Brent is Council of the Year

I’ve been really lucky to serve as a Councillor in Brent and work to improve the area in line with the wishes of our residents.

But I’m even more lucky to have served at this time.

I was really proud to provide some of the political leadership for our Borough of Culture bid when I was the Cabinet portfolio holder. Winning it was a team achievement, but it’s one of the things I’m proudest of personally. I’m also really proud to have taken part with other cabinet colleagues to highlight the work our Council has been doing as part of our presentation for Council of the year.

There are always things to improve locally, and whilst we love living in Brent I don’t think anyone would ever claim it is the perfect area.

But we all need to be proud of the positives we do have. We have a great area with a fantastic mix of people, and I generally I think it has a pretty good local authority. Together these things have been what has stopped austerity completely pulling our area apart, and in some ways made some decent improvements to where we live.

Despite having half of our local budget (and staff) taken from Brent by the Tories (and Lib Dems) at Westminster, the Council has run an administration which has been very smart at adapting, been very disciplined about carrying out the priorities of most of our residents, and in quite a few ways managed to improve the area we share as a home. In some ways we have been actively innovative, and this is something I would like to see a lot more of.

It’s great to see all this recognised by the Council of the Year judges, and the great news is that we won!

Cricklewood walk-in centre

I continue to oppose the closure of Cricklewood walk-in centre, which we as Cllrs were formally notified of by Barnet CCG earlier today. I believe that this decision has been made on the basis of some extremely poor logic, and that appropriate measures are not in place to make sure that patient access to healthcare is maintained – it is in a bad enough state already.

Here is how I have replied to the CCG:


I am stunned at the logic of this. Rising demand in three access points for services used to argue that one access point is not easing demand on the other two. This is really quite an amazing way to think about things.

In addition, it seems equally absurd that out of hours access does not have a definite plan for mitigation, firstly. Simply extending a couple of GP hubs, which are already badly promoted, is not going to cut the mustard.

Finally, I recently tried to get a GP appointment for a prescription for some medicine for a problem with my nose. I was told at my GP surgery that an appointment would take three weeks, which was obviously useless to me. I then went to Cricklewood to find that it was operating at such heavy capacity that they could take no more patients (in marked contrast to claims of underuse). I was also denied help with my issue in Edgware because the nurse was not entitled to diagnose.

I ended up paying £30 for medication with an online diagnosis. I am lucky that I was able to pay.

How are residents supposed to negotiate situations such as this? How will closing walk in services do anything to remedy the demand crisis we face, and the completely unclear pathways that the public are supposed to know how to negotiate?

Many of my constituents will be worried about all of the issues raised above, and will be shocked by the fallacious logic that lies behind this decision.

I would appreciate a response on these matters, and will publish this email.

Reporting back to Labour members post GE

Below I’ve included a section from my report back to Labour Party members post general election. For members of the public who aren’t Labour members, we are accountable to them as well as to the broader electorate, so we produce these reports on a regular basis. I’ve reposted this one to give a flavour of what’s being said inside the party, and to ask you to become part of that. You can join us by visiting – there will no better time to join us!

– –

Dear Members,

If you have any questions or concerns please do get in touch with us either by email, or by coming to the Willesden Green ward councillors’ surgery (held the first Saturday of the month, 11am- 1pm), or at meetings like Brent Connects (meets at the library).

I am very saddened by the General Election result. Like many members I campaigned in a number of swing seats, with an emphasis on Harrow East, Putney, and Milton Keynes North, where I spent polling day.

Many members will be interested in who we are now backing to replace Jeremy Cornyn and Tom Watson. At this point I remain undecided. I will support either Angela Rayner or our own Dawn Butler for deputy, both of whom would be excellent and inspirational women candidates. For leader I am leaning towards Clive Lewis, who offers a left voice but with less command and control and more member democracy. I have been concerned that since the 1990s we have often fallen short in keeping open minds towards each other, and have been too keen to shut down diversity of opinion.

However I am also enthusiastic about Lisa Nandy, Emily Thornberry and Keir Starmer, who all offer a different mix of what Labour needs to change in the right direction – a bridge between community and internationalism. I feel that all of these candidates can cement the best gains of the Corbyn years whilst fixing some of the shortfalls. Both of my votes are up for grabs, and my mind may well change. My main policy red lines are that candidates must be intolerant of nationalism or bigotry of any kind, argue for social ownership and decent welfare rights, and give unqualified support to trade union freedom.

Whatever Labour does, it will be hit yet again by a hostile capitalist media effort. I believe that if we can keep left policies but build a broader coalition of voters around them, and dial down the factionalism which has taken root in all wings of the party, we still stand a chance of winning. First we need to get better not just at listening to the public, but also to each other.

In solidarity,


Speech to full Council on Brent’s new licensing policy – Nov 2019

Mr Mayor,

We on these benches don’t believe in meekly allowing market forces to shape our lives. We believe in the power of local democracy to provide us with a better quality of life – at work, at home, and in our local communities.

This means pushing for greater community control of our area, and where the private sector exists, directing it towards the public good and greater social harmony, instead of putting profit over people.

The proposals in this licensing policy are groundbreaking ones which have been welcomed by our residents in extensive consultation.

They give Councillors who serve on our licensing committees the tools that they, as elected members, need to make sure our High Streets are diverse places with a high quality offer, instead of Brent being overrun with off licenses where there are already associated problems. In doing so it will boost public health, reduce alcohol related ambulance calls, and tackle alcoholism and ASB by moving drinking towards supervised, on licensee premises. In short, they will make us one of the first Councils to adopt a cumulative impact policy for new off licenses.

The proposals will make Brent a leading borough in licensing terms by introducing minimum pricing as an optional tool where committees have found licensees to be in violation by selling to underage customers, drunk people, or persistent street drinkers, shaping the market for alcohol in favour of responsible license holders who respect the public good in their local areas.

They introduce guidance to Councillors to favour diverse provision from off licenses, using the power of local democracy to examine and favour the quality offer of new premises as they pop up.

They put in place the encouragement necessary to support the development of Brent’s varied night time economy, in line with the efforts of the Mayor of London, and to boost the role of many new High Street businesses in supporting Brent as the 2020 Borough of Culture, in fitting with the rest of Labour’s platform in this borough.

I commend the statement to the floor and call on members to support our proposal – a rebalancing of power towards local communities and towards the compliant businesses who contribute the most to the area, its people, their culture and their wellbeing. The statement is fresh, radical, and rooted in local concerns, a practical and local demonstration of how we can use democracy to bring about real change.

The policy can be viewed in full at item 18 here.






Where do they stand? Budget speech to Full Council February 2019

This is now my third budget as a Councillor in Brent, and the toughest I’ve seen. This time the weight of government cuts forces us to cut down to the bone. In community safety we have seen the impact of Tory austerity at a national level, with the withdrawal of the current offer for Met Patrol plus as a result of cuts to the Mayor’s policing grant. We are working on long term alternatives to fill the gap and will be coming forward in the spring. My colleagues have similar experiences themselves.

Whilst we can tell positive stories about the opportunities in reshaping things, or what we can defend, the truth is that there are very few things contained in this budget that myself, colleagues and residents would have preferred not to cut. We will prevent damage to service users as best we can, but let’s be clear – the real responsibility for stopping cuts to the local services people need so desperately lies with central government, with Mrs May in Westminster. It’s a responsibility that her political party locally have completely failed to even acknowledge. Where do they stand?

As I’ve said it’s my third budget. I now know exactly what to expect from the opposition benches. Though the alternative budgets of the other Tory faction from the last term have gone, with their innumeracy and over-reliance of punctuation, the same themes remain.

Our Tory opponents will now recommend a series of small savings to money that was spent on a one off basis, as if this offers some sort of solution to costs in services which run day to day, year to year, and depend on continued revenue.

They will try to coax us into spending the reserves, so that if, god forbid, this council is stuck by an emergency, there will be nothing left in the chest to help our residents.

They will attempt to blame Gordon Brown for the global financial crash, or to convince us that despite all of the evidence of the last nine years, that austerity offers some sort of answer to the problems we face as a county or to the system failures themselves.

They will have nothing to say about the fact that their party has shifted so much of the weight of cuts onto Councils in a cynical attempt to turn Labour and trade union activists against their own representatives and allow the Tories to escape the blame. They will ignore what they’ve done to Councils who dare to stand for the poor and the working class, even though their own ministers are currently scheming a further 15% cut to London and its deprived boroughs in order to fund financially incompetent Councils in the Tory shires. As if this can simply be ignored. As if it isn’t real.

But councils face by far the biggest cuts…

…and it’s people like us taking the brunt of it.

Our absent friends in the Lib Dems will have nothing to say. Where do they stand?

The former colleagues of both parties here today who are now in the independent group will be there to make excuses for the coalition’s record on these issues to, under the pretence that in this age of division and inequality it will all get better if we all just come together and pretend that austerity has not deepened at of the country’s divides in class, attainment, health, education, or wages. The independent group think that George Osborne, and I quote here from Anna Soubry, ‘did a wonderful job’. These people live on a different planet to the people of Brent.

The Labour Party has its own problems at the moment. But it is the only party which seems to admit that austerity even has any effect at either a local or a natural level. From the Tories to the Lib Dems to TIG, there is an unspoken conspiracy to mislead, and when that doesn’t work, a conspiracy of silence. Where do they stand?

Silent is something that we in the Labour Party will never be, and if you are one of the many residents who agrees with this, you should join us and get involved. We need to re-route the British economy. We are not just the only party who proposes this, but the only one who will even admit that for years when we have needed to re-route, the driver has been taking us down completely the wrong track.

Stronger together – building cohesion in Brent

In my role as Cabinet Lead for Community Safety, people often concentrate on the ‘hard edged’ aspects of what I am up to. Police. Enforcement officers. Violence. Victims.

I’ve never been a big supporter of Tony Blair, at least when it comes to doing it inside the Labour Party. But one thing I feel that he was absolutely right on was The framing of crime – ‘tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’ is a wonderful piece of political rhetoric. It perfectly sums up the protection aspect that the state plays for people as they go about their lives, and sums up how the public feel about that role – grateful but expectant. But it also gets to the bottom of something profound, a socialist insight, that crime and disorder are not just caused by the morality of individuals, but by their circumstances and experiences – community, society, and the economy.

For that reason, it would be no good for me to be a ‘hard edged’ community safety type politician without understanding that we can only prevent crime by giving people support, chances in life, and the ability to interact with each other. By using the natural urge people have as active citizens, in charities, faith and community groups. By looking to the things we already have, our assets. Strength. Mutuality. Cohesion.

Jo Cox MP – she had a talent for clearly describing the values that matter.

There are many other reasons why people coming together across barriers and understanding each other can make a difference. Consider how easy it can be to be blind to culture-specific problems like FGM, or how norms can differ between people from different backgrounds over mental health, for example. For a moment, let’s think about whether we also consider people equally when some people’s need is greater – can we really say we don’t have a problem with educational attainment for black British-Caribbean boys? Are we honestly able to say that two people are as likely to develop well at work when on grows up on a modest income in a council estate, but another on a house in a private road? How are we treating our recent arrivals, particularly whilst Brexit is going on?

So today we have launched our Stronger Communities Strategy, aimed at getting to the bottom of the toughest issues in our communities, bringing people together around the values we all hold in common, and making sure that all of us come first. You can find out more about it here.

We are far more united and have more in common than that which divides us.

Brent should protect the Good Ship

…or indeed what follows it.

When I was in post as Cabinet Lead for Stronger Communities I felt (and rather regretted) that I had no choice other than to be dragged into a public dispute with the then owner of the Good Ship in Kilburn, which as it happens is one of my favourite bars in Brent and a place I have spent many early mornings in.

It’s difficult when you are a councillor and especially a cabinet member, as you will generally be considered the more powerful party in a disagreement with any member of the public.

This generally means that neutral spectators will find it harder to trust you than the member of the public if you have different opinions or different versions of events.

Perhaps the most regrettable aspect of the Good Ship dispute for me was the impression given that the Council wants to use its licensing function to close late night venues, when nothing could be further from the truth. Brent has a direct financial and reputational interest in a thriving night time economy, on the one condition that customers and passers by are safe and businesses are legally compliant.

For me and for licensing officers at the council, the goal is actually to do whatever we can to keep establishments open and commercially healthy – on the condition of safety.

So I suppose what I am trying to say is that I always wanted the Good Ship to stay open, which is why I pointed out that they would probably have done well to review their licensing conditions. Given that they seemed to blame us for them shutting down, their keenness to sell up and move on was something which sat uneasily for me, not least because we know they felt this way before there were new licensing conditions.

Given that they now appear to have sold up, as I see it the priority for Brent should be making sure that the functions offered by the Good Ship are not simply lost. This is not all about licensing – it also relies heavily on planning. I’m personally committed to protecting cultural assets and the night time economy as best possible, so I have lodged a planning objection as a private citizen, which I have reproduced below. I am not hugely versed in planning rules, so the points I have made are general and related to process – the aim being to maintain the site as a music and comedy venue for Kilburn High Road.

I am not sure whether my short comments here should be considered an objection, but I am writing to remind officers and members about the CAMRA approved “pub protection policy” included in the Brent DMP and the likelihood of its applicability here.

I am not local to the building, but I am objecting as the member who previously held responsility both for licensing and culture within the Borough.

The commercial viability of the ground floor as a bar and music venue should be rigorously investigated. Given the fact that licensing conditions had been successful in achieving their stated aims in guaranteeing greater safety for patrons, I do not accept that the conditions could not have been altered, and as such I don’t think these are a substantial grounds for any lack of commercial viability. In any event I do not believe that the test for commercial viability should be purely anecdotal, but should be set against a benchmark for similar venues.

On the building itself I shall leave questions about the size, placing and appearance to the ward councillors, even though I am not presently a member of Brent Council, and to local residents. As such the objection that I have is essentially one of process, in the sense that I am keen that it is made sure appropriate policies are followed, in part to ensure the wider effectiveness of the pub protection measure which I personally campaigned throughout 2014-15 to have put in place.

Suffice it to say that I think the good ship as a venue for music and comedy has been of cultural importance to the local area, and the loss of another music and comedy venue presents obstacles to wider council policy as the 2020 Borough of Culture, and as the Council works towards a night time economy strategy. Brent needs more venues like the Good Ship, not fewer.

Fighting austerity – speech to Budget Full Council

In the last seven years like so many others I’ve raised my voice to speak out against government cuts to councils. I’ve slogged my way through weather like today in marches and demonstrations, I have joined pickets, and delivered thousands of leaflets. I’ve met residents who are affected in appalling ways by cuts to disability benefits, or the national failure to build council housing, and I’ve previously spoken up for vulnerable victims of these cuts as a charity worker. The government has stopped talking about austerity but there seems to be no end in sight.

How we fight locally is important. As part of my cabinet role I am in regular conversation with police officers and victims of crime. There is widespread frustration with Police understaffing and a nationwide rise in knife crime. People feel like when they speak to police they aren’t getting good customer care. Boroughs are being forced to merge to save money. And none of this is the fault of Police. This is one of many examples of government failure to foot the bill, resulting in a loss of some 80 frontline police posts in Brent alone, thousands of hours of police time. There’s no reason our residents should put up with it.

As a Labour council we believe that these cuts must be fought politically. But we also believe in mitigating the bad hand we are dealt by raising our income and thinking differently. This is why when the government makes cuts to the police budget, we invest in officers to target the local priorities of our residents in particular. We have targeted our work with trading standards and enforcement to close down hubs of lawlessness like some of our worst shisha cafes, and to make sure that effort goes into stopping the door to door scammers and rogue traders who target our elderly and vulnerable people.

Imagine how it would feel to be one of the victims of this type of crime, losing hundreds of pounds of pension money, when the only reason nobody will help you was the false and artificial need for local government to carry the can for austerity.

Cllr John Warren’s whacky council budgets over the years total up to a £20 Million hole in our finances. But today he shows up an offers us an alternative proposal based on last year alone, effectively accepting forced savings from seven years of Labour budgets which he has told us each time were in fact unnecessary. Likewise, he disowns the advice of his own government that we raise council tax to pay for the social care crisis they pretend this money can cover.

We comply with Westminster’s laws and budgets, our only choice. We generate more of our own income. We make the biggest positive difference for working class people that we can, in the most financially prudent way. But we will not carry the can.

The Tory case for austerity has always been built on lies and misrepresentations – the idea that the economy was on the brink of total collapse because of spending, that we can’t grow the economy back to health, that public investment is the problem rather than part of the solution. The myths created have been very resilient and take advantage of some of our deepest emotions – fear and helplessness. Public acceptance of these ideas has allowed the government to force enormous cuts onto local people and our services – 177 million pounds to Brent.

But the truth is that there are real problems with the economy. After seven years of cuts, markets are becoming tighter and players folding as the margin for growth disappears, from Carillion to Tory Northamptonshire.

In wider society economic power is concentrated in the hands of a small controlling elite, leaving workers unable to bargain their wages, and productivity lagging as technical investment is held off and quality of life declines. Wealth has transferred from poor to the rich at a record rate, which of course is the main point of the plan. Green incentives were deliberately sabotaged and then dropped off the government’s agenda in the path of Brexit.

Cutting councils is a way of starting fights locally to distract citizens from the task we share: we need to re-route our economy towards greater strength and greater accountability. But we don’t need fear and helplessness. Through democracy we can and will build strength.

The first part of any solution to these is very simple – Labour in power. I look forward to greeting some Labour colleagues from Brondesbury Park this May.

How should Labour approach regeneration?

As a Cllr in Brent I’m not going to lay into the Cllrs on either side of the Haringey dispute despite the fact that there’s so much to say. I’ll leave that to their local party. Likewise, this is not a post about Brent, but local government generally.

What I will say is this: whether or not Labour’s local regeneration policies will now be set nationally – something I don’t think should ever become normal – we do need a settled view of what ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ regeneration looks like, how we test that locally, and what steps should be followed by councils as best practice for regenerating communities.

We need to renew our vision

We could sure as hell use come conciliatory local group leaderships who will listen to Council members and local parties to provide oversight, drive compromises, and make sure support can be brought on side. That said, it would be pointless doing that if local Councillors and Party members are not ready to apply themselves to practical limitations in regen and housing. Local Labour Parties really need a two way deal.

There are definitely Labour councils who (in my opinion) do regeneration badly. But because we have not provided positive ideas about alternatives, we now appear to be creating a limbo. Instead of auditing and improving policy at the level of the national Party and LGA group, we are letting political crises build locally and then taking remedial action. This needs to be the other way round.

Partly as a result of this some large scale regen developments blatantly gentrify, pushing out low income residents, and do so without sufficient compensation to them or to the host community. Disappointingly, Labour Councillors have often failed to show solidarity to these communities. This is shocking and politically suicidal locally given that my colleagues rely on working class votes. For me the first principle for Labour taking on developments should be to not socially cleanse the areas. But an equal truth is that we as a party should never have allowed such instances to happen in the first place and should have set a clear shared Socialist vision in opposition to such schemes.

But that’s only one side, isn’t it. We also need to reject the idea that all regeneration projects are bad or unsupported, especially by working class residents and social renters. That’s not true for most examples we come across, as community consultation responses in many areas will indicate. Our people want good quality housing and more of it. Consultations are often maligned as a hoop to jump, but in this case they are a good indicator, if not the best. We shouldn’t blanket oppose regeneration when many examples are actually well supported locally.

Surprisingly, a significant number of left activists are nevertheless blanket opposed to regeneration, or close enough, perhaps because we are more used to spending our lives trying to stop stuff rather than making it happen. In part, it’s also the common mistake of substituting loud or organised opinion for views which are representative, a phenomenon not restricted to Lib Dem leaflet writers. In reality, existing residents often favour regeneration plans, as long as it treats them well and meets their concerns.

This said Councillors representing existing residents is merely adequate, rather than good.

Labour should be about working people as a whole – in that spirit it should be noted that its not just people who already live on site that local Councillors have a moral duty to consider. We need to think about people on housing lists, and that means building social, but also affordable places that can be used to free up social capacity. Our people, especially our younger voter base, want higher quality housing, and lots more of it.

The challenges

If a guiding position on regen is set nationally, Labour does need to bear in mind that we have a housing crisis, with local and national targets to meet for building, even though we aren’t in government.

Cities are already very low on virgin public sector owned land and intensification is the only answer we have apart from sending people away. This is perhaps the key reason why blanket opposition to regen might work for activists but can’t work for people responsible to the whole public locally.

In meeting those needs, regen schemes will create great difficulty for some people who don’t want to move or experience the massive inconvenience of rebuilds. I am not sure how local policy is supposed to deal with this, especially again if we are talking about meeting housing targets in dense areas. If our only answer is to tell people to put up with it, we have a gap there too.

Given all of these points I have had a rethink about the proposed principle of local referenda on regeneration projects, particularly as we tend to get quite positive reposes from wider feedback where I am, though certainly not without opposition. I was previously sceptical about these simply turning into middle class NIMBY campaigns which would stop us housing people in need. On reflection, I think it would do the opposite and provide a mandate to most proposals.

But actually, if we built on this suggestion to reflect the full range of interests, and also had a voting pool based around people on the housing list and gave full knowledge of affordable provision, if anything it could help us pressure developers to give us more.

Can we really say that giving a voice to people with housing but not those without it is the right thing to do?

The biggest risk of the referendum proposal is that people in building which have become totally substandard might just become too emotionally attached to them for things to move move on. We’d need to be able to go around them for accommodation which is physically crumbling, impossible to maintain, or environmentally offensive.

As I said, I think by far most ballots would be won, in Labour areas anyway. But the most obvious problem is that it can only restrict building levels compared to projections. Labour should only press its referendum policy once we’ve changed the law to get councils building council houses again.

Big questions

  • In the hypothetical situation that Labour blanket opposed regen schemes, how should it answer people in crumbling accommodation or without housing?
  • How should Councillors deal with local or mayoral housing targets, especially those set by Labour politicians with a public mandate for them, like Sadiq Khan?
  • Given that councils don’t have in-house architects, development teams, building firms etc., what role do socialists feel private developers should play in meeting the housing targets?
  • If the Labour left is against any land sales in principle, how should councils fund their housing targets with half their 2010 budgets?

The questions above can very easily to lead to completely impractical conclusions if we are to renew housing stock and fight the housing crisis, if I am honest. If the answer to each was never to engage, our answer to demand for housing or housing improvement would absolutely suck.

It becomes clear that most relevant question for socialists to address is whether to treat housing and regen as a practical problem as well as a political one. So:

  • Is it actually the fact that some of the trends above are things we can take into account and deal with if core objectives (such as keeping current residents at the same rent via 1:1 replacement) are achieved?
  • What are our core objectives anyway? How do we make sure that Labour Councils follow ‘good’ or ‘sustainable’ regeneration, meaning minimal disruption to local communities, enough building to meet the crisis, high rates of social and affordable, high quality shared space and amenities, environmental sustainability?
  • How do we balance those? Is it even possible?
  • How do we make sure that regen processes are transparent and accountable?

Stepping back: understanding the debate itself:

  • If you think this area has worthy simple answers, you are wrong. Politically and practically. We can not afford to hide from complexity.
  • Local government in 2017 involves all sorts of competing priorities for socialists, and a lot of external limits and standards. In this case these include the housing crisis, decaying social stock, land scarcity, build targets usually set by our own politicians, finance shortfalls, social and affordability rates, lack of decent community space, viability issues, place making and community safety. It’s complex and it demands trade offs.
  • There are very few party-based experts on regen and house building as wider public policy, though I’d advise people to read Red Brick. It’s better than Facebook.
  • It would be helpful for the left to have some principles expressing what type of regeneration and house building it is in favour of – what is good regen?
  • It would be helpful for Labour to clarify the role of the NEC and other parts of the Party against group decisions (especially if it intends to challenge policies from local manifestos).