'Wrong sort of parents' protest against Gove's diktat

I guess Michael Gove will think that these are the 'wrong sort of parents': passionately committed to their children's education;  strongly supportive of their children's school, teachers and headteacher; enthusiastic about the multi-cultural nature of the school's population, committed to equality and, worse of all, keen on the democratic accountability of the school via the local authority.

A group of middle class parents setting up a Free School for their children aimed at keeping out the riff-raff are clearly preferable, and why oh why can't these Gladstone Park parents realise that their school would be far better if it was run by a bloke who sells carpets?

There was a brilliant demonstration after school this afternoon by Gladstone Park Primary parents and children to oppose a forced academy.. A force to be reckoned with!

'Carry on cutting' (and charge more for less)

Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt, last night rejected making a needs based budget and drew back from committing himself to a united campaign with residents and other London councils against the Coalition Government's savage reduction in local government funding. He said that action through the organisation London Councils was not possible because some were Conservative or Liberal Democrat controlled.

Challenged on setting a deficit budget or refusing to make a budget he asked Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement to answer, despite a cry of, 'We want a political answer - not a legal answer!'

Stung into a response he said, 'Councillors are elected to do a job. I'm not going to stand here and say I am not going to do my job (Cries of, 'You are doing the Tories' job!')  I've written lots of letters, I've told people. They're not doing this just to our borough. We still need to provide services.'

He had told the meeting that the situation facing the borough in 2014-5 was dire with £20m cuts required which could mean not providing services  such as youth centres, parks maintenance, street cleaning, employment support, arts funding and voluntary sector support.

His future strategy seemed to accept this as inevitable. He said that extracting extra money from the government was unlikely and apart from so-called efficiency savings the alternatives he offered were of allowing local authorities more freedom over tax and revenue (putting up the Council Tax, increasing charges and charging for services that up to now have been 'free') and removing statutory obligations to provide some services (ceasing to provide all but core services).  It didn't escape the audience that all this meant residents paying in one way or another.

He said that he had charged Interim Chief Executive Christine Gilbert with the task of investigating the future form that Brent Council could take including a 'Fair Council' and a Lambeth style Cooperative Council LINK   Admitting that he had been pushed into these public meetings after being reminded at a Brent Connects meeting that he hadn't yet consulted on the 2013-14 budget, he promised a 'community budget' next year.  The consultation would be over a longer period and it would mean him going out to local areas, schools, voluntary organisations and residents' groups to ascertain their views, rather than expecting them to come to him.

He said, 'I will listen to you but sometimes I may have to take decisions which are not palatable to you, not to your taste. That is leadership.'

Earlier members and trustees of Elders' Voice had told the meeting how another organisation had been awarded their contract after putting in a 'cheaper bid'. Despite Brent's promotion of the London Living Wage this organisation, unlike Elders Voice, did not pay it. They predicted that because of  staffing transfer costs, there would be eventually no difference in price but Brent would have lost the experience, expertise and community involvement of Elders' Voice.

As the meeting drew to a close one of  the Elders' Voice contingent stood up and addressed Muhammed Butt directly: 'I have been listening to you but where's your passion? I can't hear your passion. You need passion to lead people!'.

Butt replied, 'Passion is difficult isn't it?  I wouldn't be standing here if I didn't care.'

James Powney roasted in Kilburn Library

While his colleague Muhammed Butt was being grilled at Brent Town Hall James Powney faced a roasting at Kilburn Library. LINK

The occasion was the launch of veteran feminist and anti-racist Selma James' new publication, Sex, Race and Class: The perspective of winning. Cllr Powney was adopting a low profile in the audience. He might have been warned of what was to come if he had read Brent Council's press release on the event which included this quote from Selma James:

 I’m pleased to be talking with my community in our library and to support libraries as centres of learning and culture in every community. We need the libraries for our ongoing education to which we are all entitled.

When Selma started by stressing the importance of libraries and condemned Brent Council's closures of half the borough's libraries a member of the audience stood up and pointing to James Powney  said, 'We have the architect of the library closures in the audience here, Councillor James Powney, I hope he will listen and take note of some of the anger and outrage that residents feel about these library closures.'

The audience rose up up against the slight figure and angrily denounced Brent Council, library closures and capitulation to the cuts. Powney sarcastically said, 'Yes I am the evil architect of these library closures. I am going to defend myself' and gesturing to the refurbished library,  boasted of IT resources, new books and increased borrowing.

Needless to say the audience was not convinced.

Useful information for tonight's Public Brent Budget Meeting

There is another Public Meeting at Brent Town Hall (7pm) this evening to discuss the forthcoming Council Budget with Muhammed Butt. This Appendix to the main document sets out service areas where 'savings' will be made as well as increased fees.

It is worth trying to find out what the apparently innocuous statements really mean in terms of services:

Support Gladstone Park protest against forced academy on Friday

A message from the Parents Action Group at Gladstone Park Primary School who are campaigning against forced academy status:

A public protest will be taking place in front of Gladstone Park School on

Friday 8 February against academy status being forced upon the school.

The protest will take place at 3.15pm by the front entrance to the school in Sherrick Green Road.

Please come armed with placards and banners and please try to mobilise support in the wider community so that as many people as possible attend.

We believe the event will be covered by BBC London news and various other media.

Green Party welcomes Equal Marriage vote

THE GREEN Party has welcomed yesterday’s vote to legalise gay marriage as a “historic moment.”
The vote in the House of Commons passed by 400 to 175 votes, with the latter including 136 Conservative MPs – almost half of the party.

Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party, said: “Yesterday's vote in the House of Commons for gay marriage marks a historic moment in the progress of equality in Britain. With the large Commons majority of 225, the elected representatives have spoken, and the House of Lords has no grounds for resistance.”

“Britain has joined other progressive states, including Sweden, Denmark, Canada and Belgium, in giving gay couples an equal right to marry as that enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

“Our Green MP Caroline Lucas was also leading in yesterday's debate, making the point that now there's a further equality issue be tackled. MPs have acknowledged that civil partnerships don't meet all couples' needs - now they need to go a step further, and acknowledge that marriage doesn't meet the needs of all heterosexual couples.”

“There can be no logical grounds for denying heterosexual couples the option of civil partnership as created under the Civil Partnership Act of 2004 - a simple, legal step that can resolve issues around child custody, inheritance, pension rights and a whole host of other issues.

“There's a further important issue to be addressed - an issue of education and understanding. There is no such thing as "common law marriage" in Britain, yet it's a phrase that you'll hear bandied about regularly, and a false belief in its existence has had severe financial and emotional consequences for many .

“There's also a recognised problem around inheritance when an unformalised partnership ends with the death of an intestate partner - a lot of work has been done around this issue; now's the time for action

“We live in a world of many different family arrangements - what we need to do is to give couples a range of legal tools (and full understanding of them) so that they can have security and certainty about the shape of their family life, and real choices about how to construct it.

“We took an important step forward yesterday - now we need to complete the work.”

Equal Marriage: Greens celebrate while Tweeters rise up against revolting Teather

The Green Party was jubilant yesterday after the vote on Equal Marriage.  This has long been Green Party policy and has been championed by Green Party member Peter Tatchell.

Before the vote Caroline Lucas, Green MP, said:

 While the Conservative catfight over today’s vote will fade into insignificance, the momentous occasion on which MPs were given the chance to stand up for equality in marriage will be remembered for many years to come.

The majority of the public sees no reason why people of the same sex who love each other and want to marry should not be able to do so – and despite claims to the contrary, this legislation will not force any faith groups to conduct gay marriages.

 Like many of the constituents who have written to me on this issue, I support the aims of the government’s proposed legislation and will therefore vote ‘yes’ to same sex marriage in Parliament.

However, while I’ll be voting for equal marriage, I’ll also be calling for more far reaching reform to allow everyone – same sex and opposite sex couples – to enjoy a civil partnership or marriage, as they choose.

 This is a question of equal love. It’s not about asking for special treatment for gay couples or straight couples, it’s about everyone enjoying the same rights regardless of their sexuality.

Speaking for myself I have always been suspicious of the way marriage is extolled by the right-wing alongside 'hard-working families' but if people want to get married then I see no reason why it should not be open to everyone.

Yesterday the internet was buzzing with comment on Sarah Teather's vote against Equal Marriage and many pointed out that this contradicted the banners on the Lib Dem website. Teather herself posted a long statement that can be found here which said that she had reflected for a long time 'as a life long liberal and a committed Catholic'.

It was a free vote, despite Equal Marriuage being Lib Dem policy, and she pleaded for understanding of her position:

I have found this a difficult decision because of my work previously on gay rights issues, and my judgment is finely balanced. I recognise that others may reflect deeply on these issues and come to a different view, in good faith. But it is my view that where the extra protections offered to same-sex couples are marginal, and where the potential negatives to society over a period of time may be more considerable, I am unable to support the bill.

Although the vote today was subject to a free, unwhipped vote, I understand that my views place me out of step with most of my liberal democrat colleagues and party members. I have not often found myself out of step with party members over the last twenty years. But one of the things that always impresses me about our party is that we are liberal enough to accept that others may hold different views. Our party members hold strong views, but recognise and cherish the space for difference. I am proud of that.

Cherishing 'the space for difference' does not seem to include gay people wanting the commitment of marriage. It's pretty ironic that the left, having urged Teather to revolt on a range of Coalition policies, now find her revolting on one that many of them support.

Among the comments on Twitter were:

Presume Sarah Teather objects to post-menopausal women marrying men as it will "decouple the definition of marriage from family life"? Ben Soffa

Brent's LGBT pop is approx 16,000. Sarah Teather's majority is 3,000. Pukka Punjabi

Just caught news Teather voted against  equal marriage Voted for cuts, for savaging welfare, but against equality. Sounds like a Tory to me Mike Katz

Teather free to vote the way she wants but not when it involves breaking promises made to local constituents Chavalim Bodedim

And Sarah Teather . Up there with Huhne in the talking utter bollox stakes. Suzanne Moore

"Lib Dems are tackling the inequalities faced by the gay lesbian bisexual & transgender community head on" Teather's website & she voted NO! Tweet for Labour

Sarah Teather didn't vote against the massive cuts the Government has made to Brent Central. Just gay marriage. Social liberal, you see. Tom Miller

 I’m sure the large Evangelical population in Brent Central has nothing to do with Teather opposing equal marriage  Nothing at all  Mark Ferguson

 Another aspect of the vote was noted by many Brent tweeters when all six Muslim Labour MPs voted for Equal Marriage.

Butt hangs on to the Labour leadership

The Kilburn Times LINK reports today that the move against Muhammed Butt's leadership at last night's Labour Group meeting was reduced to a unanimous anodyne motion pledging the factions to have mutual respect and work together.

It had become clear over the weekend, despite Labour Party members being instructed to keep the move secret, that numbers were insufficient for a vote of no confidence to succeed.

The leadership and Executive positions come up again at the Annual General Meeting of the party in May. A change of leadership then can be portrayed as a routine democratic process where the party assesses the performance of its leading members and after discussion makes any necessary changes.