The Coalition Government is proposing to cut the number of Parliamentary constituencies from 650 to 600. In London, it is proposed to cut the number of Parliamentary Constituencies by 5, from 73 to 68. Brent is going to be affected by these boundary changes.
At the moment, the London Borough of Brent lies in three Parliamentary constituency boundaries: Brent Central, Brent North and Hampstead and Kilburn. Boundary changes will see wards in the London Borough of Brent in five different Parliamentary constituencies; Harrow, Stanmore, Wembley and Perivale, Willesden and Hampstead and Kilburn.
At the moment, Brondesbury Park Ward lies in Hampstead and Kilburn Parliamentary constituency. It is proposed that this Ward comes over to Brent Central. Kilburn Ward and Queens Park Ward are to remain in Hampstead and Kilburn.
College Park and Old Oak Ward, which is in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is to come over to Brent Central Parliamentary constituency.
Tokyngton Ward is to move over from Brent Central to the Brent North Parliamentary seat.
Brent Central is to be renamed Willesden.
Perivale Ward is to move from the Ealing North Parliamentary seat to Brent North
Brent North is to be renamed Wembley and Perivale.
Fryent Ward and Queensbury Ward are to move over to what is now known as Harrow East in a new Parliamentary constituency that will be named Stanmore.
Kenton Ward in Brent is to move from Brent North to what is now Harrow West in a Parliamentary Constituency called Harrow.
Below are web links to the new proposed constituencies:
It is worth noting that the Government are consulting on these proposals for a 12-week period, from 13 September 2011 to 5 December 2011 so these are not finalised proposals. You can contribute your comments here: LINK
The Commission will be holding public hearings across all the English regions. There will be one hosted at Brent Town Hall on Thursday 20th October from 11am to 8pm and Friday 21st October from 9am to 5pm. For more details and to register, click here: LINK
Last night, on the agenda at the Forward Plan Select Committee were call ins of Executive decisions on the land use at Coniston Gardens, Waste Strategy and CPZ vehicle emission based pricing adjustment.
Kudos to Councillors Beck and Ashraf who did attend the meeting to convey their concerns to the committee and demonstrated their reasons for signing the call in by actively engaging and asking questions. The same cannot be said about the other Councillors Hayley Matthews, Simon Green, Ann Hunter who signed for the Call In as mentioned by my colleague Cllr James Powney here – LINK.
Councillors signing for call ins and then not turning up are causing embarrassment to proceedings on the committee and the system in general. At the previous Forward Plan meeting, items were on the agenda as called in and then embarrassingly skipped or skimmed over as there was confusion as to what the reason for the call in was.
Surely Councillors that sign to call in a decision should turn up to the meeting they asked for the item to be discussed at, if they are remotely interested in receiving a response.
Are the Brent Lib Dems interested in the detail of policies and providing scrutiny to make policy better or are they just opposing decisions for opposition’s sake?
Let me give you one example of a recent occurrence which has led me ask this question. The 11th August meeting included a call in on the ‘Criteria for Transport Services’ and a reason cited was ‘to review the findings of the Equality Impact Assessment’ (LINK – see item 5b), which at the time had not been completed. To call in decision based on concerns regarding a document which does not exist is beyond me.
The new Labour majority, which will take charge of Brent Council following the Council’s Annual General Meeting, has already taken a number of steps to improve the lives of local people.
In addition to the scrapping of the unpopular £25.00 charge for bulky refuse collection, Labour will:
Cancel the sale of the Scout Hut at Oliver Goldsmith School in Fryent ward;
Seek to cancel the sale of land at Barham Park, on which the previous administration had sought to build a block of flats;
Bring forward plans for new youth facilities in Chalkhill;
Bring forward an urgent report on the health and safety issues relating to the dining facility at Byron Court Primary School;
Investigate sharing services with neighbouring councils in order to achieve the savings needed to avoid cuts in front line services;
Ensure that low paid staff are protected during the difficult financial times which lie ahead.
The Leader of Brent Council, Councillor Ann John, said:
“It is important that we deliver on the promises we made during the election campaign and we will continue to make progress as quickly as we can. We will work closely with our local Labour MPs, Barry Gardiner who represents Brent North and Glenda Jackson, whose Hampstead & Kilburn constituency covers part of the borough, to secure real improvements in the quality of service to local people”.
Barry Gardiner, Member of Parliament for Brent North, said:
“Ann John has lost no time in getting the Council back to work for the people of Brent. These dramatic initiatives are precisely what people voted for last week. Voters will be delighted that she is moving to deliver real change so quickly”.
Councillor Jim Moher’s letter sent to the Observer – RE: New Civic Centre
Jim is a Brent Councillor representing the Labour Party in the Fryent ward.
I’m glad the Observer is giving some coverage to the Council’s proposal for a New Civic
Centre, though it is a pity the controversy should have arisen between the politicians at the
Kingsbury & Kenton Area Forum. These forums are for residents to have their say and Cllr
Mistry should not be using her position to engage in such party politics.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of her row with Mr Ali of the Green Party, he surely
has a point that the Council should be consulting residents about such a major proposal,
estimated to cost £80m. Why doesn’t she use her influence to persuade Cllr Blackman
to consult? It is significant that it is the Civic Centre programme director, not her Leader,
who is responsible for all corporate finances, who has entered the fray to assure us that
it will cost less. That is something we could assess better if there were proper consultation.
When the new Civic Centre was proposed some years ago, it seemed that the case
seemed strong to replace the many Council offices around the borough with one ‘all singing
and dancing’ community and civic centre, especially as the Council got the offer of a prime
site in the new Wembley arena and we were assured that it would be ‘cost-neutral’.
But a lot has changed since those balmy days of sound finances and generous
government grants. Now we are facing the prospect of at least £53m in service ‘efficiencies’
over the next four years. Can we afford such a grandiose Civic Centre at this time? That is a
question we must now all be asking ourselves and so a proper consultation seems timely.