oil extraction methods which would continue to build up the emissions contributing to made-made climate change.

The threads that emerged: work with residents, work with schools, transition, food growing, council action and lobbies of politicians at a national level have the potential to be woven into quite a strong strategy. The December 1st  march, the Schools' Climate Conference and Competition due to take place in  March  2013 and Parliamentary lobby in June seem well placed milestones for the next few months. Another meeting will be held in January 2013 to move things forward.

I think Jeff would have been pleased.

'Never mind the polar bears, what will we eat?' Wednesday - be there!

I will be chairing this meeting on Wednesday. It is all too easy to forget the huge climate change threat facing us when we are simultaneously campaigning on economic and social justice issues. Of course catastrophic  climate change will affect both issues. This is a briefing meeting for campaigners, councillors, voluntary organisations, residents' associations, trades unionists and the general public.

'They're out to get you,' Butt warned

'Your main opposition comes from within the Labour Council Executive, the Labour Group on the council and some senior council officers,' opposition leader Paul Lorber told Labour Council leader Muhammed Butt last night. Butt's wry grin seemed to indicate that he recognised a grain of truth in the statement.

Lorber's comment came in response to Butt's speech for the Budget First Reading Debate where he lambasted the vindictiveness of the Government's welfare cuts predicting that their policies would lead to the wiping out of the advances made by 13 years of Labour government:

This is the deliberate effect of an ideological experiment designed by  (the Conservatives) and shamefully supported by the Liberal Democrats. It is a social experiment based on the Conservative belief that the rich should have no responsibility for the poor.

 Butt outlined  a package of 'reforms'  that would provide resilience and protection for the community:

• Support for local business and their growth through working with them for shared objectives
• Paying the London Living Wage to direct council employees and encouraging contractors to do the same
• Create an energy cooperative to bulk purchase energy for residents
• Investment in an innovative employment support package
• A new deal for the voluntary and community sector helping troubled families and tackling health inequality

Butt said that the council would shift council resources from the 'treatment of problems to the prevention of problems'  and would 'squeeze contractors and providers' and get rid of 'inefficiewncy, duplication and waste'. He said that the council couldn't fight the residents' battles for them any more but could provide a 'dented shield'.

Cllr Butt said that the council budget had been reduced by 28% between 2010 and 2014 and that the failure of the government's policies had led to forecasts of a 7% reduction every year until 2020 at least. 

There was a conspicuous lack of detail on what that would mean in terms of cuts to council services except for a passing reference to looking at charges for services.

If there is to be any proper consultation on the budget, and particularly if there is to be any effective campaign  based on a needs budget, the specific cuts to services need to be spelled out as quickly as possible. Residents need to have a realistic view of what they face in the immediate future. Apart from the Living Wage and Energy Cooperative proposals the other 'reforms' are vague. It would be an insult to residents if the consultation just sought endorsement for the reforms and the gloss involved in 'community, fairness and growth'.

There was little evidence in Paul Lorber's speech that he had burned the midnight oil preparing a comprehensive alternative approach. He criticised the lack of substance in Butt's presentation but his own was a knockabout speech piling blame for the economic crisis on the Labour Government and more tellingly  emphasising Ed Balls' statement that Labour are 'going to be ruthless about public spending'. He ridiculed Butt's claim about strengthening communities when the council had cut grants to the voluntary sector, and supporting businesses when they had increased parking charges hitting reducing the trade of local businesses.  Conservative leader Cllr Kansagra  said little apart from drawing attention to the cost of legal action over the libraries and parking charges.

I thought there might have been more attention given to Sarah Teather's Observer interview about the welfare benefit cap. Cllr Jim Moher, in response to Lorber's quote from Ed Balls said it was not a question of 'whether we would make cuts but whether we would have made this scale of cuts' and went on to say there was no hint in Lorber's speech of the disquiet in Lib Dem ranks and amongst many Lib Dem councillors. The Sarah Teather 'elephant in the room' had been reduced to a hamster.

So what about the rest of the meeting?   I left before the motions but questions to the Executive included some effective ones from Cllr Alison Hopkins in libraries and Cllr Carol Shaw on the Willesden Green Redevelopment and a less effective one from Cllr Daniel Brown on the dangers of the failure to clear fallen leaves after the cuts in street cleaning.  Cllr Shaw criticised the cost of the Civic Centre perhaps forgetting that this was the brain child of the Lib Dem led previous administration - fully supported by Labour of course.

Cllr Hunter extolled the virtues of making 'evidence based' recommendations on health and not 'political ones' thus not opposing the closure of Central Middlesex A&E. She quoted Boris Johnson approvingly on the virtues of cross-party support for the Olympics.

 Labour backbenchers asked questions that enabled Muhammed Butt to make attacks on various government policies including the cutting of the Early Intervention Grant. Cllr Krupesh Hirani drew approval from across the chamber when he spoke about the hard work of carers and even more when he took a swipe at adult care provision in Brighton and Hove where there is a Green led minority administration.(Background HERE)

Entertainment was provided by spotting the councillors and officers who had fallen asleep, those that were tweeting and texting surreptitiously under desks or cardies on their laps, and of course seeing Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala once again achieve a multiple orgasm just by listening to the sound of his own voice.

Passport not sufficient ID to get into Brent Council meeting

There was increased security at last night's meeting of Brent Council and a ticket system for getting into the building. When I arrived there was a small group of lobbyists outside from the Counihan Family Campaign and Brent Fightback. Brent Fightback had been giving out a leaflet making the case for the Council to set a needs based budget. Railings had been erected at the foot of the Town Hall steps and two police cars were in attendance.

When I asked if they were going to observe the meeting one of the lobbyists told me that the council meetings were so tedious and mind-numbing that she did not wish to go in.  Others however said that they had been denied entry by an officer from Democratic Services who stood at the door with a security guard. He told them that they were going to keep out the people who had caused trouble at the previous meetings. or who might cause trouble because previous meetings had been interrupted and they wanted the business of the Council meeting to be completed that evening.

The officer's action seemed particularly targeted at the Counihan Family Campaign but was applied in a blanket way to everyone who had been lobbying.. Three women who tried to get in were asked for ID in order to gain admittance. Carol, a retired TfL worker went all the way home to collect her passport and library card but the officer refused to look at it saying, 'We know you are part of the campaign' without saying which campaign.

I was granted admittance and a woman was also allowed in but only after she had to ask that the officer to ring  Carol Shaw, her local councillor,  to check her credentials.

When we eventually arrived in the public gallery we were the only two people in attendance with 50 empty seats and more on the floor of the council chamber.  After half an hour or so two young women joined us but soon got bored and went home. Ex- Democratic Conservative Councillor Robert Dunwell, who has his moments in the Town Hall, was happily trotting around the Council Chamber.

Clearly this raises issues about democratic accountability if the public are not allowed to attend full meetings of the council.  The 'Summons to attend council meeting' clearly states 'The press and public are welcome to attend this meeting'. How can democracy be seen to be done if the electorate are not allowed to see it in action? Is it legal or moral for the council to decide which members of the public are acceptable?

A further troubling aspects is the question of how the council has identified previous and potential trouble makers?  I have never been a conspiracy theorist but is there a list or photographic record? Does the council believe in guilt by association? If you are opposed to council policy does that make you a 'trouble maker'. Would library campaigners have been asked for their ID?

Interesting Lib Dem Cllr Jack Beck who tweets as @digitalliberal tweeted during the meeting:

Brent Fightback at the Town Hall tonight, very unimaginative literature, looks like a member of the Brent Labour Party wrote it. 

So a Labour Council bars entry to a group of people, some of whom are Labour supporters, who are advocating a policy supported by many on the left of the Labour Party as well as other socialist groups including Green Left,  as well as those supporting a Brent family suffering as a result of the housing crisis.  l Muhammed Butt,   leader of Brent Council went to speak to Brent Trades Union Council earlier this year at a meeting attended by many members of Brent Fightback. LINK  He stressed that he wanted to have a dialogue with them and return to 'what Labour stands for and why we are here'. Asked how he would organise a fightback against Coalition cuts he said:

Me being here is just a start. I am willing to go anywhere, whether to a warm reception or a hostile one, to have a dialogue.

In the same meeting he said that he had not ruled out a needs based budget.We are entitled to ask, what has happened to that dialogue, but more importantly, what has happened to democracy?

Recently I attended an Extraordinary Meeting of Barnet Council where the Labour group had tabled a motion of 'no confidence' in the Conservative Leader of the council calling for him to be replaced. Feelings were running high but not only was the public gallery full but the council had provided seats in an overflow room with a television link. Officers from the council politely greeted us and showed us to the viewing room. There was some spirited heckling but the Mayor was able to keep things under control and a proper debate took place.

Can Teather detoxify in time for 2015?

Michael Gove and Sara Teather in happier times

Sarah Teather's interview with the Observer on Sunday has given rise to a rash of speculation about her future intentions.  Not everyone has been impressed by her statements against  the benefit cap suggesting that they are based on pure political opportunism.

On the Tom Pride blog LINK the spoof quote from Teather says:

Clearly we couldn’t give a toss what happens to people in safe Labour seats, but it is immoral of the government to try to save money by attacking the worse off people in marginal constituencies such as mine. It’s time the government stopped attacking the most vulnerable people in society such as Liberal Democrats  -  and found ways to reduce future levels of unemployment amongst the hardest-hit MPs in the country like me.

The General Election result was close between Lib Dems and Labour in 2010:

Sarah Teather	Liberal Democrats	20026	44%	Elected
Dawn Butler	Labour	18681	41%	Not elected
Sachin Rajput	Conservative	5067	11%	Not elected
Shahrar Ali	Green Party	668	1%	Not elected
Errol Williams	Christian Party	488	1%	Not elected
Abdi Duale	Respect	230	1%	Not elected
Dean McCastree	Independent	163	0%	Not elected

Since the General Election the Lib Dems in Brent have returned to grassroots campaigning, particularly over library closures, but have not managed to remove the taint of betrayal over Coalition policies. They did not stand a candidate at all in the Barnhill by-election where Michael Pavey had a comfortable win for Labour and the Conservative vote fell away. The Lib Dems have refused to call by-elections in two seats where their councillors have moved out of Brent. Expecting defeat they are putting off the evil hours while .Labour is on the doorstep most weekends.

In 2010 Sarah Teather fought a left-wing campaign based on her record in opposing tuition fees, opposition to the Iraq war,  support for the Palestinian cause, bolstered by a visit to Palestine and a record of efficient casework. As a result she probably captured some votes from Dawn Butler, the Labour candidate who had been caught up in the expenses scandal.. LINK

However, this left-wing platform left her exposed when she became a minister in the Coalition. When I carried a copy of her 2003 speech against tuition fees on this blog in December 2010 it got the highest ever number of retweets I have ever received.  The shift in her position was glaring and left her open to charges of hypocrisy. Her closeness to Michael Glove an an education minister and her acquiesce in Tory academies and free school policies further alienated her previous supporters.  As a minister Teather moved away from supporting the intergration of children with special needs and disabilities into mainsteam education, earning further approbrium.

Teather saw the Pupil Premium as a popular policy that would help her claw back some  of her support and her press team were active in trying to claim the subsequent increase in some Brent school budgets were result of her personal intervention.

When Teather absented herself from the vote on benefit reforms right-wing Tories rose against her but others on the left thought she should have gone further and resigned at this time.

She appeared to be writhing on the end of the Tory's Coalition hook and was finally put out of her misery in the recent reshuffle.

Here claim that she left the Coalition to concentrate on her constituents has been challenged by campaigners who say that if she is truly going to do that she should be opposing the closure of Central Middlesex A&E and the privatisation of the NHS, come out against the cuts in local government funding, and oppose the housing benefit and welfare benefit caps.

The question is, having addressed the latter in the Observer, how much further will she go to fundamentally challenge the Lib Dem's collusion in the Coalition?  Is her own collusion in the Coalition such a toxic legacy that she can never escape from it? Is this this the first of a series of distancing  statements that she hopes will give her a firm base from which to fight the 2015 General Election?

Will we see her at the head of marches again in the months ahead?

Dawn Butler has signalled her determination to gain Labour's nomination again in 2015 although it is by no means certain that she will succeed. A candidate may well emerge from among the ambitious youngsters on the current Brent Council Labour Executive.

Speculation is rife on the UK Polling website LINK with even a mischievous suggestion that she may defect to Labour, which would certainly put the cat among the pigeons!  Another possibility mooted by some is that she is preparing the ground for a senior position in the Lib Dem leadership with Nick Clegg  likely to go ahead of the General Election.  Teather showed that she can be ruthless when back in 2006, then a junior Lib Dem spokesperson,  she signed the letter calling for Charles Kennedy to resign. Will she do the same for Clegg?

.If she is sufficiently detoxified by 2015 she may by then represent the acceptable (and rather different) face of the Lib Dems for a potential coalition with Labour. This seems most unlikely at present but an awful  lot can happen between now and 2015.