Strong support for joint strike at College of North West London

A UCU officer reported strong support for the joint UCU and Unison strike at the College of North West London today. This was part of a joint national strike across all English colleges demanding £1 per hour extra for all.

UCU said that they are in dispute with college employers because they failed to agree a pay claim aimed at achieving a fair deal for all further education (FE) staff.

Unions claim that the £1 per hour increase is fair, reasonable and not excessive and would go some way to recover the value of pay lost over recent years.

The the Association of Colleges (AoC), however, recommended all of their member colleges to freeze the pay of staff and subsequently declined to re-open talks, despite the recent governmenrt spending review decision to protect core funding for 16-19 year-olds and adult skills would be protected.

Since 2009 Fe workers claim they have received a cut in real terms  of over 17%.

UCU said:

FE has been hit hard by cuts and UCU and others in the sector have campaigned to defend funding. However funding cuts don't tell the whole story, colleges still make choices.

Colleges are deliberately choosing to spend less of their income on staff. Staff are asked to work harder and longer while colleagues lose their jobs and see other terms and conditions cut.

Without the ability to retain and motivate experienced and committed staff, colleges will find it hard to deliver education to our communities.

On Saturday March 5th there will be a conference on Defending Further and Adult Education at SOAS, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1H OXG.

The conference is supported by UCU, NUS, Action ESOL, NATECLA and the Learning and Work Institute.

Book online HERE

Brent activists join great crowd supporting the Heathow 13 as they receive suspended sentences

A Heathrow village resident, a poet and the Green Mayoral candidate speak out for the Heathrow 13 - not to mention the singing!

Locals joined Plane Stupid actvists, environmentalists and many independents to support the Heathrow 13 when they attended Willesden Magistrates Court to received their sentences. They received a rousing welcome as they arrived and calmly put the case for direct action to combat climate change on the steps of the court.


Brent Green Party, Brent Momentum and Brent Friends of the Earth as well as independent Brent activists were all present demonstrating unity in the face of the threat posed to the planet by climate change.

The unity was also demonstrated by the presence of both John McDonnell, depury leader of the Labour Party and Caroline Lucas, Green MP.

The Heathrow 13  avoided jail  receiving 6 week sentences suspended for 12 months plus community service.

STOP TRIDENT March Saturday Noon Marble Arch

Supported by:
CND
People's Asembly
Compass
Green Party
War on Want
Friends of the Earth
Campaign Against Arms Trade
Greenpeace
Fellowship of Reconciliation
The Methodist Church
Pax Christi
The Church of Scotland
and many more

Heathrow 13 Demonstration on Wednesday in Willesden details

Heathrow 13 Demonstration tomorrow morning from 9am Willesden Magistrates Court. 448 High Road, NW10 2DZ Neasden or Dollis Hill Tube

For all those joining us WEAR RED, and together we will form a massive #redline on aviation expansion!! solidarity http://350.org/heathrow-13-the-uks-first-climate-prisoners/

Final line-up from 9am to 12 noon
9:00-9:25 Heathrow13 interviews, singing, solidarity
9:25-9:30 Heathrow13 Statement
9:30-9:45 Heathrow13 Go in to court
9:45-10:23 Speeches
9.45: Intro by John Stewart
9.47: Caroline Lucas, MP
9.51: John McDonnell, MP
9.55: Tracy Howard (Heathrow resident)
9.59: Andy Slaughter
10.03: Wretched of the Earth
10.07: Sian Berry, Green Mayoral Candidate
10.11: Christine Taylor, Jane Taylor (Heathrow residents)
10.15: Asad Rehman, Friends of Earth
10:19: Neil Keveren (Heathrow resident)
10:23+ Live updates for supporters who can stay outside until sentencing, expected 11.00-12.00.
+ music, samba and much more!!!

Scrutinising Brent Council' new scrutiny arrangements

The Wembley Matters reader who scrutinised Brent Council's new scrutiny arrangements in 2014 LINK  looks at the proposals which were adopted by Full Council yesterday evening in this Guest Blog:

On the positive side, it should be welcome that Brent Council has acknowledged that a single scrutiny committee with a very limited ability to set up Task & Finish Groups to investigate issues in depth has failed to deliver. It would have been more honest, though, if the committee report had not claimed that ‘the disadvantage of a single Scrutiny Committee structure could not necessarily have been foreseen’. The fact that Brent Council alone of all the London Boroughs thought it could manage with a single scrutiny committee with a very limited ability to do work outside of committee meetings ought to have been flashing red warning signals from the outset.

The overall objectives set for the new system are fine, but whether the new arrangements will be able to deliver those objectives is questionable. The proposals are still very committee-oriented ─ but experience over the years from elsewhere shows that Members develop a thorough understanding of key policy and service issues (one of the stated key objectives) best through in-depth Task and Finish Working Groups. There is no indication that more officer time will made available to resource such Working Groups.

More alarmingly, the report says that “Strategic and Operational Directors would still be expected to take a central role in developing the work programme”. This is contrary to the standard good practice of scrutiny being a Member-led function. It is Members who should be taking the central role in developing the work programme, while calling on and using the advice of, amongst others, strategic and operational directors. The danger here is Members are channelled to look at only what Directors are comfortable with Members examining, rather than what really needs a spotlight being shone on it.

Two final points: why is a review of scrutiny arrangements concerning

strategic matters such as budget setting and policy formation delayed until later in the year? And there is no stated commitment to review how the new system is working so that changes might be made to correct any imbalances or deficiencies in its functioning.

Marks out of 10: five.

Mini expenses revolt by two Labour backbenchers

Labour backbencher and former Executive Member Keith Perrin told Full Council last night that he could not vote for an increase in councillor expenses at the same time that the Council was putting up Council Tax. He voted against the proposal and was joined by Cllr Long. They are two of a total of 56 Labour councillors.  I understand that Cllr Helen Carr, Lib Dem, also voted against the increase.

GLA put Land Value Tax on the political agenda with Old Oak in the spotlight

The GLA today publish a report on the potential of a Land Value Tax in London. LINK
The report was commissioned by the GLC Oversight Committee in September 2015 to look at the case for and against the Tax.

In his foreword rapporteur Tom Copley, Labour AM says:  

The greatest challenge facing the next Mayor will be achieving a step change in the level of house building in London. Last year we built fewer than half the number of homes the Mayor’s own estimate says is needed to solve the housing crisis over 20 years. Clearly, new and bold thinking is required. 

This report seeks to offer the next Mayor a potential solution, by examining the argument for and against introducing a Land Value Tax in London. Land Value Taxation provides incentives for bringing land into more productive use, and discourages keeping land empty or derelict. Thus, it would have serious potential to bring more land forward for development, including for
housing. There are examples from cities around the world that have brought in Land Value Taxation that suggest this would indeed happen. 

Our conclusion is that the next Mayor should fund an economic feasibility study and, subject to a positive conclusion, request the powers from the Government to trial a Land Value Tax in part of the city. 

The potential of introducing Land Value Taxation in this country has been discussed for more than a century, and has supporters from across the political spectrum. Economists like the fact that it is highly efficient, with minimal distorting effects on the market. Of course, we recognise that making such a radical change to how we tax land and property would not be without difficulty. 

This report looks at both sides of the argument, and offers the next Mayor a clear course of action to pursue.

The report is particularly concerned with bringing land into use for much needed housing but the arguments for LVT in terms of a more progressive tax to replace Council Tax are also noted:

  Proponents of LVT argue that by replacing council tax and business rates with LVT, not only would the public sector secure returns on its investment in infrastructure, the average tax payer would actually pay less. The tax base would be broader and owners of vacant or underused property would pay more than under the current system.

The Land Value Taxation Campaign LINK make the case for LVT thus: 

A single-issue non-party/all-party organisation based in the UK, we propose that the rental value of land should be collected and used as the principal source of public revenue, as a replacement for present taxes on wages, profits, goods and services. This policy is a prerequisite if chronic economic problems are to be eliminated.

How? Nearly every country in the world is affected by poverty and unemployment; widening divisions between rich and poor; boom-slump cycles; housing shortages; inadequate infrastructure; and damage to the environment. These economic ills persist, seemingly intractably, despite unprecedented developments in science and technology. All of them are ultimately related to the different economic behaviour of 'land' in contrast to man-made consumer and capital goods, whose supply can be, and normally is, varied and transported in response to demand.

Land is otherwise. No more can be made: each plot of land is unique and immovable. Its total supply is fixed. Consequently, the market in land behaves differently from the market in products. Land value comes from the natural and man-made advantages of location, which derive from the presence and activities of the community as a whole.

It follows that the value of land, its rent, is peculiarly suitable as the basic source of public revenue. This is not really taxation, but payment for the right to occupy land and enjoy the benefits of occupation; however, the policy is usually known as "Land Value Taxation" It operates as an annual charge on the rental value of land, assuming that each site was in its optimum permitted use. Since the idea cuts across all political divisions, the Campaign has no party political affiliations.

The GLA report suggests that 'theoretically' the Old Oak and Park Royal Development,  which already gives the London Mayor additional powers, could be the site for him or her to trial LVT.

Brent Council Meeting tonight could be lively...

There are a number of issues on the agenda at Brent's Full Council Meeting meeting tonight that could make it more lively than the usual ritualistic affair.

A 3.99% rise in Council Tax forms part of the budget along with cuts in youth provision that have rather late in the day led to protests by the Mosaic and Granville Youth Centres. The Council retained the funding of the Youth Parliament but cut the actual youth service. A bit like closing a hopsital but keeping the Patents' Forum.

Buried in the budget report is a statement  that I passed on to South Kilburn residents last week and that was picked up by James Powney on Sunday LINK

The South Kilburn Regeneration programme has slipped behind schedule in 2015/16. There is a masterplan review of South Kilburn Regeneration; this means it is being fundamentally reviewed to determine how best to deliver the programme and realise benefits of regeneration for South Kilburn and for its businesses and residents. This review will reconsider the fundamental approach, including whether it is better for the council to retain the South Kilburn Housing Assets, or continue to dispose of them.

Clearly this has far reaching repercussions and Kilburn councillors may well want further detail. James Powney suggests this is a matter for the Scrutiny Committee but an investigation into the South Kilburn regeneration is already supposed to be on their agenda. South Kilburn resident Pete Firmin made a presentation to the Committee in December LINK

The proposal to have two Scrutiny Committees with allowances for each member, as well as the introduction of conferences expenses and a 1% rise in the basic councillor allowance are likely to be controversial.
 
The removal of the deputy leader's allowance from the Brondesbury Park Conservatives and the allocation of a leader's allowance to the Kenton Conservatives will lead to some bitter exchanges between the two groups to the glee of Labour councillors.

Proposals to change the structure of Full Council Meetings  LINK deserve serious consideration but may not escape the usual Punch and Judy politics.