OK, it's August -Silly Season - time to see what Brent Council's Cabinet is tabling for their get together on the 13th

Guest post by Gaynor Lloyd
 

If you live in Northwick Park area - or South Kilburn for that matter - it’s worth having a quick look at the  Cabinet papers  about Brent’s  “Regeneration Zones”. LINK 

Yes, some of us lucky residents of leafy Northwick Park were just a bit startled to see ourselves in a “Regeneration Zone”. Some of us weren’t  too shocked, however - though still very , very upset. This is just the latest stage in the story of the plans for what we residents call “the Park”. A fantastic piece of Brent open space, including formal much used sports and  playing fields, a nature conservation area and a golf course. 

And it seems  the Leader of the Council is in charge of this; South Kilburn get the Cabinet Member for Regeneration. I expect we should be flattered. 

This is all about one element of the One Public Estate (OPE)  scheme which has come home to roost in Northwick Park. [More about OPE for those interested at the bottom of this piece **- and see also the linked news stories in Brent & Kilburn Times LINK  

and my letter on Page 13 on the earlier story LINK 

The scheme involves Network Housing, Northwick Park Hospital, Brent Council, University of Westminster and potentially TfL. It’s quite hard to get the detail  but the idea is that there will be 3700 homes  by 2035 somewhere on the margins of the Park. Tower blocks will be built on the land near to the Tube station - a “landmark residential development”.

Sure, as some  papers have emerged, there have been references to key worker housing, and affordable homes  - gosh, do we need key worker housing, and social housing - truly affordable homes - but these proposals  are all very vague. I’ve been trying for more transparency - a couple of Freedom of Information (FOI)  requests over the last 2 years - but not much joy. 

Even though  Brent got a grant of  £530k to do viability research on all this. Including transport research, my current  huge concern - and the reason for asking Martin to post this blog. 

My latest FOI request of Brent  from last December has been so sat on for a very long time -  despite  numerous charming assurances that the sifting process of 100’s of emails was being done  and that the release of  all or some would be opined on “soon” by Brent’s Legal Team . Well, after a last chance given to Brent by the Information Commissioner just to reply at all,  it’s now been accepted by her  as a complaint . I await hearing if the Information Commissioner accepts my argument that the plans should be out in the public domain. 

I was particularly incensed by  the secrecy for the transportation reports/ surveys, and the plans being hatched for  “infrastructure works”  . Principally an access road for this huge re-development. Our very own Regeneration Zone.

Clearly the access road can’t  go across the railway/Tube lines. OK, University of Westminster might be decamping for pastures new; maybe it could go that way. But the University’s plans  seem to be a more recent possible development. 

So where could this road  possibly go? And where might it be considered for going - a location of such commercial confidentiality and sensitivity that Brent can’t possibly release any professional transport reports or plans on it into the public domain? 

Oh, let me think...

Could it be an access road across our Park - designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) - put simplistically, the London equivalent of Green Belt? (The Mayor recently refused an application by Harrow School for a major long planned sports centre on its MOL  land just cross the road from Northwick Park - because it was inappropriate development on MOL) 

It’s not “just” the effect on the environment, or the open air sports facilities; it’s the madness of adding to the roads here, which also serve Northwick Park hospital - a major hospital with (as we all know) a busy A&E. 

But hang on - to finance all this - Brent has a £9.9 million grant from HM Government from the Marginal Viability  Fund bit of its  Housing Infrastructure Fund. To get  this “marginal viability funding”, according to the HMG website , there is supposed to be “market failure”, and  “extensive local consultation” and      “alignment with the Local plan”. Well, these are  a bit news to me but obviously I don’t know everything.

So another reason for my FOI request - which sought evidence of  any of those factors. So far all I have got is a bit of alleged consultation.  Sudbury Court Residents’ Association AGM in April 2017, to which Brent officers did come after a bit of persuading. They brought  a very rum set of slides, including one of rather a scruffy park bench by Northwick Park Tube station, mentioning   litter. The officers did do a bit of question answering by local residents - and promised to revert on some stuff (but didn’t).

If that was consultation, it seems odd  the FOI officer says they have to ask the Chair of the SCRA for her notes of the meeting! Anyway, it wasn’t “consultation” in any normal sense of the word.(NO comments please on Brent’s consultations)

Oh -  and that aligning with Local Plan point. Well, maybe that can be retrospective. The Cabinet paper says “ members may be aware that Brent’s planning department is engaged in consultation on the local plan for which Northwick Park has an allocation “. I’d hope all members (especially on the Cabinet) would be aware we’ve had a bit of Local plan consultation in Brent. 

However, speaking as a local resident (and married to a Ward Councillor) and  having gone to a local meeting  on this Local Plan business   - though I admit I am getting on a bit , so I might have forgotten  - I was completely unaware of any Planning Officer referring to Northwick Park at all. Let alone in terms of revising Northwick Park’s  Local Plan “allocation” or Northwick Park becoming a “Regeneration Zone”.

It seems that the Local Plan “Preferred Options” will be out in November - when “it is proposed to run public consultation specific to Northwick Park in parallel”.

I hope we residents will be having a little pre-consultation consultation amongst ourselves rather more quickly than that. I also hope others in the Borough interested in open space, the environment,  good use of NHS land, pollution, key worker housing and good social housing provision will join us. WATCH THIS SPACE.

[**NOTE on OPE if you’ve got this far!

HM Government OPE is a plan to dispose of “surplus public land”. A particularly infamous issue is the disposal of NHS land in London - based on a couple of reports by Sir Robert Naylor. Generally Sir Robert in his openly available  Report says  to NHS bodies “Identify your surplus land” (that can include unused/empty space like corridors and open walkways, by the way). If your percentages of unused/empty or underused space to your overall site are too high, oh dear, inefficiency - using a carrot & stick approach - the message  is “sell, sell, sell”. Sir Robert’s second, confidential report -  “Naylor 2” - identifies some prime value London NHS sites for disposal  and  is so sensitive NHS England has been fighting a Freedom of Information request I have in on it for around 2 years. 

So clearly a sensitive area generally. Naylor’s reports IS useful in one respect though; Deloittes accountants did a background research report for him - which said sensibly that we ought to be looking strategically at the need for land for NHS use, in light of London’s growing population - and reminding of high land values here if we need to reprovide. Gosh how sensible - how ignored! ]

Tenure split at Old Oak development does not reflect local housing need

Sian Berry. Green Party Assembly Member for London has submitted her response to the  second Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation's revised draft Local  Plan consultation.

The Mayor’s draft London Plan identified that the Old Oak and Park Royal Opportunity Area has the capacity to deliver at least 25,500 homes with around 20,000 of these to be built over the OPDC local plan period (2017 – 2037).

As such the OPDC site has the potential to make an important contribution to meeting London’s housing need in the next two decades.

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) that underpins the draft London Plan found that 47 per cent of new homes delivered in London up to 2041 should be at low cost rent – social rent. And that accounts for about 70 per cent of the ‘affordable’ homes in general.

The Mayor’s draft London plan also says he wants to see a minimum of 30 per cent social rent and 30 per cent intermediate homes at each development with the other 40 per cent left for the local authority – in this case the OPDC – to decide, based on local need.

However in Sian Berry’s response to Response to second Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) revised draft Local Plan consultation she has identified two key problems.

1. Tenure split of affordable homes does not reflect local housing need
2. London Development Database is not an up-to-date record of planning permissions granted at OPDC site 

Full response below (click bottom right corner for page view)

Willesden Green Library re-opens

From Brent Culture Twitter account

I'm pleased to report that the Library at Willesden Green will reopen to the public this afternoon from 1pm.

Brent Council starts voluntary redundancy process for its employees

The General Purposes Committee on Thursday will be asked to approve a voluntary redundancy process for its staff which will be implemented from the next day Friday August 3^rd.

The supporting paper states:

It is proposed that a voluntary redundancy scheme be implemented across the council, with applications during August and September 2018, to enable managers to have information about potential volunteers in advance of planning and implementing restructures to achieve council savings requirements over the next period.

The council has made a commitment in its Change Management policy to seek to avoid compulsory redundancies by using voluntary redundancy where appropriate. A voluntary redundancy scheme is advantageous for both management and employees. It enables employees to come forward and initiate a discussion about their future without fear of committing themselves until all the paperwork has been agreed after exit figures have been finalised. For managers, it means that they can plan reorganisations more effectively, knowing in advance which staff are willing to leave. Implementing compulsory redundancies is a significant drain on management time and is very disruptive for the wider workforce.

All final decisions will be made in one place (CMT) which will ensure consistency and will also enable the council to ensure that implementation of the scheme is affordable in the context of the council’s savings requirements.

Each individual case will be assessed on the basis of the efficiency of the service and longer term financial considerations. A payback period of not more than 2 years is proposed. 

Applications can only be accepted where it is appropriate to delete the employee’s post (or the post of another member of staff who is suitable for the employee’s post) as there must be a redundancy situation. Where an employee’s post is not suitable for deletion, they may be placed on a central register of employees willing to take voluntary redundancy should another employee facing compulsorily redundancy in the future be a suitable candidate for their post.

The proposal is made against the background of further budget cuts outlined previously on Wembley Matters.  The paper does not state how many job cuts are required and figures will depend on the cost to the council of the required pay-outs to staff who opt for redundancy.

The Equality Impact Assessment states:

Staff 55 years of age or over represent 21% of the workforce eligible for the scheme.
 Any possible discrimination arising from the expectation of a payback period not exceeding 2 years can be materially justified by the policy objectives to contribute to the council’s savings requirements and to the avoidance/minimising of compulsory redundancies in the whole workforce. If costs are not recovered over the required period, this does not contribute to the council’s savings requirements over this period and may mean additional redundancies are required to meet the additional costs of the severance.

57% of the workforce aged less than 55 yrs are female and 50.65% of the workforce aged 55 yrs and over are female so it does not appear likely that there will be any disparate impact in terms of the gender make up of the work force.

Unknown impacts – until applications are received and considered it cannot be predicted with any degree of accuracy whether a disproportionate number of applications will be received and/or approved from any particular group. In view of the higher benefits, it is likely that older employees may be more likely to apply.

Unfortunately 713 of our 2139 staff have not specified their ethnicity so a meaningful analysis of the ethnicity of the 55 yrs and over age group compared to those under 55 yrs. is not possible.

-->

UPDATE Barnet Council tonight debates banning those calling for Israel boycott on grounds of ‘antisemitism’ as defined by the IHRA examples

From Palestine Solidarity Campaign

UPDATE via Barnet Momentum The motion was not taken last night. It has been referred to Barnet  Policy and Resources Committee which next meets on October 23rd.

Barnet Councillor Brian Gordon is to propose a motion effectively outlawing organisations that support Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. The motion [below] cites the hotly disputed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) document on antisemitism as justification for the move. The meeting is at Hendon Town Hall, 7pm tonight.

The motion calls for the London Borough of Barnet to ‘consider the legality of ensuring’ it does ‘not to provide or rent any space’ to individuals and groups supporting the BDS movement – effectively seeking a ban on events promoting sanctions against Israel for its violations of international law.
Councillor Gordon’s motion specifically quotes the contentious guidance notes to the IHRA document in order to claim that BDS is antisemitic, because other countries are not similarly targeted. 

However no other country that the UK treats as an ally has been in illegal occupation of another country for over 50 years, suppressing the human rights of its inhabitants.

The motion has national significance because the Labour Party – which has adopted the 38-word IHRA definition of antisemitism – has been criticised for not fully adopting the guidanceattached to it, including the two examples cited in the motion.

Jonathan Rosenhead, Vice Chair of Free Speech on Israel, said:

Those criticising Labour for failing to adopt the full IHRA guidance claim the document poses no threat to freedom of expression. This motion being put forward in Barnet clearly demonstrates that they are wrong and vindicates the adjustments made by Labour’s National Executive Committee.

Ben Jamal, Director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said:

Palestinians have a right to describe their history and the continuing racist injustices that deny them their rights, whether as unequal citizens of the State of Israel, living under military occupation in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, under siege in Gaza, or as refugees denied the right of return. Others have a right to hear this information and, in line with a commitment to fighting racism in all its forms, to respond to the Palestinian call for global action via Boycott Divestment and Sanctions.

Despite the clear warning from distinguished lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC in his legal opinion on the IHRA document, groups lobbying for Israel have continued to press public bodies both to adopt the IHRA definition and to use it to suppress both legitimate criticism of Israel, and calls for action on behalf of the Palestinian people. In March, a delegation including Joan Ryan MP, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel , Matthew Offord MP of Conservative Friends of Israel petitioned Theresa May at 10 Downing Street, calling for action to  prevent events on UK campuses that describe Israel as an apartheid state, citing the IHRA document as justification.

Campaigners for Palestinian rights including Free Speech on Israel, Jewish Voice for Labour and Palestine Solidarity Campaign are calling for the motion to be withdrawn. They have also called for the UK government to issue a clear statement that no public body should use the IHRA definition to prevent legitimate criticism of the state of Israel (which includes describing its laws and policies as “racist” and meeting the legal definition of “apartheid”). Nor should they use it to prevent calls for peaceful actions including boycott divestment and sanctions in response to Israel’s continuing violations of Palestinian human rights.

Administration motion in the name of Cllr Brian Gordon Boycott the antisemitic BDS movement 

On 31^st January 2017, Barnet became the first local authority to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s definition of antisemitism and its corresponding guidance, which recognises that antisemitism takes many forms including, in certain circumstances, targeting of the State of Israel. 

The IHRA’s guidance rightly points out that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled [sic] against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. However, Council believes the aims, methods, and rhetoric of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and believes its go well beyond this, and are consistent with the IHRA’s guidance on the definition of antisemitism. Specifically: 

·      A completely disproportionate focus on the State of Israel to the exclusion of all other territorial disputes and ethnic conflicts in the world, e.g. the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, or the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus; 

·      “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour [sic]”; 

·      Frequently reported incidents of BDS activists “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” and “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism to characterize Israel or Israelis.” 

·      “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” 
Following similar action taken by the City of Frankfurt am Main, Germany, on 25^th August 2017, Council instructs the Policy & Resources Committee to produce a Use of Council Premises policy and to consider the legality of ensuring:
·      The London Borough of Barnet does not provide any space or areas for clubs, organizations or even individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet instructs its companies not to provide or rent any space for affiliates, organizations or individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet appeals to landlords of event venues in the borough not to provide or rent any space for clubs, organizations or even individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet does not make any donations or grants to associations, organisations or other groups which support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

Council also reaffirms its commitment to fight all forms of prejudice, whether against religion, race, sex, gender, or age. 


--> -->
-->

Green Party leadership candidates on ecosocialism

On-line voting opened today in elections for the Green Party leaders and executive. Green Left asked candidates about ecosocialism. 

What do you understand by the term “Ecosocialist”? ‘Would you see yourself as being an ecosocialist and what does that mean to you?

LEADER CANDIDATES

Shahrar Ali

Green socialists, and I count myself as one, frame and explain policies in terms of their impact on social justice and environmental well-being. Climate justice would put an end to those least responsible for the climate change impacts having to most suffer their horrendous consequences. See my Ted Talk https://bit.ly/2NVbi6J.

Sian Berry (Joint candidate with Bartley)

I joined the Greens in 2001 precisely because we were the only party making the links between social justice and the need for a healthy planet, while all the other parties saw these as either/or. This link is at the core of ecosocialism, while I also admire the focus of most ecosocialists on local empowerment and action that builds resilience within communities as well as ‘traditional’ socialist principles like democratic public control of essential services and industries.

Jonathan Bartley (joint candidate with Berry)

I don’t see how the need to tackle climate change and the ravaging of the planet can be separated from the economic system that drives it and the rampant inequality that results. For me this is what being an ecosocialist is about and right now is the moment to be shouting loudly about it. People need more than a choice between Monetarism and Keynesianism. What Labour is offering is neither radical nor ecosocialist. What we offer should be clearly different and mean systemic change.

Leslie Rowe

Ecosocialism is Green socialism. Capitalism is the cause of social exclusion, poverty, war and environmental degradation through globalisation and imperialism, under repressive states and transnational structures, such as the EU. That is why I am campaigning for a sustainable de-growth economic policy and actively oppose neo-liberal economic policies.

DEPUITY LEADER CANDIDATES

Aimee Challenor

For me, Ecosocialist is someone who supports people and planet through challenging big business and capitalism, making sure that we can live Free and Equal whilst also having a planet to live on.

Jonathan Chilvers

My understanding: The problems of environmental degradation and poverty having the common root cause of an exploitative capitalist system. My comment: I identify more strongly with the cooperative socialism of the earliest 20thC rather than the top down models that have come to be synonymous with the word ‘socialist’. Marx still offers the most devastating critique we have of capitalism, but he’s not that helpful for the Green Party in setting out a realistic, relevant and radical programme for how we move towards an economics for a finite planet.

Andrew Cooper

Ecosocialism is a vision of a transformed society in harmony with nature, and the development of practices that can attain it. It is directed toward alternatives to all socially and ecologically destructive systems, such as patriarchy, racism, homophobia and the fossil-fuel based economy. 

I’ve never called myself an ‘Ecosocialist’ though in conversation with people who do we come to similar conclusions on many occasions

Rashid Nix

I don’t like jargon. Avoid it like the plague. I am a Green Party spokesperson who talks the language of everyday people. We must develop language that includes not excludes. Ecosocialist is more exclusive language we should avoid. Mankind is in trouble, we need Simple Solutions a 10 year old understands.

Amelia Womack

I am a proud ecosocialist, which has been evidenced by my work opposing austerity and championing green alternatives that have social justice at their core. We need to be championing eco-socialist policies not just in the UK, but on a global basis, working to dismantle capitalism and challenging globalisation from the perspective that it’s built on the backs of the working class around the works, destroying our planet, and the effects of all this feedback with climate change and ecological destruction destroying the poorest countries and communities first.

Three Lakes at Wembley Park

Many thanks to local historian Philip Grant for this guest post:

 A comment on a recent item about “ A Tour of Wembley Park’s Green and Open Spaces” LINK said: 

‘I would love to see where the “lake” is going to appear. Just thought, with all the building work there will only be space for a large puddle in one of the many potholes in Wembley...Lake Water Butt.’   

What better opportunity for me to share with you the story of two previous lakes at Wembley Park, and one which is promised for the near future.

In May 1894 the Metropolitan Railway Company opened Wembley Park Station, to serve the new pleasure grounds which were brainchild of its chairman, Sir Edward Watkin. The gardens were designed to entice people from crowded inner London (travelling by train, of course) to spend their leisure time in this beautiful setting. Apart from the promise of a tower, taller than Eiffel’s in Paris, the attractions included a man-made lake, fed by the Wealdstone Brook, where visitors could hire rowing boats.

Lake 1 OS map with Wealdstone Brook and lake

Wembley Park, with lake and tower, early 1900's

Wembley Park’s pleasure grounds were very popular at first, but the tower (which became known as Watkin’s Folly) never got above its first stage, and was demolished in 1906/07. Before 1914, part of the grounds were being used as a golf course, and there were plans that the site would become Wembley’s next “garden village” suburb. Then the Great War came.

In 1921, the vacant pleasure grounds (with their excellent rail access) were chosen as the site for the British Empire Exhibition. When the layout for this vast enterprise was designed, the existing lake was filled in, providing a garden which welcomed visitors entering from the station, and a new lake was constructed.

Lake 2, BEE plan with lake and rivers

The new artificial lake, across the east-west axis of the site, was not just an attractive feature for recreational use. It was designed to collect and store water running off of the exhibition’s huge concrete buildings, so that the Wealdstone Brook would not flood after heavy rain.

The BEE lake looking towards the Indian Pavilion, 1924

After the exhibition closed in 1925, most of the pavilions of Empire nations were demolished. A vast swimming pool / sports arena was constructed at the western end of the lake, in time for the British Empire Games in 1934 (the road along one side of Wembley Arena is still called Lakeside Way). The remains of the rest of the lake survived for many years, but were eventually filled in to provide car parks for the old Wembley Stadium.

Wembhey Stadium, reflected in the BEE lake, after demolition of tge Australia and Canada pavilions, c1930

There is no lake at Wembley Park now, but in the latest version of Quintain’s masterplan for the redevelopment of the ex-Wembley Stadium land they bought in 2002, there will be a new lake, as part of a seven acre (not seven hectare, as sometimes claimed by Brent Council) park. As the lake might be difficult to spot on the coloured plan below, I have marked it with a yellow arrow.

Lake 3 (arrowed) on Quintain's master plan for Wembley, 202

This plan, and the image below, were part of a talk given to Wembley History Society in January 2018 by Julian Tollast, Quintain’s Head of Masterplanning and Design. Plans can, of course, be changed as developments progress, but if Julian’s vision for the new lake (in more or less the same place as the eastern end of the 1924 BEE lake) goes ahead, this is what it would look like in around 2027:-

Quintain's vision of the new park and lake

An existing road, Engineers Way, will cut across the lake and park. The park is a much smaller feature for the number of local residents than the parks which local Councils provided for their ratepayers in the past, although the “lake” would be bigger than a ‘Water Butt’. To his credit, Mr Tollast is conscious of history, and of the part played by the landscape architect Humphry Repton in shaping this area, which was named Wembley Park because of his work here in the 1790’s. He plans to use a landscaping feature favoured by Repton to reduce the view of the road from the park; a ha-ha (don’t laugh!).

-->



-->

How to make Green Party communications relevant to working class voters

https://campaigns.greenparty.org.uk/executive-elections-2018/

Green Left, the eco-socialist group within the Green Party, invited members to submit questions to candidates for the Green Party leader and  deputy leader positions. There were 15 questions in all and candidates' answer can be found HERE

The Green Party is often seen as white and middle class although, helped by the campaigning of Green Left, its anti-austerity and social justice policies should appeal to both white and black and ethnic minority working class voters. My question focused on this issue:

How can Green Party communications of their policies be made more relevant to the working class (White and Black Minority Ethnic)?

Shahrar Ali (leader candidate)

Let’s make our own-branded campaign materials more representative of society. See our current spokespersons page. There is no visible ethnic diversity – which is frankly laughable, despite the brilliant people who could fill those roles (https://bit.ly/18QFrOS). You also have the opportunity to elect the first BME leader of a UK party.

Jonathan Bartley & Sian Berry (Co-leader job-share candidates)

We think it’s real Green action on the issues that matter to these groups that will win trust, not just communicating our policies. It’s vital that we are strong allies to campaigners on issues that matter to working class and BAME voters, and we should be enthusiastically backing them when they ask for our help, and seeking out ways to help them if they aren’t asking us yet. Our record of action and campaigning shows we are serious about this.

In London, Jonathan and Lambeth Greens went from one to five councillors due to their fierce campaigns supporting estate residents against demolition and fighting for public libraries that many residents depend upon. In the London Assembly, Sian has fought hard to defend injustices that particularly affect people of colour such as getting the Mayor to use name-blind recruitment to cut down on biases, and calling out the police on tactics such as stop and search, spit hoods, tasers and draconian automated facial recognition that disproportionately target Black people.

We also need to be supporting BME candidates to get elected. Jonathan just launched in Lambeth (in Brixton at the Black Cultural Archives in Windrush Square) the Deyika Nzeribe Fund. This was named after our party’s Manchester Mayoral candidate who died tragically on New Year’s eve 2017. We welcomed at that launch the first Green Mayor of Sheffield – Magid Magid and the new Green Mayor of Bristol Cleo Lake a proud Bristolian of African-Caribbean heritage. The fund – overseen by Greens of Colour - will support, engage and develop Green candidates of global south heritage.

Aimee Challenor (deputy leader candidate)

Our communications are relevant to the working class, we see mass engagement with our working class members, this should be celebrated and the hard work continued.

Jonathan  Chilvers (deputy leader candidate)

Great question. We need to be a lot better at this. By listening to residents on the doorstep, putting our principles into practical action so people can see the impact. Give people a voice when they feel powerless and make sure it’s their voice not ours.

Andrew Cooper (deputy leader candidate)

We need people to be familiar with the Green Party as part of their everyday lives. Taking up the issues and problems of working class people instead of just talking about them. Growing our Councillor base is a good way of building strong roots in communities and making ourselves relevant to people who often have challenging lives with limited incomes. I work a lot with the Muslim community in Huddersfield and it is by close contact with communities and taking up their concerns that helps build support.

Rashid Nix (deputy leader candidate)

The fact this is the 13th question shows what a priority this is! I’m dismayed at how Greens view working class and bme’s. It’s like we (I am black) are an alien species with peculiar habits and tastes. That’s prob why we lost 25,000 members! They probably joined Labour... TALK IN PLAIN ENGLISH WITHOUT TECHNO BABBLE!

Leslie Rowe (leader candidate)

By listening. When a democratic decision is made, respect it. That migration is not the problem but businesses addicted to a never ending supply of cheap labour not willing to pay the market rate for jobs is. Minimum wage too low, not enough minimum wage inspectors and we need to vastly increase vocational training.

Amelia Womack (deputy leader candidate)

Making sure we’re delivering our message into publications that are relevant to different groups. It’s no good simply getting our message in the Guardian and on Daily Politics as we simply talk to our bubble.

In the past I’ve worked with the Mirror and even Stylist Magazine to make sure our message reaches as broad a community as possible.

Also, it’s vitally important to be on the doorsteps with working class communities with a relevant message that will make a difference to the lives of people in their community. A large part of this is overcoming the rhetoric that migrants are what’s failing the NHS, housing, jobs etc and ensure we stop our government and other parties scapegoating from the issues caused by Westminster

GREEN PARTY ELECTIONS OFFICIAL INFORMATION