Tuesday 28 February 2012

Make sure you get to vote in the Dollis Hill by-election

New applications to register to vote must reach the Electoral Registration Officer at Brent Town Hall by midnight on Wednesday 7 March 2012.

New applications to vote by post or applications to change existing postal vote details must reach the Electoral Registration Officer at Brent Town Hall by 5pm on Wednesday 7 March 2012.

New applications to vote by proxy must reach the Electoral Registration Officer by 5pm on Wednesday 14 March 2012. However if you are a postal voter and you wish to appoint a proxy you will need to cancel your postal vote by 5pm on Wednesday 7 March 2012.

New applications to vote by proxy on the grounds of medical emergency must reach the Electoral Registration Officer by 5pm on Thursday 22 March 2012.

Monday 27 February 2012

Brent Council passes second cuts budget

Brent Council tonight approved the 2012-13 cuts budget that had previously been passed by the Executive. In addition they approved an amendment in the name of Ann John that doubled the amount of money in Ward Working to £40,000 per ward. Cllr John justified this on the basis that this was an area where councillors could really make a difference. The move is likely to be controversial beyond the council as it was not included in the budget plans discussed at Area Forums. Cllr Kasagra, leader of the Conservatives. dismissed Ward Working  as a method of councillor self promotion.

In her budget speech Cllr John said that the council was faced with an ongoing and increasingly difficult process in dealing with the funding cuts imposed by the Coalition government. She said that government policies were 'hurting but not working'. In a wide ranging survey of the economic situation she said that the crisis had been caused by greedy bankers but that 'the greed of the minority was being paid for by austerity for the majority'.

John detailed how benefit changes and the housing benefit cap would impact on Brent's poorest families and added that the Localisation of Council Benefits would force the council to decide whose benefits should be cut.  However, she went on to claim that having a Labour Council could make a real difference and expressed pride in the administration and in staff who had experienced pay freezes, increased pension contributions and job losses but who 'knew the Civic Centre made sense and had responded magnificently. In Brent we are really working together'.

Ann John said that the council's new priority, faced with Brent's young people going straight from school or university into long-term unemployment,  would be to tackle the lack of social mobility in the borough.. The council will set up am independently chaired Commission on Social Mobility, set up a new employment agency and refocus the work of BACES to concentrate on employment and employability.

 John listed council 'successes' including freezing the council tax, increased recycling, green charter, fair trade status and protecting parks and open spaces (no mention of privatisation). She said that in future schools would be expected to contribute to the whole community: 'especially news schools with state of the art facilities'.

Cllr John and Cllr Muhammed Butt both continued to claim that the funding was horrendous but at the same time that they were somehow able to protect the vulnerable, despite the cuts they were being forced to make. This contradictory approach was even more apparent when Butt boasted that the council had been able to protect incomes of residents  by freezing the council tax and later condemning the Coalition's grant that enabled the tax to be frozen as a bribe and something that would undermine revenue in the future.

Cllr John's presentation was listened to in respectful near silence by the Opposition but Labour jeered at Paul Lober (Lib Dem leader) and other Opposition councillors when they spoke. When the Conservative leader rose to speak Ann John pointedly got up from her seat and toured the Labour benches, stopping for a chat here and there.

The Lib Dem amendment sought to restore funding for libraries, end cuts in school crossing patrols, merge the Festivals Unit in the Grants Unit, reinstate Green Zones , reinstate the graffiti clean up team restore funding cuts mad ein the Summer University and Duke of Edinburgh Scheme,; and deal  with litter 'hotspots'. £500,000 from the Icelandic bank 'windfall' would be used for essential priorities and another £500,000 for a parking scheme to encourage local shopping. Cllr Lorber said the Lib Dems would invest in local people, local services and the things local people value.

Cllr  Suresh Kansagra, leader of the Conservative group made a confused and confusing speech which also sought to reinstate library closures and opposed the increase in ward working money. The amendment seemed to be predicated on spending some of the council reserves,

Several Executive members read out prepared speeches and the debate descended into knock-about stuff with Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala, to Opposition cries of 'Brent's Best Banker', making yet another barn-storming speech to fuel his bid to beat Dawn Butler for Labour's Brent Central parliamentary candidate nomination.

Cllr Rev David Clues (Lib Dem) brought a chastening tone to the proceedings by saying that the council did best when councillors worked together for the benefit of local people and acknowledged work Ann John had done with him on trafficking and the sex industry. In the context of the libraries he warned the council not to worsen economic poverty by lurching into cultural poverty.

Voting was on strict party lines with no divergence so the Opposition amendments were lost and the budget, with the ward working amendment, passed.

It was noteworthy that with Labour concentrating on government cuts and benefit changes and the Opposition restricting themselves to libraries and parking that there was no one challenging the council cuts that will impact on vulnerable children,  children with special educational needs, people with disabilities and those with mental health needs. With Brent Fightback barred from making representations to the council and the three main parties accepting the limits on spending set by the Coalition, no alternative strategy for council budget setting was put forward. A whole swathe of the population is unrepresented and silenced.

Sunday 26 February 2012

Tories select Harrow resident to fight Dollis Hill by-election

Despite recent controversies over two Brent councillors who have moved out of the borough, Brent Conservatives have selected a Harrow resident to as their candidate for the Dollis Hill by-election. All the other candidates live in NW2.

Samer Ahmedali lives in Palmerston Road, which is in Harrow's Marlborough ward. Ahmedali last stood in Welsh Harp ward achieving 6% of the vote. He is Deputy Chairman of Brent Central Conservative's Policy Forum according to their website.

"Don't do the Coalition's dirty work! Demonstrate Monday 27th February at Brent Town Hall


Lucas attacks the 3 main parties on privatisation






Saturday 25 February 2012

Pete Murry the REAL alternative in Dollis Hill

Pete Murry with the Green Party banner
Brent Green Party have selected Pete Murry as our candidate for the Dollis Hill by-election which takes place on March 22nd.

Pete, who lives in the ward, worked at the College of North West London for more than 20 years, and has deep routes in the borough. Pete although not as physically active as he would like to be, has involved himself in local issues including the early days of the Brent Cross Coalition and currently the Brent Campaign Against Climate Change and Brent Fightback's campaign against council cuts.

Pete's candidature is strengthened by his work in the Green Party Trade Union Group where he has been successful in getting the Green Party's policies on the economy and the creation of green jobs a hearing  in the trade union movement. These policies are particularly relevant at the moment when all three mainstream parties have accepted the austerity agenda which is deepening the recession and creating unemployment. Pete says, "Current Coalition policies are almost the exact opposite to what is needed which is a programme of investment and job creation focussed on building the infrastructure that the country needs to combat climate change."

Locally Pete is opposed to what he sees as the  wasteful plan to demolish the existing Willesden Green Library Centre.

With Labour doing the Coalition's dirty work locally by implementing their cuts in Brent, the Green Party is the real alternative for residents caught in the pincer movement of a Labour council and a ConDem government.

More than just Wembley

Several readers of this blog have recently reproached me regarding the title 'Wembley Matters' suggesting that it should really be called 'Brent Matters' or 'Wembley and Willesden Matters' or that I should set up a twin blog called 'Willesden Matters'. Unfortunately  that can then be extended to Kilburn, Harlesden, South Kilburn, Queens Park, Dollis Hill etc  Unfortunately the title Brent Matters is already in use in printed matter.. Exacerbating the issue is that many residents of Brent, in the East and the South, are critical of the 'Wembley-centric' nature of the council with major regeneration taking places around the stadium and the building of the new £127m Civic Centre being built in its shadow.

My blog was set up in the autumn of 2009 when the proposed ARK academy was the subject of a union and residents campaign over the loss of playing fields next to Wembley Park station and with the Wembley Masterplan a subject of great local controversy.  As a local resident and Green Party activist I set up this blog to air the issues and to support the campaigns.  However from the beginning the blog has covered issues that concern all in the borough with some crossing borough boundaries (the Brent Cross regeneration) as well as national issues such as the privatisation of education. 

I have reported on the neglect of the south of the borough, particularly as regards what I see as the unfair distribution of secondary schools in the south. Ironically the Willesden Green Cultural Centre, which the Council sees as an attempt to have a hub in the south, has been so poorly handled that local people rather than seeing it as an attempt to redress the balance, instead see it as an imposition.

Wembley Matters is probably too established a title to change it now. The title does not mean that I reflect the council's wembley-centrism and this blog is open to all in Brent and further afield who want to air the issues that concern them. Guest blogs are welcome.

.


Brent Council stonewalls on all fronts

Evidence is mounting that Brent Council does not want to hear from its citizens, but sure that they know best, want to carry out decision making without the irritant of representations from the public.

At the last Brent Executive, leader of the Council Ann John, in an emotional outburst asked why people did not come and make representations about the cuts that would make the 'poor people of Brent a lot worse off'. Brent Fightback requested permission to address the Council meeting to be held on Monday February 27th on just that topic: the cuts in Brent's budget that will impact on Brent's most vulnerable groups.

The request was turned by Anne Reid, Principal Democratic Services Officer:
I have advised the Mayor, the Leader of the Council, the Chief Executive and the Borough Solicitor of your request and the view is that there have been opportunities prior to this evening at committee for you to address members. Full Council is for the Leader to clearly present the budget proposals. Accordingly, your request has not been accepted.
I requested permission to present to Council the petition calling for Willesden Bookshop to be allocated space in the proposed Willesden Cultural Centre. This was turned down by Peter Goss of Democratic Services on the grounds that only petitions with more than 5,000 signatures could be presented at Council.  I followed this up by asking then which Committee I could present it to:
Once your petition closes, you will be informed of what will happen to it. As you know the Executive has already taken decisions on this matter and so there are no current plans for the Executive to consider the matter further. It is now for the Planning Committee to consider the planning application and in the light of this I will determine how to progress your petition, taking account of the Council's petition scheme.
The petition closed on February 21st but I have heard nothing more from Democratic Services. It is interesting that the statement says that there are no current plans for the Executive to discuss the matter further. There is currently a consultation managed by Galliford Try the developers of the 90-95 unit  housing development with Cultural Centre attached, which includes 1:1 sessions with residents on February 28th and 29th and an exhibition of March 9th and 10th. If the Executive is not going to consider the matter further it is unclear what the point is of this this consultation.

The last issue concerns my Freedom of Information requesting documentation regarding the Council's deliberations regarding  privatisation of  Brent Parks Service.  Brent Council failed to meet statutory deadlines. The request was made on December 30th 2011 and the reply received only on February 21st.
The request has been turned down by Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement Department:

In respect of the documentation that you have requested in respect of the (FOI request) this is highly sensitive and speculative information that at any point in time is the subject of initial high level consideration by Senior Officers only. It is highly possible that any such   proposals as may exist may not go for further consideration.

Ledden goes on to quote Section 36 (2) (b) (ii) of the Freedom of Information Act which she claims provides exemption 'where disclosures would or would be likely to, inhibit free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation'. She goes on to claim  Section 36 (2) (c) applies additionally or alternatively, where disclosure 'would be likely otherwise to 'prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs'.

She concludes:
There are strong public interests in accountability and transparency but there are also strong public interests in enabling officers and elected members to play their proper role in decision making and in developing ideas, which it is then appropriate to share on  wider basis.'
Ledden suggests that this is all a matter of timing and these are the grounds of increasing public  frustration in various aspects of council proposals:  the Council not publishing the criteria for bids for groups to take over libraries faced with closures, lack of financial information on the Civic Centre (commercially sensitive), 'secret' appendices on the Willesden Cultural Centre proposals and local  councillors who had seen the Cultural Centre plans being barred from discussing them with the public.

The 'timing' goes awry because the public feel that they are informed, often poorly, at a late stage and are confronted with a 'done deal'. This gives the impression of a lack of respect for residents' views and a lack of transparency and accountability. It is why groups such as those campaigning on libraries, social care and regeneration are aghast when they face the reality of council decision making.