Brent does badly in recycling survey of 7 common items

 From Caroline Russell, Green Party London Assembly Member

What would you do with a broken bucket, or a pile of empty crisp wrappers? Would you expect your council to recycle them? Or would you expect to have to travel across London to the nearest recycling facilities?

New research from Caroline Russell AM found that no London Borough was able to consistently recycle a list of seven common household items.

Caroline asked all London boroughs if they could recycle a selection of common household items:

• a broken plastic bucket
• crisp packet
• Tetra Pak container
• Aluminium foil
• black plastic food container
• Biro pen 
• and a bike tyre.[1] 

She found a lack of London-wide oversight means there is no consistency between boroughs, and residents are left confused as recycling rules vary from one borough to the next.

Brent only recycled two of the seven items.

Although most boroughs (29 out of 32) collect six dry recycling streams Caroline found that Havering was unable to recycle any item from the list.

Two London boroughs – Enfield and Kensington and Chelsea – were only able to recycle one of the items, Tetra Paks.

Barnet, Bexley, Kingston upon Thames and Waltham Forest topped the list as they were able recycle five out of the seven items, but no borough currently recycles crisp packets or old biro pens.

People living in some London boroughs would have to leave their borough to recycle the five items. For example, residents of Kensington and Chelsea would have to use the recycling facilities of up to three boroughs.

Caroline Russell says:

We know people are desperately concerned about their impact on our environment, from the new awareness around single-use plastics to fast fashion. 

But it is too hard to know what to do with your rubbish in London. Especially for people who move around and between boroughs, it becomes impossible to know what to do.

You can recycle bike tyres in Bexley but not Brent, and Hackney recycles foil but Hammersmith doesn’t.

When boroughs provide no clarity on what can be recycled, where, and in what condition, it is no wonder that London’s waste mountain keeps growing. 

The Mayor should be asking for the power to take control of London’s waste and sort out this rubbish postcode lottery.

[1] Number of London boroughs who recycle each item*
Broken plastic bucket – 12 Boroughs
Crisp packet – 0 Boroughs
Tetra Pak – 26 Boroughs
Aluminium foil – 27 Boroughs (if clean)
Black plastic food container – 17 Boroughs
Biro pen - 0 Boroughs (if whole and not working)
Bike tyre – 13 Boroughs recycle whole or part

WHAT DOES YOUR BOROUGH RECYCLE?
	plastic bucket	crisp packet	Tetra Pak	Aluminium foil	black plastic food container	biro pen	bike tyre
Barking and Dagenham	✔	×	×	×	×	×	✔	2
Barnet	✔	×	✔	✔	✔	×	✔	5
Bexley	✔	×	✔	✔	✔	×	✔	5
Brent	×	×	✔	✔	×	×	×	2
Bromley	✔	×	✔	✔	×	×	×	3
Camden	×	×	✔	✔	✔	×	×	3
City of London	×	×	×	✔	✔	×	×	2
Croydon	✔	×	✔	✔	✔	×	×	4
Ealing	×	×	✔	✔	✔	×	×	3
Enfield	×	×	✔	×	×	×	×	1
Greenwich	×	×	✔	✔	×	×	✔	3
Hackney	✔	×	×	✔	✔	×	✔	4
Hammersmith and Fulham	×	×	✔	×	✔	×	×	2
Haringey	×	×	✔	✔	×	×	✔	3
Harrow	×	×	✔	✔	✔	×	×	3
Havering	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	0
Hillingdon	✔	×	✔	✔	×	×	×	3
Hounslow	×	×	✔	✔	×	×	×	2
Islington	×	×	×	✔	✔	×	×	2
Kensington and Chelsea	×	×	✔	×	×	×	×	1
Kingston upon Thames	✔	×	✔	✔	✔	×	✔	5
Lambeth	×	×	✔	✔	✔	×	×	3
Lewisham	✔	×	×	✔	×	×	✔	3
Merton	×	×	✔	✔	×	×	×	2
Newham**	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Redbridge	✔	×	✔	✔	×	×	✔	4
Richmond upon Thames	×	×	✔	✔	✔	×	×	3
Southwark	×	×	✔	✔	×	×	×	2
Sutton	✔	×	✔	✔	×	×	✔	4
Tower Hamlets	×	×	✔	✔	✔	×	×	3
Waltham Forest	✔	×	✔	✔	✔	×	✔	5
Wandsworth	×	×	✔	✔	✔	×	✔	4
Westminster	×	×	✔	✔	✔	×	✔	4
Total	12	0	26	27	17	0	13

* Data for Barnet, Brent, Croydon, Enfield, harrow, Hillingdon, Merton, Newham, Waltham Forest and Wandsworth was obtained from the borough’s website.

**We were unable to find information on Newham’s recycling policy, they did not respond to our request for information.

***Although a number of boroughs told us items could be take to a reuse or recycling centre they did not offer kerbside collection

[2] Wasting London’s Future, London Assembly Environment Committee, Mar 2018 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/wasting_londons_future.pdf

[3] London Environment Strategy, Mayor of London, May 2018 https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/london-environment-strategy

[4] ENV18 - Local authority collected waste: annual results tables, published on 28 November 2019

Household Recycling Rate for London
2016/17	2017/18	2018/19
33.0%	33.1%	33.4%

Table 3a, Local authority collected waste generation from April 2000 to March 2019 (England and regions) and local authority data April 2017 to March 2019.xls

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/env18-local-authority-collected-waste-annual-results-tables

Household recycling rate	2017/18	2018/19	% change
Croydon	37.90%	47.30%	9.40%
Lewisham	21.80%	28.00%	6.20%
Ealing	48.80%	52.60%	3.80%
Westminster	18.80%	21.70%	2.90%
Newham	14.10%	16.90%	2.80%
Bexley	52.10%	54.10%	2.00%
Hounslow	29.80%	31.40%	1.60%
Merton	37.00%	38.50%	1.50%
Kingston upon Thames	48.30%	49.40%	1.10%
Wandsworth	22.10%	23.20%	1.10%
Redbridge	23.90%	24.90%	1.00%
Camden	30.30%	31.10%	0.80%
Kensington and Chelsea	26.20%	27.00%	0.80%
City of London	29.20%	29.90%	0.70%
Richmond upon Thames	41.90%	42.50%	0.60%
Hackney	27.40%	27.90%	0.50%
Southwark	34.70%	35.20%	0.50%
Havering	37.00%	37.40%	0.40%
Lambeth	29.80%	30.10%	0.30%
Brent	36.50%	36.60%	0.10%
Bromley	50.00%	50.10%	0.10%
Hammersmith and Fulham	23.70%	23.80%	0.10%
Islington	29.50%	29.00%	-0.50%
Harrow	41.00%	40.20%	-0.80%
Sutton	50.00%	49.10%	-0.90%
Waltham Forest	32.50%	31.60%	-0.90%
Barking and Dagenham	25.00%	23.70%	-1.30%
Greenwich	35.10%	33.40%	-1.70%
Barnet	36.90%	34.60%	-2.30%
Enfield	35.90%	33.40%	-2.50%
Tower Hamlets	26.40%	23.20%	-3.20%
Hillingdon	40.00%	36.70%	-3.30%
Haringey	32.90%	29.30%	-3.60%

[5] Local Authority collected waste generation from April 2000 to March 2019 (England and regions): 

ENV18 - Local authority collected waste: annual results tables, published on 28 November 2019

Local Authority collected waste sent to Incineration with EfW
2016/17	2017/18	2018/19
52.9%	55.6%	58.3%

Table 2a, Local authority collected waste generation from April 2000 to March 2019 (England and regions) and local authority data April 2017 to March 2019.xls

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/env18-local-authority-collected-waste-annual-results-tables

RISE- Free Borough of Culture Outdoor Event, Olympic Way, Wembley SATURDAY 7pm

AN OUTDOOR SPECTACLE TELLING THE STORY OF BRENT

FREE TO ATTEND, NO TICKET REQUIRED. 

On Saturday 18 January celebrate the launch of Brent’s year as London Borough of Culture 2020 at RISE – a spectacular outdoor show featuring a community cast of hundreds hosted by Wembley Park as Principal Partner, free for all to attend.

Starting at 7pm, the show will bring together theatre, dance and music to tell the story of Brent through a mass-participatory performance choreographed by Southpaw Dance Company. It will take place on a five storey-high stage against the backdrop of Brent’s iconic Wembley Stadium on Wembley Park’s transformed Olympic Way, illuminated by colourful projections and set to an incredible soundtrack of music and spoken word.

Brent is the UK’s most diverse borough – a borough of cultures. RISE will tell the story of how this corner of North West London travelled from the margins to impact culture in Britain through its music, activism, and rebellious spirit. The show follows a group of friends from Brent as they reflect on its history and identity across generations.

Over 300 people have been recruited from schools, dance clubs, and community groups across Brent to take part in the performance, learning the choreography from professional dancers from the borough.

The show will close with an explosive ending and a live performance by Brent-born artist General Levy. Boxpark Wembley will host an afterparty with street food vendors, bars, live music performances and DJs.

Let us know you're attending via our Facebook event.

Saturday 18 January 2020
Performance at 7pm
Olympic Way, Wembley Park

A Southpaw Dance Company Production commissioned by Metroland Culture.
Principal Partner Wembley Park.

RISE x Brent 2020 Boxpark Afterparty
Boxpark Wembley host the official afterparty for RISE, come along from 8pm to take advantage of 20+ delicious food vendors, three bars and loads of free entertainment including live performances and DJs!

Packed meeting wins commitment to improved tree policy from Brent Council but more resources needed

Brent Trees' Three Asks

The strength of feeling amongst residents over the protection of the borough's street trees was evident yesterday evening when there was standing room only at the newly formed Brent Trees public meeting of residents, council officials and councillors. The Cabinet lead member for environment, Cllr Krupa Sheth, was unable to attend.

There were three very professional presentations from members of Brent Trees campaigns with space for a response from the Council after each one. Most responses came from officers, Chris Whyte (Environment), Tony Kennedy (Highways) and Gary Rimmer (Principal Trees Officer).  Cllr Butt only spoke when a member of the audience pointed out that many of the questions were about Council policy and should be answered by politicians who make policy rather than officers.

The first presentation was about the value of trees and why there needed to be significant reasons for removal. A slide was shown of the trees outside Furness Primary School and the adjacent footway, damage to which had been cited as a reason for removal. There was laughter when the presenter said, 'By Brent standards that is a pretty good pathway.'  Campaigners had managed to save some of the trees from removal.The Council was criticised for not giving sufficient, evidence based reasons for removal, and proper notice to residents who might wish to make representations.  The conclusion was that Brent Council did not value its trees and saw trees as a cost and not a benefit.

CAVAT (Capital Assessment Valuation of Amenity Trees) in Sheffield has valued each mature tree at £25,446. It would take 20-30 years for replacement trees to give the same benefit. It need 26 young trees to replace the benefit of one mature tree.

Wrexham Council records the benefit of trees

Brent Trees wanted an Action Plan on the maintenance of mature trees to reduce the need for removal:

• Prioritise mature trees
• Do not remove an healthy trees
• Commit to removing trees only as a last resort
• Commit to replace all removed trees

Officers responded that dead, diseased and dangerous trees had to be removed, insurance claims had to be avoided, and solutions had to be found for trees that created obstacles for pedestrians. A campaigner said that the issue was more complex than simply chopping trees down to make pavements safer. Engineering solutions needed to be found.

A second presentation focused on poor communication by the council in the form of notices and the need for reasons for removal to be clearly stated and sufficient notice given.  DEFRA had set out a Duty to Consult and a Duty to Report:

The Council needed to use the full range of social media available to it to develop a clear communications strategy to inform the public. Notices should state whether a new tree would be substituted for a removed tree and, if so, the type of tree that would be planted in its place,

Brent Council had failed to  provide information for the London Mayor's tree map. A slide showed the information for part of Brent compared with Westminster across the border.

A traffic light monitoring system for trees was suggested:

GREEN - tree inspected and assessed and no action required
AMBER - tree inspected and assessed and some work needed to be done
RED -  tree inspected and assessed as needing removal with reason and evidence cited (eg tree surgeon's report)

Chris Whtye of the Environment Department said  that they had not entered a debate with the public but made a judgement themselves on individual trees. Independent consultation on every tree was not practical but if the government made  it a requirement the Council would have to comply. A traffic light system was more than the council could provide. He admitted a lack of quality in the information that the council had been provided and there needed to be a clear description of the logic for removal.  He recognised that there were gaps in information but that it was positive that Brent Trees had been set up and had entered into dialogue with the Council.

Members of the audience gave examples of trees removed without good reason in various parts of the borough as well as Old Paddington Cemetery. Data via i-tree (LINK) should record not just the number of trees but the size of the canopy and other information.  Chris Whyte said that a larger canopy meant more uptake of water with a shrinkage impact on clay soils.

Officers said the the Council Communications Team would be asked to devise a new communications strategy.

An audience member was cheered when he condemned the officers' claim that because records did not have to be kept that they weren't. He said flatly, 'I don't trust you to make decisions on what is a healthy tree.'

The last presentation was on the lack of resources provided for trees in Brent. Similar boroughs such as Hackney and Islingtton were better staffed. The highest number of tree officers in London boroughs was 7, the average 3.38 and the lowest (one) was Brent.

Given the Declaration of a Climate Emergency by the Council, trees needed to be given a higher priority. The lack of resources devoted to trees indicated the low priority currently given to this vital issue by the Council.

Cllr Butt claimed that Islington and Hackney were not comparable to Brent and had a higher council tax revenue base while an officer said that more people were involved with trees in Brent than indicated by the quoted figures.

Cllr Butt said that because of government cuts to Brent's funding the council had to prioritise areas such as adult social care.  He urged the public to take part in the current budget consultation to put their views.

He responded angrily when I pointed out the c£18m that had been earmarked to be spent on the replacement of the Wembley Stadium pedway by steps and the huge underspend in the 2017-18 Community Infrastructure Levy. The 2018-19 report should have been published by December 31st but is not yet available.

 

Cllr Butt said that the pedway removal was a planning obligation and that it was up to the public to make applications for Neighbourhood CIL.

The crowd at last night's meeting (Photo: Brent Trees)

 

After the meeting Brent Trees issued the following press release:

Following a public meeting on January 15th, the BRENT TREES group is satisfied that the council has taken a step in the right direction but asks for a budget commitment on a par with the climate emergency. 

With a turnout of more than 100 people, the event we organised at Newman Catholiv College on Wednesday showed the depth of concern felt by Brent residents regarding the maintenance of street trees by the council, particularly in light of the council’s own declaration of a climate emergency.

We heard many stories from the audience, echoing our own experiences. Last November, the council tried to remove 11 trees on Furness Road in Kensal Green, even though residents had not been given proper notice and most of the trees were healthy. That incident caused a storm among the local community and resulted in the creation of the Brent Trees group. 

On Wednesday, ​Chris Whyte, ​Operational Director, Environmental Services, Regeneration and Environment, Brent Council,​ ​welcomed the formation of our group. ​“W e need to enter a constant dialogue with you to get back onto a better footing​”​, he declared during the course of the public event. 

Mr. Whyte also stated that the council will adopt ​“much clearer communication” with residents ahead of any planned felling of trees by the council. 

Gary Rimmer, who is Brent’s sole Street Tree Officer, informed those attending that in future ​“a different sign will go on trees” recognising that the information displayed in Furness Road last November was inadequate. 

We welcome the willingness shown by both Chris Whyte and Gary Rimmer as well as the leader of the council, Councillor Muhammed Butt - who was also present at the meeting - to improve communication with residents. 

We expect that the promises made at the meeting will be confirmed to us in writing and are hopeful that a way of working will quickly be established. ​We want to avoid any further removals of healthy trees as was the overall intention in Furness Road likewise ​thetaking down of a 150 YEAR-OLD tree in Paddington Old Cemetery​ which happened last November. 

However, we are deeply concerned at the lack of resources dedicated to trees by Brent council and believe, having declared a climate emergency, this is a serious oversight that needs to be rectified. Brent has just one Street Tree Officer​. When we compare the number of street tree officers employed by other London boroughs with a similar socio-economic deprivation profile it is clearly too low. Haringey employs 4 street tree officers ; Tower Hamlets has 2.  

The BRENT TREES group will use ​the ongoing budget consultation to repeat our request for the allocation of more resources to street tree care. We believe the climate emergency declaration adopted by Brent council last July compels Brent to take bold budget decisions. 

We are aware of the extraordinary impact of the austerity driven cuts imposed on the council by central government since 2010. Nevertheless, the climate emergency is so serious we have no choice but to raise the environment protection bar to an unprecedented level. 

We believe this can be achieved in Brent if both residents and the council take inspiration from other local authorities in London and across the UK, emulating best practice. We simply have no other choice. 

For any questions, please email us at:

 saveourtreesbrent@gmail.com 

Twitter: @Brent_Trees

Early Notice - controversial planning applications coming up at Brent Council Planning Committee on January 22nd

The next Planning Committee on Wednesday 22nd January, 6pm,  at Brent Civic Centre will be deciding some controversial planning applications:

1 Olympic Way, Wembley, HA9 0NP (Ref. 19/0395) PDF 485 KB

Preston Library, Carlton Avenue East, Wembley, HA9 8PL (Ref. 19/1305) PDF 997 KB

Granville Centre, 80 Granville Road, London, NW6 5RA (Ref.19/2378) PDF 774 KB

19 Dudden Hill Lane, London, NW10 2ET (Ref.19/2688) PDF 834 KB

Playground, Salusbury Primary School, Salusbury Road, London, NW6 6RG (Ref.19/2136) PDF 336 KB

To request to speak on any of the applications contact: Contact: Joe Kwateng, Governance Officer  Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk; 020 8937 1354

Parents demand action on 'daily threat to their children

Concerned parents have set up a petition calling for action to make their children safe. I have reproduced it here for your information and not as an endorsement of everything that it says.

It can be signed HERE

To: Dawn Butler MP, Tulip Siddiq MP, Barry Gardiner MP, Councillor Mili Patel, Councillor Matt Kelcher, Councillor Tom Miller

Safer kids - Radical increase in muggings and violent assault on children in our neighbourhood

We demand immediate solutions to the daily threat our children face through:

- More police/security details patrolling the Kensal Green, Kensal Rise, Queens Park and Harlesden area, especially at key points in the day

- More CCTV in key locations 

- The creation of a positive action network consisting of schools, residents and local businesses that raises awareness and encourages positive, social behaviour within the community.

We also demand long-term solutions such as investment in local youth centres and helping the youth committing these crimes to become part of the community, rather than fighting against it.

Why is this important?

We the undersigned residents of Brent demand our streets be made safe for our children. We are writing to you to demand you immediately address the radical increase in muggings and assaults on children in our local area. Lawlessness is rampant and impunity is now rife in our neighbourhood. 

Our streets feel like the Wild West - anything goes, and no one can do a thing about it.

Muggings and assaults on children are now occurring daily, often between 2pm and 7pm on the peripheries of schools, in parks and around the Chamberlayne Rd area. These crimes are committed by youth, at times in balaclavas, often using knives, sometimes using steel bars as a threat, other times using direct violent assault - and all this in broad daylight. 

In the cases where adults have tried to intervene, they too have been violently assaulted. One parent was recently punched in the head in Roundwood Park numerous times in front of his son, and another parent had a plank of wood smashed into his face, losing several teeth in the Queens Park area - also in front of his children. 

Sadly, many cases go unreported as the victims are fearful if they tell, they could be putting themselves in more danger. Moreover, parents at times fear nothing will be done as the police rarely turn up, or if they do it's 30 minutes late, when the perpetrators are long gone.

At an age when our children should be cherishing a newfound independence, they now have to fear for their safety. They must ask themselves: Will I be attacked on the way home from school today? Is it safe to take my phone? Do I have to walk in a big group to be safe? What should I do if I get assaulted? Will they knife me? 

No child should have to ask him or herself these questions. We want our children to:

- be able to walk to school and home from it
- go the the park/skatepark
- walk to a friend's house
- go to the corner shop
- catch a bus/ the tube etc...

without having to worry that they will be assaulted or mugged. 

The effect of daily fear in these young minds, if not addressed, is likely to lead to a dramatic increase in anxiety, depression and isolation in our local community.

May we remind you, in 1991 the UK signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, one of the nine core UN human rights treaties. The CRC protects the rights of children in all areas of their life, including their rights to "freedom from violence, abuse and neglect". 

It is tragic that almost three decades later, in this supposedly civilised society, our children are not protected from violence or abuse in their very own neighbourhood.

It is tragic, that due to austerity, our society is now one in which crime is rampant, impunity rife and our children - our future - are the ones having to suffer the devastating consequences. 

It is tragic that they must now live in fear in their own community. 

We demand you make our streets safe for our children. We demand action and we demand it now.

Brent youth stood up to Youth Centre cuts in 2011 under the Anne John administration see LINK butopposition to Brent youth centre closures in 2015-16 was muted LINK except for the spirited struggle over Stonebridge Adventure Playground LINK

In 2017 Green Party London Assembly Member, Sian Berry (now a London Mayoral candidate) reported on the devastating impact of youth service cuts across London. LINK

Cllr Butt confirms his attendance at Brent Street Trees meeting on Wednesday January 15th

Cllr Butt, leader of Brent Council, has confirmed his attendance at the forthcoming meeting on Brent policy on trees. Since Furness Road LINK residents kicked off the campaign to save street trees from unnecessary removal requesting clearer information on criteria for removal, discussion on alternatives to removal, and early notice of the intention to fell, Groups and individuals from other areas of the borough have also been raising the issue including areas as distant from each other as Alperton, Kenton and Queens Park.

The meeting of residents, councillors and council officers will be held at Newman Catholic College, Harlesden Road, Willesden, NW10 3RN from 7pm - 8pm on Wednesday January 15th.

The recently formed group Brent Trees said:

Councillors and senior council officers have agreed to meet with local residents to discuss their policy on tree removal and pavement renewal. The recent campaign to save eleven condemned trees in Furness Road has been extremely successful and has resulted in the council reducing the number of condemned trees to just three. The purpose of the chaired and curated January meeting is to push for a fundamental change in the council's current policy on trees and pavement renewal (replacement of flagstones with asphalt across the borough) so that it complies with the climate change emergency that Brent council has itself declared.
 

Barry Gardiner's potential leadership bid gets mixed reception

The possibility of a late entry in the Labour leadership by Brry Gardiner MP has received a mixed reception on social media. Some have been impressed by his appearances on TV and radio as a supporter of Corbyn but others asked 'Who is he?'

on Gardiner's politics, Seema Chandwani, vice chair of London Labour tweeted:

There is no way I'd support Brarry Gardiner for Leader. His pro-Modi stance, his stirring with the Indian community over Kashmir and his inability now, despite getting involved in Indian politics, to condemn Modi and the Citizenship Amendment Act is too much.

.......

 The thought of him being Leader is a total kick in the teeth for Asian members like me.

 On the other hand Ben Jolly tweeted:

Barry Gardiner cut through the lies about Jeremy Corbyn beautifully. His intelligence & clarity reaches over the noise of every journalist or Tory MP he faces. He is well briefed on Party policy & extreme passionate for change. This is why he gets my vote.

Dawn Butler has already announced her bid for the deputy leadership which raises the possibility of a Brent (rather than Islington) national Labour leadership.

Not likely to impress the northern towns?

Barry Gardiner speaking today LINK  What makes him stand out from rivals? 'I can win a General Election.'

Why Labour voters should support Andrew Linnie of the Green Party in Alperton after suspension of the Labour candidate

The Kilburn Times reports LINK that the Labour Party has suspended Chetan Harpale, its candidate in the Alperton by-election  over alleged anti-Muslim tweets. Wembley Matters  broke the story on the tweets on December 30th  LINK which apart from the anti-Muslim comments also suggested Jeremy Corbyn was pro-Jihadis and praised right wing Tory MP Bob Blackman.

Harpale remains on the ballot paper and suspension is not the same as expulsion. Due process means that there will be an investigation and Harpale will have the chance of defending the comments or perhaps claim that his Twitter account was hacked. 

Labour Party activists are unlikely to be able to stomach campaigning for Harpale given the allegations but under Labour Party rules are not able to openly campaign to support a candidate from a rival party. This does not apply to Labour voters of course, who can make up their own minds over which candidate from other parties standing in Alperton comes closest to reflecting their own beliefs.

A further consideration is that if Harpale is elected despite the allegations, perhaps through automatic support for Labour by habitual Labour voters, he could be expelled by Labour but attempt to keep his seat as an Independent. As an Independent action could be taken against him in the Standards Committee using the Code of Conduct for Councillors.  Ironically the previous Chair of the Standards Committee was James Allie who the Kilburn Times reports has also been suspended by the Labour Party. He resigned before Christmas following allegations that he has 'utilised' a dead woman's legacy for his own uses, including the purchase of a house. LINK

If Harbale is elected, but resigns immediately, there will need to be another by-election in Alperton ward.

WHY LABOUR VOTERS SHOULD VOTE GREEN IN THESE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES

I would argue that the best way to solve this mess is for Alperton Labour voters to support Andrew Linnie the Green Party candidate.  Andrew has an excellent reputation as an Alperton resident who has campaigned on housing and regeneration issues.  He has addressed the Planning Committee on behalf of residents and issues a regular campaigning Newsletter in the locality.

More broadly the Green Party has national and regional policies which many Labour  activists would support. These include:

• ANTI-AUSTERITY The Green Party campaigned against the imposition of austerity from the outset while the Labour Party pre-Corbyn, was ambivalent to say the least. Locally we were members of the cross-party Brent Fightback. (Caroline Lucas addresses the People's Assembly Anti-Austerity march in 2014 HERE)  The Lib Dems were of course pro-Austerity.
• GREEN NEW DEAL Greens came up with the idea, in collaboration with trade unionists and other groups, a long time ago supporting One Million Climate Jobs and advocating a 'just transition' to a low carbon economy. Green Party statement on Green New Deal 2007 LINK
• HOUSING Greens have a range of housing policies LINK which start with the principle that 'affordable, secure and comfortable accommodation is a basic human right'. We reject the current misuse of the term affordable and through our GLA Assembly members are campaigning for the the London Mayor to have control over London's housing so renters are guaranteed decent homes and are protected from unfair evictions and unaffordable rents.
• DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY OF EDUCATION The Green Party adopted a policy of opposition to academies and free schools and their integration back into the local authority system well before the Labour Party and also opposed SATs because of their detrimental impact on both pupils and teachers. LINK

FOOTNOTE

This is the motion on Islamophobia adopted by Full Council on July 8th 2019:

“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

Contemporary examples of Islamophobia in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in encounters between religions and non-religions in the public sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

·                Calling for, aiding, instigating or justifying the killing or harming of Muslims in the name of a racist/ fascist ideology, or an extremist view of religion.

·                Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group, such as, especially but not exclusively, conspiracies about Muslim entryism in politics, government or other societal institutions; the myth of Muslim identity having a unique propensity for terrorism, and claims of a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims or of a ‘Muslim takeover’.

·                Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.

·                Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.

·                Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

·                Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, e.g. loyalty tests.

·                Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. the Prophet Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterise Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies.

·                Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic.