High Court challenge to Barnhill by-election result

An Election Petition has been issued in the Election Petition Office of the High Court challenging the result of the January 23rd by-election. The petitioners have applied for a court hearing and the High Court will list a time and date for the hearing which will published on Brent Council's website.

The petition from the Conservative candidates  is set out below and is available via the Council's website. As an interested party I will comment no further other than note that the election result was declared around 12.50am on January 24th rather than January 23rd.

Click bottom right for full page.

This was the result of the Barnhill by-election:

Lib Dems mash up the stats in Mapesbury & launch 'red scare' attack

Bar charts on election literature are notorious for beiing 'a but dodgy' to say the least and are usually accompanied by 'Only XParty can win here!' or 'XParty can't win here'. The above from the Liberal Democrats is a good example with the added spice of a bit of 'red scare' propagands citing a potential Momentum 'control of Brent'.  On my reckoning there are only at the most two true Momentum supporters in the 63 strong Labout list. Furthermore, in my personal opinion, they would add a coorrective to the managerialist approach of the majority of Labour candidates.

So anyway how did the Lib Dems arrive at their bar chart?

They have added up the total votes of each party in the 2014 council election in the ward. As Greens fielded only one candidate and the others three each this puts Greens at the bottom below the Tories.

If, however, you list the candidates' individual results it gives a different picture  (from Brent Council website election results page):

The Green candidate vote was well above that of each of the three Conservative candidates and only 3% behind the lowest Liberal Democrat candidate.

This time round there are three Green candidates so a more representative bar chart could be made from May 3rd's results.

Meanwhile, as I said to a woman outside Willesden Green Sainsbury's yesterday, 'Yes, the Greens can win in Mapesbury.'

I should have added that the former Lib Dem councillor, turned Independent, for Mapesbury has said that she wants to see Greens on Brent Council.

Let the battle contine - on even ground...

Confusing debate on anti-Semitism motion at Brent Council

In a debate at Brent Full Council, made even more confusing than usual by another round of musical chairs in the Conservative groups, eventually the following motion was agreed with three abstentions. It is the original Joel Davidson motion amended by Cllr Shafique Choudhary (amendment highlighted in yellow). There was cross party support with three abstentions.  Council refused permission for the amended motion moved by Reg Colwill (see posting below) to be debated. I find the amendment on Palestinian rights confusingly worded although the intention appears to be to give equal recognition to Israeli and Palestinian rights. The motion retains many of the guidelines that speakers presenting deputations opposed at the meeting.

On the face of it I think the Reg Colwill motion was much clearer and I cannot understand why the Labour group voted against it being debated. Any interesting insight from the backrooms?

ADOPTION OF INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE ALLIANCE DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM

This Council notes with alarm the rise in antisemitism in recent years across the UK. This includes incidents when criticism of Israel has been expressed using antisemitic tropes. Criticism of Israel can be legitimate, but not if it employs the tropes and imagery of antisemitism.

We therefore welcome the UK Government’s announcement on December 11^th 2016 that it will sign up to the internationally recognised International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) guidelines on antisemitism which define antisemitism thus:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The guidelines highlight possible manifestations of antisemitism as sometimes including:

·      “Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion. 


·      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. 


·      Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. 


·      Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust). 


·      Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. 


·      Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews 
worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. 
 

      Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination alongside Palestinian’s right to self-determination  (Removes ‘e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor’)

·      Applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour not expected or demanded of any other 
democratic nation. 


·      Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews 
killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. 


·      Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. 


·      Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” 
This Council welcomes the cross-party support within the Council for combating antisemitism in all its manifestations.

This Council hereby adopts the above definition of antisemitism as set out by the 


International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and pledges to combat this pernicious form of racism.

Preston Library Campaign builds ahead of Tuesday's Cabinet decision

Ahead of Tuesday's Cabinet Meeting, Roxanne Mashari, has written to Philip Bromberg in response to his letter LINK about the future of the former Preston library building (referred to in the Cabinet report at the Preston Park Annex LINK)

For the record, I have met with you and your group on a number of occasions and have found our conversations constructive which ultimately have led to the operation of the community library. 

I hope we can collectively find a solution to this as I think your community library is a fantastic example of community action to keep services running in the face of government cuts and I hope the council can support your hard work, passion and commitment as much as possible.

As I said previously, unfortunately property has been removed from the regeneration portfolio but I expect the leader will respond to you fully as soon as possible.

 Cllr Mathew Bradley has also responded to correspondents with the following generic reply:

As I have received a large number of emails about this, I've put together this standard response which I hope will answer all your questions.

Thank you for the numerous emails I received about the Preston Community library. As per your requests, we raised your concerns at the Labour group meeting to try and give a clear steer to the cabinet about what we, as Labour councillors (and specifically Preston ward councillors) wanted to see the building being used for - a community library. I think we made this clear in the meeting. The case for the library has been made well by all of you and I want to thank you all for writing in as the level of public support for the community library was made very clear and lent weight to what we had to say.

As an educator, I am firmly on your side in this matter, and I know my fellow councillors, Pat and Jean, feel the same way. We have been impressed at the service which has been provided by the Preston library community group (often in adverse conditions) and hope that this will continue into the future.

At the next meeting of cabinet, they will be deciding whether to enter negotiations with the business next door to see if this property can be purchased by the council in order to start re-development with a mind to building a structure on both sites. The ground floor of this will be reserved for community use, the upstairs area may become flats, or something else, but as far as I am aware the purpose for this has not been decided.

If the community library were to take up residence on the ground floor this would get the library a permanent home, and I believe would be an excellent solution to the many issues the library group has been facing when working with the council. While I can see positives and negatives to this, as a supporter of the library, I feel that this might be the best possible outcome.

Of course, if this happens, the next big fight would be ensuring that the ground floor of this building is indeed used for the library. The work on achieving this is far from over and I thank you all for continuing to support the community library as robustly as you have.

Regards,
Cllr Matthew Bradley

Philip Bromberg replied:

First of all, I'd like to thank you and Jean (Cllr Hussein)  and Pat (Cllr Harrison) for the support we've had from you over the last two years. Some of the recipients of this email will be unaware that you have done valuable work for the library, and that you've offered to do more for us in the future. We are grateful for your help.

However, I'm afraid that what you say about next week's Cabinet is highly misleading. The report is not simply about negotiations with the business next door. There are two recommended proposals, and both involve the re-development of the library site. In both cases, the ground floor community space will be put out to open market tender, with a target rental income of £51,000 per annum. How, in these circumstances, will it be possible to ensure that there is a library on the ground floor?

Two years ago you and Pat and Jean and every other Labour councillor fought an election on a promise to offer the current building for use as a library at a peppercorn rent, and without an open tendering process. Is this promise about to be broken?

I hope you have read the attached letter from the Chair of SKPPRA, which casts considerable doubt on the wisdom of the current plans. Our strong preference is to continue to run the library in the existing building. This is what was promised in May 2014. But any re-development of the site must be done in a way which is consistent with those promises made two years ago. On Tuesday the Cabinet must say clearly that any community space must contain our community library, which must be offered to us for a peppercorn rent. That is what you now need to tell Mo and the other members of the Cabinet.

WHAT MIGHT BE LOST 

The decision about the library building is due to be made on Tuesday but both Brent Conservative groups have put it on the agenda for the following Full Council meeting on September 19th.

Cllr Reg Colwill  of Kenton conservatives has submitted this question to Cllr Michael Pavey, lead member for Stronger Communities:

The residents of the Preston Ward have done a fantastic job in keeping the library active and working to make sure that all the residents have access to books in a very professional manner.

Will the Council now honour what they told the residents that is that they would give them the library to continue their good work?

If yes, the Committee running the library would like to know when.

Brondesbury Park  Conservatives have submitted the following motion:

This Council confirms its previous promises and pledges of support for the continued existence of the four voluntary - run Brent libraries: Preston Community, Barham Park , Kensal Rise and Cricklewood.

A correspondent has submitted the following regarding the report's figures:

According to the Cabinet report:

5 flats built on the library site, will produce an income £158,000, less £51,000 from 'community' provision comes to £107,000, or £21,400 for each flat [£411.54per week].

19 flats on larger site, income £420,000, less £51,000 from community space comes to £369,000, or £19,421 per flat, which is £373.48 per week.

Council rents for a one bed are £102, 2beds are £116, and 3 beds are £128.

So Council tenants will not be able to afford the homes.  Housing Benefit does not seem to have been accounted for in the calculations.

So the income for the Council as indicated in the report seems inaccurate. It is cheaper to rent out a private flat in the area, so the proposals don't seem viable and won't meet housing need.

Opposition to Tory Trade Union Act given top priority at Green Party Autumn Conference

Green Party Trade Union Group at Tolpuddle Martyrs' Festival last month

Trade Unionists in the Green Party, organised as the Green Party Trade Union Group (GPTU), have successfully put Trade Union issues at the top of the policy agenda for this year’s Green Party Autumn Conference.

GPTU’s first motion opposes the Tory Trade Union Act, passed into law earlier this year, and has been voted by members as the top priority in the “C” section for policy motions.

The second, calling for legislation to make it easier for Trade Unions to organise in new workplaces, has made it to fifth place (out of 25) on the agenda for policy motions.

Kieron Merrett, Green Party Trade Union Group Secretary, said,

As Trade Unionists in the Green Party, we’re delighted that Trade Union and workers’ issues have been voted as the very top priority for policy discussion at this year’s Autumn Conference.

Well done to all those Green Party members who voted in the prioritisation ballot. It is clearly no coincidence that the Green Party has the most pro-worker and pro-Trade Union policies of any major party.

We’ve shown that the Green Party is the party for Trade Unionists and working people.

Proposals that might breathe a little more life into Brent Council meetings

Brent Full Council meetings have become a bit of a joke with a familar structure of leader grandstanding from both sides, ritual party political exchanges in a pale imitation of the House of Commons that get worse nearer election time, brown-nosing questions from Labour backbencher to Cabinet members, and motions that the public are not able to see in advance.  It is a long time since there has been a debate on a petition from the public.

Not to forget of course the regular attempts by John Warren's Conservative Group to wrest the front row seats from Suresh Kansagra's Conservative Group. After their failure they spend the rest of the Full Council meeting gleefully inserting knives between the shoulder blades of  nominal colleagues seated in front of them.

Changes suggested in an officer's report introduce measures that may improve things to some extent. It is noteworthy that a decision on whether to accept a deputation rests with the Chief Executive, advised by the Chief Legal Officer.

 


3.0  Detail

.         


Questions from members of the public 


.        3.1  It is proposed that a new Standing Order will be inserted which allows members of the public to ask questions of Cabinet members. The revised Standing Order which in the Appendix 1 appears as Standing Order 40 would allow for questions to be submitted in writing and circulated with the agenda for full Council. A written answer would be circulated by close of business the day before full Council. One supplementary question could be asked during the full Council meeting. 


External speaker

.        3.3  Provision is included in Standing Orders for an external speaker to be invited to attend full Council and speak for up to 10 minutes on an issue of relevance to Brent and for there to be an ensuing debate for up to 45 minutes. This will not be a standing item on the agenda but will be added to the agenda with the agreement of all Group Leaders. The relevant Lead Member will be permitted to speak for 5 minutes and will submit a motion in accordance with the normal rules on motions. Speeches by other members will not exceed 2 minutes.

  


Non cabinet members’ debate 


.        3.4  It is proposed that, following a recent trial of such a debate, at two Full Council meetings, that there should be a regular debate for a maximum of 21 minutes on a topic selected by backbench members. Up to six members can speak for up to three minutes and the Lead Member will be permitted to speak for up to three minutes and shall provide a written report, for information only, at the next Full Council meeting with what follow up action has been taken. 


Petitions scheme 


.        3.5  It is proposed that the existing petitions scheme is retained but in addition there is provision for ward members, or a chair of a scrutiny committee to make reference to the receipt of a petition to Full Council. In the event that a petition submitted via the Brent petition scheme attracts more than 200 signatures then Standing Orders will allow for a debate at full Council to be requested. 


Motions 


3.6. It is proposed that the timescales for motions will be amended so that motions must be submitted 5 days in advance and that amendments to motions must be submitted close of business the previous working day. This will allow members of the public to have available to them printed copies of the motions and amendments and to follow the debate more easily.

Deputations

.        3.7  It is proposed that the Chief Executive should have a power to determine whether or not a deputation should be accepted, on advice from the Chief Legal Officer. 


Leader’s report 

 

.        3.8  It is proposed that the Leader should have the opportunity to present an Annual report to Full Council. The Leader will be permitted to speak for 5 minutes and there will follow a debate for 20 minutes. Opposition Group 
Leaders will be able to speak for 2 minutes each and all other members will be able to speak for 2 minutes each until the time runs out.

Questions to Cabinet Members

.        3.9  It is proposed that the existing Standing Order is amended so that the original question and answer are provided in written form at the meeting of Full Council and there is provision for a member to ask one oral supplementary question lasting up to 1 minute and for the Cabinet member to reply taking up to 2 minutes. 


Brent Conservatives: 'Curioser and curioser'

Committee allocation

'Curioser and Curioser' may well be Alice in Wonderland's reaction to the situation of Conservative councillors in Brent. To recap, there are two groups of Brent Conservatives" The 'Conservative Group' of Kenton councillors led by Cllr Kansargra and the 'Brent Conservative Group' led by Cllr Warren. There are three members in each.

The two groups tussled for recognition by the Labour Group which resulted in mutual recrimination and Warren characterising the Kenton members as Labour dupes.

Now an Officer's Report LINK going to Full Council on September 7th reveals that Brent Conservative Group are not taking up their positions on the Audit Committee, Standards Committee and Corporate Parenting Committee.

Following the last meeting of Full Council, the Head of Executive and Member Services notified the Leader of the Brent Conservative Group, in writing, of the opportunity to nominate a Member of the Group to the remaining seats the Group had been allocated by 15 July 2015.

In response, the Group leader expressed two wishes: “1. Not to appoint from my group to our allocated committees, 2. To appoint from outside my group.” 

Having been advised that only members of the Brent Conservative Group can be nominated, the Group further expressed the wish that, apart from the Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Committee, the seats on the committees remain vacant. 


One might think that given this stance the seats could be offered to the Conservative Group or the lone Liberal Democrat councillor but the officer's report states:

According to the 1990 Regulations, if a political group has failed to express its wishes in relation to the appointment of a committee seat within a period of three weeks, “the authority......may make such appointment to that seat as they think fit.” 


Full Council’s default power is therefore discretionary: the outstanding appointments “may” be made but there is no requirement to do so. Further, the power to appoint has to be interpreted in its statutory context and, in particular, the requirement for political balance. Members are advised that where a political group has been allocated a seat on a committee, Full Council can exercise its power of appointment to that seat only by appointing a member of the political group in question. Accordingly, only a Member of the Brent Conservative Group may be appointed to the seat allocated to it on the Audit, Standards and Corporate Parenting Committees. 


With Brent an almost de facto 'one party' council it appears to be an abdication of responsibility for the Brent Conservative Group (as much as I disagree with their policies) to refuse to take up positions on the committees. This is particularly so in relation to Audit and Standards where there are current concerns relating to the conduct of officers and members in the Cara Davani case (subject of a Brent Conservative Group motion at Full Council LINK). Corporate Parenting LINK is of crucial importance as it oversees the Council's responsibilities for the well-being of children in its care and those leaving care.

The report also puts forward the possibility of the appointment of Cllr Dr Helen Carr  (Lib Dem) to the Health and Well-being Board subject to approval of a constitutional amendment tabled at the same meeting.

The 'Tale of Two Tory groups' continues at next Brent Council Meeting

The sllocation of opposition committee places is on the agenda for the next Full Council meeting on June 22nd.

In addition to the 8th Scrutiny Committee place the other positions are:

At the AGM the Council voted to recognise the Conservative Group (three Kenton Conservatiev councillors) as the principal opposition group. They now have to allocate committee places between that group and the Brent Conservative Group (recognised as the official opposition by Conservative HQ and consisting of three Brondesbury Park Conservative councillors).

The Liberal Democrats are not recognised as a group because that requotes two or more councillors and they have only one.

Clearly these 6 places can be divided equally between the two groups giving each councillor a role. It will be interesting to see the distribution of 'compliant' and 'awkward squad' places.

People's Assembly Call to Action: May 27th, May 30th and Jiune 20th

From the People's assembly against Austerity

The People's Assembly is calling an End Austerity Now protest at Downing St, marching to the Emmanuel Centre in Westminster for a rally on the evening of the Queens Speech.

Protest: Wednesday 27 May
Assemble: Downing Street, 5:30pm
March to: Emmanuel Centre for rally at 7pm, Marsham Street, London, Westminster SW1P 3DW
(speakers to be announced)

Share and invite your friends - click here

National Day of Action - Saturday 30 May

We're also calling a national day of action on Saturday 30 May to build for the 20 June demonstration.

We're asking all local People's Assembly groups, supporting organisations and individuals to do something on that day - anything ranging from a big scale event to a leafleting session for the demo. Some suggestions:

Organise...
 - an 'End Austerity Now' protest in your town or city
 - direct action - from occupations of empty housing to road blocks or banner drops
 - a stall in your high street to publicise the demonstration
 - a public meeting in your area (contact the office - we can send speakers)

In London the People's Assembly will be supporting a rally organised by the PCS union in support of striking workers at the National Gallery, against the governments attacks on the trade unions & against austerity:

Rally @ Trafalgar Square - 1pm
Saturday 30 May more info soon

Please let us know what you're planning and we'll advertise it on the website.

The big one...

National Demonstration - End Austerity Now
Saturday 20 June 2015

Assemble 12pm, Bank of England
More info on route soon. The website page will be kept updated with any news.

Invite your friends on Facebook

All these events need to lead into the biggest national demonstration against austerity yet. This looks like it's going to be massive. Please invite your friends and get involved.

In case you missed it... - Yesterday's newsletter: 7 reasons to demonstrate on 20 June
 - Thousands march in Bristol against austerity ahead of the national demonstration in June. Click here for report

Urgent appeal
This demonstration is more important than ever. It needs to be massive. We urgently need to raise funds to make sure we can reach as many people as possible.

We have launched an urgent appeal to all our supporters to make a donation. The more money we raise, the more coaches we can put on, meetings we can organise, leaflets we can print, and more people we can put on the streets.
No amount is too big or too small! Click here to donate

Brent Conservatives: splits, leaders and ultimatums

The split between the two Conservative groupings on Brent Council has widened following intervention of Conservative Campaign Head Quarters.

A Brent Conservatives' AGM was held recently attended by CCHQ and SE England officials at which Cllr John Warren was elected leader.

However the meeting was attended by only the three 'Brondesbury Park' Conservatives with the three 'Kenton Conservatives' absent.   I understand that the Kenton Conservatives had already held their own AGM of their 'official' group (recognised as such at the last Brent Council AGM) to which the Brondesbury Park Tories were not invited as they are not part of the group.

They elected Cllr Suresh Kansagra leader.

Conservative Campaign Head Quarters have now issued an ultimatum to the Kenton Group which expires at 1pm on Monday to accept Cllr Warren as leader following what they consider the constitutionally valid election, or forfeit their right to be considered Conservative Party councillors and to stand as Conservatives at the next local election.

Cllr Joel Davidson told me today that Brent residents had been 'ill-served by the weak opposition to Labour provided up to now by Cllr Suresh Kansagra and the Kenton Conservatives.'  He said that a stronger Conservative opposition would seek to represent not just Conservative voters but everyone who had not voted Labour.

Davidson went on to say that the failure of the Kenton Conservatives to vote for the Brondesbury Park no confidence motion in Muhammed Butt and the alternative budget proposals Kenton had put forward proved their cosy relationship with Brent Labour.

The results of the most recent AGM have been communicated to Brent Council officials ahead of the vote due to be held at the Council AGM on May 20th on who to recognise as the Principal Opposition Party.

Will Labour vote for Cllr Kansagra's group or the rather more militant Bondesbury Group?

A Green's place is in the movements

The Green Party is committed to advance its cause through standing in elections but importantly its members are  also involved in many movements for environmental and social justice.

At General Election time the focus is inevitably on election campaigning and there is a danger that this takes away from other, broader campaigns.  In London with the Assembly and Mayoral elections happening next year we could end up continuing on the electoralist road and putting all our energy into getting Green Assembly members elected.

This is important but I would argue that with the Tory's forming a new administration that will renew the war on the poor and the vulnerable that our energy should also go into participating in and building the movements challenging neoliberal policy on  the welfare state, benefit caps, gentrification and social cleansing, reckless plundering of the world's natural resources, fracking, industrialised schooling and the demonisation of migrants.

The Green Party's  Philosophical Basis states:

We do not believe that there is only one way to change society, or that we have all the answers. We seek to be part of a wider green movement that works for these principles through a variety of means. We generally support those who use reasonable and non-violent forms of direct action to further just aims.

Our beliefs will bring us into conflict with those committed to material affluence, the accumulation of power and the unsustainable exploitation of the Earth. We are always ready to negotiate with those who oppose us, and seek fair settlements that respect their needs for security, self esteem and freedom of choice.

We will even work with those who disagree with us where sufficient common ground can be found to do so. However, we do not seek power at any price, and will withdraw our support if we are asked to make irreversible or fundamental compromises.

Yesterday's skirmishes in Downing Street protesting at the Conservative election victory presage a likely new wave of direct action in the face of five more years of austerity and cuts.  The issue of legitimacy of the new Government is clear when you consider that Tories won on 36.9% of the vote, when about a third of the electorate (15.8 m people out of an electorate of 46.4m) did not vote, and that the first past the post system meant hat it took many more voters to elect a minority party MP:

The equivalent figure for Conservative has been quoted at 34,000 and Labour 40,000.

The Green vote in 2010 was just 265,187 but the number of Green MPs remains only one. A proportional system would have give 30 Green MPs although the prospect of many more UKIP MPs is a major concern.  A petition for a fairer voting system has been set up HERE

In her speech yesterday Caroline Lucas MP set out her post-election ideas:

The election results have served as a stark reminder that our political system is broken. The time for electoral reform is long overdue. Only proportional representation will deliver a parliament that is truly legitimate, and that better reflects the views of the people it’s meant to represent.

But we must move forward today. While the campaign for electoral reform gathers momentum, those of us wanting to see a fairer, more compassionate and progressive politics must find new ways of working together, a new way to do politics – and put that into practice now. 

Unless we break free of tribal politics and work together to fight austerity, and promote crucial, common-sense climate policies, we’re faced with an incredibly bleak political future. For the sake of all those who’ll suffer most at the hands of the Tories, we must rethink our relations and recognise the importance of our common ground. 

That should include shared platforms and case-by-case electoral pacts, to build a strong progressive alliance to challenge the Tories over the next five years.  Clearly in Wales and Scotland, where there are PR elections for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, this doesn't apply, but where First Past the Post continues to distort election results, it should surely be considered.

And one of the first challenges such an alliance will face is ensuring we win the referendum on membership of the EU.

 While we certainly support urgent EU reform, we cannot allow backward-looking Tories to make common cause with UKIP and lead us out of the EU and into the wilderness.

This is all well and good but it sees things very much through traditional party politics, something that has been rejected by thousands of  activists and seen by many ordinary people as irrelevant to their day to day struggles.  A 'new way of doing politics' should mean the Greens participating much more in struggles on the ground, taking part in direct action (something Lucas was prepared to do over fracking') and most importantly learning from these struggles and feeding what has been learnt into Green Party policy and strategy.

Our position as an 'anti-austerity' party needs to be much more fully explored and explained. Although we said  that being anti-austerity was a different way of doing things and was based on a alternative economic model I think Greens failed to  explain what this would mean in real terms in the context of the media obsession with the deficit and national debt.  This made us vulnerable on the media and in local hustings to the cry of 'but where is the money coming from?' and led to our depiction as 'dreamers' and 'idealists' unrelated to the real world.

In short if we are 'anti-austerity' what are we 'pro'? Can we frame that 'pro' positively to convince people that a different economic system could work to their benefit?  Should there be a new name for the People's Assembly Against Austerity  - the People's Assembly FOR.....

Paul Krugman in his influential Guardian article on the 'austerity delusion' LINK expressed astonishment at UK Labour's buying into the delusion and this may well have contributed to Labour's failure in the election - 'if we are going to have austerity anyway, who not vote for the devil we know?'

Unfortunately the initial reaction to Labour's defeat seems to be an attempt by Blairites to reclaim the agenda and push Labour further right - exemplified by Peter Mandelson on the Marr Show this morning say that Miliband's ditching of 'New Labour' was a 'terrible mistake.' LINK

Mandelson's distancing from the trade unions and their role in the Labour Party gives an impetus to the Green Party's work with trade unions, not only encouraging everyone, and espcially young workers, to join unions but setting up direct links locally and nationally.


If Labour is re-captured by the Blairites it leaves space for creating a real alternative - not just through a political party but through a movement - and establishing a different way of doing politics through social and environmental movements.

Claim back our cash: Reclaim our Services! - Coalition to be invoiced tomorrow by Brent campaigners

Brent Fightback will be presenting an Invoice to local represenatives of the Coalition partners tomorrow for all the money that has been taken away from Brent residents through the cuts in local government funding.  Fightback encourages local people, suffering from the cuts, to join them for just a few minutes at Willesden Green (2pm) or Preston Road (3pm) or both.

Tories step into Brent Labour's Council Tax Row

Brent Central Conservatives released the foloowing Press Release yesterday
 

-->

The Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Brent Central has called for the Labour controlled Brent Council to cease its internal argument over whether to raise the rate of Council Tax by 1.99%, and instead to work together to reach a decision which is best for the residents of Brent.

Dr Alan Mendoza, a former Brent councillor who announced that he would run as the candidate for Brent Central in January, made his call for unity after an anonymous letter emerged on community blog site WembleyMatters.blogspot.co.uk, claiming to be written by a current Labour councillor.

The letter has revealed an internal argument in Brent Council’s Labour Group, over whether to raise the rate of Council Tax, with backbench Labour councillors accusing the Council Leader Cllr Muhammed Butt and Deputy Leader Cllr Michael Pavey of refusing to accept a vote to raise the rate in order to protect Brent from further proposed service cuts.

The letter, which likens Cllr Pavey’s actions to those in George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm, claims that the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council refused “point blank” to allow the Council to vote on the Budget, and that, when members of the Labour Group did force a vote, the Leadership chose to “completely ignore it”. The letter also referred to the incident as “an affront to democracy” that will “will bring the council in disrepute.”

Dr Mendoza said: “This internal dispute is indicative of how the Labour controlled council is failing residents in Brent. Instead of working together to reach the best decision for Brent residents, it is focused on playing politics and squabbling amongst themselves.”

Speaking on the proposed increase in council tax, Dr Mendoza said: "The lie that Brent Council has no choice but to make massive cuts because of central government policy has been exposed by this rift in the Council's Labour Group. It turns out that this policy has been enforced by the Labour leadership against the will of backbench Labour councillors. I look forward to the 'nonaffiliated' anti-cuts group Brent Fightback organising its next march outside Cllr Butt's and Cllr Pavey's offices".

Kenton by-election to be held on Thursday March 5th

There will be a Brent  by-election in Kenton ward on Thurday March 5th following the death of Conservative councillor Bhiku Patel.

The Kenton ward result in the  May 2014 local elections was:

Suresh Laxmidas Kansagra	Conservative	1798	19%	Elected
Reg Colwill	Conservative	1796	19%	Elected
Bhiku Mani Patel	Conservative	1669	18%	Elected
Syed Alam	Labour	1139	12%	Not elected
Lewis Hodgetts	Labour	1040	11%	Not elected
Nadhim Ahmed	Labour	946	10%	Not elected
Graham Allen	Green Party	348	4%	Not elected
Violet Margaret Steele	Liberal Democrats	221	2%	Not elected
Vivienne Rosamond Williamson	Liberal Democrats	153	2%	Not elected
Ieva Tomsone	Liberal Democrats	125	1%	Not elected

Anyone wishing to stand as a candidate at the election may submit their nomination between Thursday 29 January and 4.00pm on Friday 6 February.
Nomination forms and assistance can be provided by emailing Electoral Services or call 020 8937 1372

Rumours are circulating that Brondesbury Conservatives may stand a candidate so that in the event of beating a Kenton Conservative  they could claim recognition as the Official Opposition. Cllr John Warren of Brondesbury Conservatives has not responded to Twitter requests for clarification.