MPFAG Reading Chronicle Article 23/06/2015 – Click to enlarge

UPDATED (25/08/2015): I received a response from MPFAG and reproduce it underneath this initial letter to MPFAG.

Dear MPFAG members,

There were a number of questions that came to mind when I saw that you were offering to take over as trustees of Mapledurham Playing Fields (MPF) from Reading Borough Council (RBC). I have seen this desire repeated several times in our local papers now, however no details have been published with regards to what you would do if you were to become trustees.

I believe that without the support of the majority of the Reading and Mapledurham Parish community it is unlikely that MPFAG will be able to become trustees of the MPF, in that respect, then, isn’t it right and proper that your plans be openly discussed and debated?

Although these questions would apply to any group wishing to take over as MPF trustees, I’d like to pose them directly to you as your group is the only one of which I am aware that has publicly offered to take over the trustee role from RBC.

1. What is the process by which you plan to become trustees and what is the timescale over which you see the process completing?
2. Many people I have spoken to see an enormous latent potential for MPF to become a real hub of our community.  Community groups like Caversham Trents have plans for MPF which could potentially transform how the fields are used and increase the funds brought in to the trust. Assuming that the issue of building a school upon MPF is resolved one way or another, what are your long-term plans for MPF, and how will you fund them?
3. The object of the MPF trust is “the provision and maintenance of a recreation ground for the inhabitants of the Parish of Mapledurham and the Borough of Reading without distinction of political, religious or other opinions.” What does MPFAG interpret the meaning of the word ‘recreation’ to mean? For instance, is there a general type of recreational activity that you would rule out supporting on the field?
4. How do you plan to manage the fields on a practical level? At the moment, the trustees (RBC) have in place a separate Management Committee who are responsible for the day-to-day practicalities of running MPF. This committee consults with various different people who use the field (I dislike the term ‘user groups’ in this context, be that seems to be the accepted term). How would you differ in your approach?
5. How representative are you? Currently, the trustees are from all over Reading, and, albeit theoretically, can be held accountable for their decisions by Reading residents. As trustees, how would you ensure that you fully represent the diverse set of people for whom MPF has been left?
6. How would you handle conflicts of interest? For instance, some people may assume that if some of the trustees live near to the fields, those trustees may seek to minimise, for instance, loud recreational activities – such as outdoor movie screenings, or brass bands playing on the fields, or late night organised fireworks displays. Do you know how you might deal with such conflicts?
7. If we assume for a moment that The Heights Primary does get a permanent home upon some small part of MPF (or even that EFA is forced to build a permanent school on alternative nearby land if it loses legal challenges with regards to MPF), it’s easy to envisage that that the children, parents and staff of The Heights Primary will become one of the single largest user groups, or at least easily the most regular (in terms of both time spent and frequency of use) users of MPF. I have seen some members of the community imply that The Heights school should be be required to pay punitive fees to be able to hire the fields for school activities, whilst others say that the fields are a community resource and that school children should not be charged to use the fields. My own position is that The Heights could use MPF as a learning resource and in exchange the children can help keep MPF clean, tidy and well gardened for instance. A different solution to this issue might be that the school could commit to donating a certain amount to the MPF trust each year in lieu of not having to organise and pay individual booking fees. If you became trustees of MPF, how would you manage the relationship between the trust and the school?
8. How will you take decisions as to what happens at MPF in the future and how will you involve our community in this process?
9. What resources – human, technical and financial – are you able to deliver to the trust? At the moment, RBC handle a number of roles. They manage booking inquiries, they set up and run the bank account for the MPF trust, and – following the brief Conservative & Lib Dem coalition in Reading during which an independent investigation found that Section 106 (S106) monies were not being managed as well as they might be – they offered £100,000 of S106 money towards the refurbishment of the pavilion at MPF. The current trustees, then, offer a level of administrative and financial support which would be the bare minimum level for any new trustees to consider. If MPFAG do become trustees, how do you plan to replace the support which RBC currently offers?
10. Which, if any, external organisations do you want to see getting involved with the MPF trust, and why?

I appreciate that some of these questions might essentially be different ways of asking around the same or closely related issues, however I think it is important that any group wishing to become trustees of MPF are transparent, consistent and accountable for their plans for our fields. The community for whom the trust has been established should be able to constructively discuss your plans in an open way.

In the spirit of transparency I shall update my blog (http://www.jasonmehmet.org.uk) with your response. I believe this is a quick and easy way for MPFAG to get it’s plans into the public domain without having the expense and limitations of printing and posting leaflets. I look forward to your reply and hope that our community can discussion your plans productively.

Please could you not share my e-mail address publicly. It may be possible to do this inadvertently by printing out my e-mail and sharing with your group, or forwarding this e-mail to your membership. Please don’t do this as the address from which this e-mail is sent is not public and I do not wish it to become public. This letter is publicly available here: http://www.jasonmehmet.org.uk/2015/an-open-letter-to-mpfag.

Yours Faithfully

Jason Mehmet

UPDATE (25/08/2015): I received a response from Martin Brommell, Chairman of Mapledurham Playing Fields Action Group, and quote it in full below. The response doesn’t answer any of the questions I ask, it does however reconfirm the singular purpose of MPFAG.

MPFAG think I should ask some of these questions of the current trustees, which is fair. However, I think that the attitude of the existing trustees is plain to see. As trustees of MPF, Reading Borough Council have not provided and do not now appear to have a long-term strategic plan for MPF. They have been content to let the existing Management Committee handle the site as it sees fit. In short, MPF has not been on their radar, until now.

This is a discussion a large section of the community is involved in, and this blog is public, so I’d be astounded if some or all of the trustees have not already seen my questions, so if any of them – or the Management Committee – can provide answers to the above questions I think that would give us all the foundation for some detailed discussions as to the future of MPF, as well as going a long way to dispelling the idea that has taken hold in some quarters that there is a concerted conspiracy to further develop MPF land after The Heights Primary School has been built.

Below is the response from MPFAG:

Dear Jason,

In response to your recent letter to MPFAG, I am happy to respond as follows.

The most important issue MPFAG face as a group is not determining what will happen should the existing Charity trustees either step down or be replaced. Our most significant concern is to examine the actions of the current Charity trustees. Indeed, it is probably safe to assume that Reading Borough Council will remain as trustees for a very considerable period (certainly while the EFA are trying to build a school on the Charity land). Perhaps it would be more appropriate for you to send a version of some of your questions to them?

I am sure you will also understand that we view it prudent to dedicate our resources to more urgent issues than answering your questions. In the meantime, if you want more generic information about the duties and responsibilities of a Charity trustee, you might want to refer to the very helpful and compendious material on the Charity Commission’s website.

Regards

Martin Brommell
Chairman – Mapledurham Playing Fields Action Group

It’s classic UKIP fodder isn’t it? Perhaps they will try to lay the blame at the door of immigrants flooding our education system and taking valuable teacher time from students born and bred in the UK. Maybe they will play the left-wing conspiracy cooked up by teachers card. But you can guarantee they won’t discuss the detailed findings of the survey.

It’s not fair to simply say our schools are failing white working class kids and that there are inherent systemic problems within school. The study, rightly, places a lot of emphasis, on what parents bring to the table. As the Guardian reports:

While schools can play a role in raising attainment, the report points out that parents and family are a far more powerful influence on a child’s outcomes, with ethnic minority parents more likely than white working-class parents “to have attitudes and behaviours” that increase their child’s attainment.

The report found that parents within some disadvantaged ethnic groups were:

• more likely to have paid for private tuition or additional schooling
• more involved with their child’s school
• apparently able to inspire higher aspiration within thier children

It’s far from clear why the parents of white-working class don’t exhibit these “attitudes and behaviours”, however it’s important to redress that imbalance as best we can. In the short term this means supporting under achieving white working-class kids – and I think the Liberal Democrat inspired pupil premium must be part of the answer.

Schools have been using the pupil premium – which is simply additional funding for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds – in creative ways. From loaning a student a cycle, to providing a nutritionist or maths tutor, or just basic neccesities like clothes and shoes.

If aspiration is truely an issue then the pupil premuim could be used to give access to mentors for under-achieving white working-class kids. And if additional teaching is required then the premium must be targeted on giving those children that extra tuition.

But, if the DfE study is to be believe, then the pupil premium is not the whole of the answer. A longer term solution is to address the needs of the parents of under achieving kids as well. To support them to become more involved with the schools thier children attend. If, as the authore of the DfE report suggests, white working-class parents do not believe in the value of education, then they need support to understand that education is the key to so many opportunities in life.

I’m not sure what support I’m even describing here. But it can’t be patronising. And it can’t be a one-size-fits-all approach because each situation is a unique set of circumstances. But as the pupil premium is awarded year on year to support specific students, then might it be possible to offer a similar parent premium, year on year, to support parents?

The government is already running something akin to the kind of thing I’m thinking of. The troubled families initiative targets the ‘hardest to help’ families with complex needs. But the parent premium, on the other hand, would target familes who are not neccesarily ‘troubled’ but whose kids consistently under-achieve.

This initiative has saved an estimated £1.2bn of taxpayer money, costing a measly £448m. If the Conservative government were serious about lifting kids out of poverty and giving them a quality education, it would take the money being saved through this initiative and spend it on families that don’t cause trouble, but who need a helping hand to get the best out of education.

I’m not saying give parents a wodge of cash and leave them to it. But parents have aspirations of their own. Perhaps they want to buy a PC and internet connection but can’t afford it. Perhaps they want to be trained in a particular skill but can’t afford the course, or child care for when the course is being run. I don’t know, but I do know that if the government can reach in and apparently turn around the lives of thousands of familes with huge social problems, then they can sure as hell do the same for everyday familes who cause no trouble and who just get on with life.

Sure, you can invest in faster computers and printers. You can train staff to be better at shuffling paper around. You can even work longer hours to plough through the heavy workload. But none of that is ever going to address the underlying issue for many workplaces: UK business is ossified.

Companies that have been around for decades will have formed working processes and procedures over the years, most of which may well have been cutting edge at the time they were conceived. However, time marches on, and companies have a tendency to become locked into A Certain Way Of Doing Things.

Legacy systems, procedures and thought processes build up within any business. Long established and large organisations – such as those we see in banking and insurance – tend to disproportionately be victims of the gradual drag on productivity that comes from relying upon the same old process decade after decade.Changing the direction of one of these behemoths is akin to turning the Titanic.

But just because a thing is difficult, that does not mean it should not be done. A good example of this might be the financial services sector.

Financial services in the UK have grown over the past 50 years, however, the back-end IT systems have been slow to change and adapt. There are indications that investment in back-end IT has not been sufficient across the sector. Some banks may still be relying on systems that still contain elements dating back to the 1960s.

Banks have been investing, just not enough. And not in the right areas. One of the best – and most difficult – investments any business can make is to take a view on how best to work, and then to build systems and train staff to deliver that best practice. But it’s difficult to start projects that creatively re-imagine business processes in large organisations where stability is valued.

With a new breed of ‘challenger’ banks snapping at the heels of the incumbents, now is actually the time for the old school financial institutions to take a good look at how they work. Between 2010 and 2013 the challenger banks grew from 4% of the market, to 7%. A phenomenal growth when placed in the context of the traditional reluctance to change banks.

Instead of trying to keep decades old systems going, the challenger banks can start with a blank sheet of paper to deliver the best ways to do business. Offering better service based upon modern purpose-built systems is partly what is enabling their growth,

The brute force approach to delivering productivity (working longer hours with systems that are not fit for purpose) is not a sustainable strategy. It’s time for big business in the UK to drive productivity by embracing change, using modern tools and techniques, and pro-actively searching out improvements rather than waiting for disaster to act as a cue that change is overdue.

This post was first published by me on LinkedIn.

Even though I think MPF is the best site for the school, I do also believe that the site should be protected against further development. Some may say this doesn’t make sense. I disagree.

Further development of the site after a school had been built on it would completely negate the advantages that made the site so attractive. Those who at the moment are seeking to protect MPF from any development whatsoever would naturally find support from all the stakeholders involved with the school were it to be placed on the MPF site.

MPF accounts 2010-2014

One way to save MPF from development would be to ensure it is economically viable independently of RBC as Trustees. A quick glance at the Charity Commission website shows us that the MPF charity is not earning the kind of cash needed to either build or maintain a pavilion.

A central argument of campaigners opposing a school on the playing fields is that they are regularly and extensively used by the community. Having visited the site any number of times over the past years I have of course spotted dog walkers, football players, tennis enthusiasts and joggers, but I’ve never, on a regular basis at least, seen the kind of really bustling activity at MPF that I do frequently see at Albert Road Park, for instance. Except on polling day of course.

That’s not a scientific way of looking at the issue, I agree. So I poked around for information on past and future events.

In looking for the range of activities available at MPF I’ve not been able to locate anywhere a list of activities available to residents. Sure, the Summer Fete is coming up, it’s a big date on the MPF calendar, but what else?

I would suggest that a major stumbling block to self-sufficiency for MPF is the lack of public advertisement of events. There is no timetable to be seen anywhere on the pavilion. The posters on the notice board do not actually detail events happening at the pavilion. There is no website detailing what’s going on.

In short, there is a failure of imagination happening here. There may well be a schedule of events somewhere, but if nobody can find it, it may as well not exist.

Some imagination must also be applied to what ‘recreation’ actually means to the Trust. Yes, tennis courts and football is one interpretation of that aim, and a Summer Fete is a great idea. What else though?

1. How about organising an official fireworks display on bonfire night? Donations could be collected at various entry points. The (newly rebuilt) pavilion could be used to help serve food and drink. It may be possible to have vendors on site selling kids things that flash, small rides, an inflatable castle, and so on.
2. Becoming integrated into already successful events would be a great way to grow attendance at MPF. With that in mind a newly rebuilt pavilion might be able to participate in Caversham Arts Trail by becoming a temporary studio or gallery holding art workshops.
3. Christmas is a key time for one-off experiences. A skating rink on MPF might be one idea to consider, but perhaps some sort of winter-wonderland experience could be devised? If there is a school on the field, it’s not as if kids will not be in the area!

Just three ideas, all recreational. Maybe some have been done before, but if they have, I’ve not heard about them and I live close enough to MPF to be the target of any marketing that MPF events should generate.

Events like those above, marketed widely enough – in local media and on social media, as well as traditional leafleting – to attract at least the residents of Mapledurham itself, should be enough to grow the earnings of the charity. Earnings which should be fed directly into a ring-fenced trust account which Reading Borough Council has no access to directly control, but which the Committee of Management may draw upon for use by the Trust itself.

It’s time to start thinking outside of the box.

A new pavilion would massively enhance the attractiveness of MPF and the ability of the Trust to hold events like those listed above. A new school would all but guarantee the profitability of those events.

There can be no doubt that the Greek economy is on life support. Since Syriza claimed election victory – though it is in coalition – it has been negotiating with three of the most powerful institutions in the world. The European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

Like harpies straight out of Greek mythology, The Three Institutions Formerly Known As Troika have been blowing Greece down a course that has so far led to stunted growth, huge youth unemployment, and, eventually the snap elections that saw Syriza rise to power on a very clear anti-austerity platform.

Syriza, claiming – rightly – that they have a mandate to stop implementing further austerity measures, have taken a tough line in negotiations. Unfortunately, so have the institutions with which they are negotiating.

If the austerity measures that have been imposed upon Greece had worked then there would be no need for these negotiations. That language being used has become deeply emotional is a signal that negotiations are being led by the heart, at least as much as they are being led by the mind.

The insistence of the EC, ECB and IMF of demanding further and deeper cuts to Greek support systems gives off an air of obtuseness. On the one hand these organisations talk about being partners, and on the other they refuse to countenance the idea that their policies are bringing Greece to its knees.

A wide range of economists agree that there must be some debt relief for Greece. I don’t disagree that the government of Alexis Tsipras is in such a dire position that it must implement some reforms – on pensions for instance – but those reforms can not be very severe up front and must be delivered gradually otherwise the additional shock to the system will probably be to much for Greek civil society to bear.

The risk of ‘Grexit’ is surely too much for Europe, and the Euro itself to countenance. It will set a precedent, the world will know that the political leaders of Europe are willing to throw economic partners under the bus. The whole purpose of the economic union – strength in unity – will be undermined because it will have been shown that the Euro unity lasts only in the good times. Countries falling on hard times will be entitled to do a cold, hard, cost-benefit analysis before even entering into negotiations around debt. Maybe more countries will reckon that leaving the Euro is the best course of action to take in the future if Greece becomes the first country to fall out of the Euro.

The intransigence of the politicians at the heart of Europe does not bode well for the UK either. David Cameron is beginning to negotiate a better deal for the UK in Europe. He’s talking with the same people that are across the table from the Greeks. The fact that they appear so intransigent, that they are so willing to take negotiations to the wire, that they are willing to stand steadfastly against the mandate of the Greeks and stick to their austerity policies will be music to the ears of every anti-EU pundit in the UK.

A Greek default will affect us all. The globalised economy is tightly knit and talks of protective economic ‘firewalls‘ have not appeased the markets.

Greece cannot afford to service it’s debts. But the EU cannot afford to let Greece default. That would not only be an economic nightmare, but also a nuclear-grade political explosion.

Firstly, not that it’s any of your business, but no, I do not have a child at The Heights Primary. I will say though that even if I did have a child at the school, free speech is still protected in the UK and it’s certainly not fair to those who do have kids at The Heights Primary to bandy about that fact as if there is a conspiracy or hidden agenda against those who do not want a school built on MPF. Wanting the best possible education for your children is a perfectly rational bias.

Secondly, why now? Why have I waited until now to comment on this? The answer is that I’ve not actually waited until now to comment on this. The difficulty of securing school places for Mapledurham kids has been a hot topic of conversation for years, yes, since even before The Hill Primary thread was created on Reading Forum. I’ve discussed it locally with friends and family a lot over that time.

It is fair to ask why I’ve taken my concerns ‘public’ so to speak. Well, the recent consultation delivered a crystal clear result, but since then all local stakeholders seem to be sat back and waiting for EFA to make a decision.

Why?

Why must we wait for the EFA to make a decision in Whitehall somewhere divorced from this community? There is no guarantee that EFA will choose MPF as a site, even though that is what has been mandated by the consultation. I find that outrageous. And so should every other stakeholder in this issue regardless of where they want the site to be. But not every stakeholder has the authority of being the Council Leader, or the local MP, or the local Councillor, or the lead Councillor for Education in Reading.

Our elected representatives, more than any others at this stage in the game, have the power and connections to at least lobby privately to make sure the decision goes the way the community have mandated. On top of that, if they worked together in a concerted effort, I can’t see how the EFA can deny the community its wishes. I see no evidence of that happening.

Thirdly, I do actually care about protecting our green spaces for generations to come. But this is not an either/or choice. It is possible to apportion some small part of the over 24 acres of MPF to build a new school, and still keep the vast majority of the land within the charitable trust. The school has to go somewhere. Siting it at MPF is simply making the best of a bad situation.

Fourthly, I reject the idea that I need to be a legal expert to comment, and that considered disagreement with others means I’ve been misinformed.

I do know that the governing document of the MPF charity can be amended, and has been in the past. I do know that charities can and do sell and lease land all the time. It’s not really rocket science. The fact that EFA put MPF on their own list of possible sites indicates that they believe there are no legal obstacles to building a school on MPF that cannot be overcome.

I have seen comments to the effect that Reading Borough Council has failed in its duty as Trustees of MPF and that this may have some bearing on the issue. That may be so, clearly RBC itself faces a serious conflict of interest here, and that could be another reason why the Labour-led administration has hidden its head in the sand for so long over this issue. It is not an easy problem to face up to. As Trustee of MPF, RBC is duty bound to protect the fields. But it is also duty bound to support the educational needs of the town.

If the worst comes to the worst, perhaps RBC could serve itself as Trustee of MPF with a Compulsory Purchase Order for that part of MPF which the EFA may (or may not!) decide is appropriate for a school. Compulsory purchase of land held by a charity for the purpose of building a school is not without precedent. Aberdeenshire Council wanted to build a primary school on land owned by the British Heart Foundation. The Compulsory Purchase Order proceedings started in September 2014 and by March 2015 the order was served.

Compared to the glacial speed at which this whole process has been going, that kind of timescale is positively light speed.

In Mapledurham in particular, it seems like there has been a perfect storm of obstacles that have stopped the development of a new school.

For starters, Mapledurham is the smallest ward in Reading, with a single Councillor to represent it. All other wards in Reading have 3 Councillors to fight their corner. Whilst Mapledurham parents have been screaming for years about the need for more school places, having but one voice on Reading Council has not been in our favour.

Then there is the fact that Mapledurham is a safe Conservative seat whilst the Council is held by Labour. Might this partially explain some of the lethargy and lack of leadership that the Council has displayed for years in failing to address the growing educational gap in Mapledurham?

Add to this that the Education Funding Authority (EFA) has been secretive to say the least. Their reasoning for ‘limited consultation‘ with the local authority when buying the High Ridge site was so as not to get caught in a competitive bidding war in the open market. This approach may be appropriate in many other communities, however, when the local authority actually owns or controls some of the potential sites for the school, this is a ridiculous state of affairs.

If it had not been just taken as gospel that MPF was not available – perhaps if residents had been consulted first? – could Reading Borough Council have privately come to an agreement with EFA in order to achieve a fair market value for the land?

Even now, though the community voted fairly and transparently during the consultation for where they want The Heights Primary to be situated, that is still no guarantee that the EFA will pursue the Mapledurham Playing Fields option. Following the publication of the results of the consultation it would be nice to know the position of our elected representatives.

Cllr Isobel Ballsden – Mapledurham’s only Councillor – is in an understandably difficult position. She is now under pressure to argue against allowing The Heights Primary to be developed on MPF, but also to support the overwhelming wishes of the community she serves.

Cllr Ballsden has said that she supports both The Heights Primary and MPF, however she has stated categorical opposition to a school sited on MPF. Specifically that “the school should not be delivered at the expense of MPF“), and, if this public Google group is to be believed, she has told a great many people that  “…my children are too old to benefit from attending The Heights.  My family however will benefit when Mapledurham Pavilion is regenerated.”

Statements like this might make residents wonder how much of an open mind Cllr Ballsden is keeping on this issue. As part of the Planning Applications Committee she could potentially halt the school in its tracks. Can she really have her cake and eat it, so to speak? It’s difficult to ascertain Cllr Ballsden’s current position on this matter. Does she support the wishes of the majority of residents, or does she still think that a school should not be built on MPF?

Furthermore, will Rob Wilson MP, who rightly pledged not to rule out or even express an opinion on any site – but who perhaps forget this commitment to impartiality when he attended the Save Albert Road Park fun day – now lobby EFA privately and campaign publicly to get the school built where the majority of Reading residents have said they want it built?

For all these reasons, I’ve despaired at how democracy and genuine community opinion seems to have been disregarded when it comes to building a new school in Reading.

But we are where we are.

The education portfolio within Labour-run Reading Council has passed to former Mayor, Tony Jones. This might well bring a fresh perspective and it’s my hope that Cllr Jones will set aside party politics and help Mapledurham residents achieve their aims.

It’s clear that the Council hold no objections in principle to selling off part of MPF. The Council resolved in 2003 to sell part of MPF in order to raise money for replacing the Pavilion. Some of the Councillors who took that decision in 2003 are still serving on the council now, including the current Leader of the Council, Cllr Jo Lovelock – who ironically was Lead Councillor for Education between 1996-2004.

Given that the majority response from the whole of Reading is supportive of building a school on MPF land, as the ultimate Trustee of MPF the Labour-run Council should be working with EFA.  The proceeds made from a sale of part of MPF coupled with the funds already earmarked for the Mapledurham pavilion would be a great head-start towards either refurbishing the existing pavilion or building a new one. High Ridge was worth £875,000 in 2012 that kind of money would pay for outstanding new facilities at MPF.

Not everybody has a vision of sharing part of MPF to build a new school. There may well be legal obstacles to be overcome. Given the strength of community feeling this would have no doubt been the case whatever the outcome of the vote. To site the school on MPF may take more time, energy, and money than other options, the end result, however, will be a no-compromise modern school fit for purpose for decades to come. Reading residents knew this, and voted for MPF regardless.

I would hope that if all our elected officials – from ward, to Council, to national level – worked together towards the common purpose of supporting the wishes of the overwhelming majority of residents, all legal issues could be resolved far quicker. It’s not fair on residents  to on the one hand claim ‘leadership’ of this issue, but then to clam up when a mandate is delivered to build the school on MPF. Passing the buck to EFA is not leadership. Actually fighting to support the Reading community is.

Awkward catchment arrangements that place primary school kids many miles away from home and at schools not built to hold that many additional children can only last so long. The ‘bulge years‘ that Caversham schools have been asked to endure were never meant to be a long term solution, but the complete dearth of real leadership from our elected community representatives at all levels of democracy, along with an opaque EFA has done nothing but exacerbate the situation.

Our community deserves better than to be treated like this.

We all know the situation is not perfect. The mandate is to build the school on part of MPF. The EFA has the funding and the capacity to help deliver the school. Now is the time for elected representatives, at every level and of all political stripes to show the coordinated leadership needed to face down all the coming challenges and to actually deliver a new school to be proud of.

Rather than see the repeal of the HRA and the predicted £12bn in welfare cuts as two distinct elements of the Conservative government’s ideology, it’s more instructive to see them as an interlocking suite of polices.

More on that later.

Theresa May almost immediately launched a defence of her plans to see off human rights, which, if successful, will bring us nearer to the kind of state that monitors and punishes citizens for dissent. Whilst details of Tory plans to replace the HRA with a ‘British Bill of Rights’ remain vague, we do know for sure that it won’t be a like-for-like replacement.

Theresa May is framing this debate around curtailing extremism, however, the HRA is used more commonly used for the protection of everyday people who have been failed by the apparatus of the State.

Rape victims with mental health issues,  for instance.

The HRA was used against Hampshire police after they failed to investigate properly an allegation of rape, and who then arrested the rape victim. Would this be a ‘frivolous’ case which could be thrown out under the British Bill of Rights?

Another group protected by the HRA are the disproportionately ethnic minority victims of what Liberty calls “extraordinarily broad police power to stop and search anyone without suspicion.” Liberty fought these draconian powers all the way to the European Court of Human Rights which ruled that the power was “arbitrary” and “open to discriminatory use.”

Human rights also provide a safety net for the most vulnerable amongst us.

Those with disabilities have been able to enforce their human rights to, among other things, get a fair hearing following misleading advice from the DWP, as well as to argue that the size criteria in the housing benefits regulations discriminates against disabled people.

It may well be true that replacing the HRA with a British Bill of Rights will suddenly free the police and our courts to better target Islamic extremists and Neo-Nazis as Theresa May argues. Whilst this approach may lead to slightly better statistics around terrorist convictions and/or extraditions, it’s very likely that increased police powers (to ignore what used to be a human right, to track every website you go to and each e-mail you send and receive) will be focused upon existing law-abiding groups.

Peaceful protest groups such as environmental activists, anti-capitalist and anti-racist groups, animal rights campaigners, and even the elected political opponents of the government of the day will almost certainly become targets of police surveillance without being hindered by such frivolities as human rights. The Human Rights Act has already been used to protect the rights and freedoms of such groups.

Perhaps the most recent example of this in action was the startling revelation that the Stephen Lawrence family had fallen victim to a police spy who gathered intelligence in order to give the Metropolitan police an “advantage” over the Lawrence family during an inquiry into how the Met handled the investigation into the death of Stephen Lawrence. I’m no legal expert, but I suspect that perhaps breaches the right to privacy?

Far from simply providing a route to bring trivial cases against the State, as Theresa May would have us believe, the Human Rights Act offers a failsafe level of protection for the most vulnerable and most marginalised people in our country when the government has already failed to execute it’s duty, but fails to recognise or admit so.

Repealing the Human Rights Act would remove very real protections for people we all know.

Victims of police discrimination and mental health stigma. Disabled people dependent upon benefits. Activists who simply disagree with or have different priorities from the government. People who have committed no crime, nor who ever intend to. People struggling simply to survive on benefits, or fighting to bring attention to injustice at home and abroad. It is by no means clear that the freedoms of these people will be guaranteed by a British Bill of Rights.

Meanwhile. George Osbourne is planning deep cuts to social services. The HRA has already proven an obstacle to spending reforms. When the disadvantaged and disabled can use the HRA as their last ditch attempt at defense against spending cuts imposed by central government, and win, is it any wonder that this Tory Government sees repealing the HRA as urgent business?

Consider the repeal of the HRA as a prelude to the carnage to come. Once the rights of the least-privileged people in our communities have been tweaked in the name of anti-terrorism, the government may cut services with impunity.

Liberal Democrats have been able to console ourselves with the idea that we are influencing policies from the sidelines of Government. But we know, now more than ever, that ‘influence’ is not the same as ‘power’.

We should not be happy with ‘influence’. Labour and the Tories understand that there is no point in naval gazing over the minutiae of a policy if you cannot implement it. As our new leader I hope you will take the lead in promoting a muscular self-confidence and a strong desire to win amongst the membership beyond the core teams at local level.

I’d like to take this opportunity to turn your attention to how the Liberal Democrats are organised. Even before entering coalition, there was already evidence that things were not right. People forget that we lost MPs in 2010 even before going into coalition.

Lib Dem Party Structure

I have to ask you. Do you think  the structures and procedures the Party has in place are fit for practice?

If this structure could deliver Liberal Democrats to majority Government, or a large group of MEPs, would it not already have done so? Given the scale of our defeat in 2010, 2014 and 2015, shouldn’t it be a matter of urgency to organise the party into a force that can deliver victories?

In December 2014 Helena Morrissy updated us on the process and culture of the Liberal Democrats. Strong voices cautioned us to leave the re-organisation she called for until after the election. Now is the time to grasp this bull by the horns. There is a lot of work to do, but no shortage of ideas and energy to do it.

There should be no sacred cows. I can already hear the anguished cries of members who will vehemently disagree, but in the face of losing so many MPs and MEPs in 3 consecutive elections, the debate must opened – and not just on websites and in private forums, but as a proper dialogue directly between the Party and it’s members.  As leader, I hope you will take seriously the organisation and management of the Party, not just policies, public relations and Parliamentary battles.

Having recently taken the time to research the English Council Executive, I cannot express enough the pain it causes me that the Officers are overwhelmingly male, and, you guessed it, pale. It also seems to me that we are (self?) selecting and electing the same faces at various levels in the Party. Is it right that our own structures seem to  continuously concentrate power into the hands of the same people? I can’t believe that the pool of competent members is so small that we must re-elect the same people over and over again.

Following the recent surge of new members, perhaps now is the time to consider term limits for those sitting on various committees? This will ensure a regular turnover of people, give newer members a chance to participate at all levels, and changing the personal dynamics of these committees will open up them up to fresh thinking and new ideas. If there really is such a dearth of talent in the party, then perhaps we must put in place mentors and training schemes – open to all rather than a select few – for eager activists who want to serve the Party, but who need some guidance around the Party and how it works.

Our dilemma is clear. We must change the structure of the Party to be better able to win, whilst at the same time fairly and transparently distributing power amongst a more diverse set of members from all social and ethnic backgrounds, as well as new members and old stalwarts alike.

Committees should directly and regularly update members through official channels – this could be e-mail or even a printed or PDF newsletter distributed freely as a benefit of membership. I understand that the work of some of these committees must remain confidential. But surely not all of it. All the time?

Serious thought should also be given to allowing members who cannot attend regional or federal conferences – sometimes because of cost, sometimes because of the need to prioritise family care or work commitments – a more direct voice and a vote on policies and committee members. Technology has long surpassed the era of a limited number of Conference Reps with special lanyards and crucial voting privileges. People wanting to speak at Conference could be encouraged to send a video of their speech in to be played on the big screen. This stuff is not rocket science. Even less so for a party that prides itself on it’s commitment to science!

The disappointment in the reduction of Liberal Democrat MPs is partially offset by the increase in new and returning members who have joined the Party since the General Election. Amongst these members, I’ve no doubt, are not a few potential Lib Dem MPs and Comittee members. Let’s harness this talent. There is light at the end of the tunnel and I wish you all the best in guiding us out of this place and towards something better.

Sincerely Yours,

Jason.

Let’s rewind a little for context.

‘Hate Crime: Should the Current Offences be Extended‘ was a review conducted in 2013, and for which the final report was published in May, 2014. In short a more in-depth review was recommended in the final report, but generally, some of the the conclusions reached were:

…most – if not all – of the benefits that might come from extending the aggravated offences could flow from the properly applied and accurately recorded use of the enhanced sentencing system.

The enhanced sentencing system reflects Parliament’s decision to single out hostility as an aggravating factor, giving judges a duty to sentence hostility-based offending more severely…

… the current under-use of enhanced sentencing could be having an adverse effect on community confidence and victim satisfaction. This may be contributing to the under-reporting of hate crime.

…was a sense of inequality in the current system and of the need to send a clear message that hate crime is taken equally seriously, whichever of the five protected characteristics the hostility relates to.

Could it in fact be this consultation that Miliband is alluding to when he says he’s going to tighten up laws around hate-crime?

The simple answer, folks, is “Yes”. But how do I know this?

In an interview with Jewish News, Miliband said he was going to tighten up the hate crime laws to protect against anti-Semitism.

Over on Pink News Miliband sells the idea of strengthening hate crime laws to combat bullying and discrimination against the LGBT community.

In December 2014 Miliband posted on Facebook that he:

…will make disability hate crime a specific criminal offence. This will better recognise the impact of hate crime and ensure the system has a mechanism to punish those who commit hate crimes against disabled people.

The Muslim News article directly quoted the Labour Manifesto as saying “… we will strengthen the law on disability, homophobic and transphobic crime.” As yet there has been no article on Lib Dem Voice complaining of a trammelling of the right to criticise Judaism.  And we know that hell would – rightly – freeze over before any self-respecting Lib Dem would question the wisdom of protecting the LGBT or disabled community from bullying.

The question begs to be asked: Why highlight, in particular, the protection of Muslims from hate crime as being an attack on free speech? The backlash against such a – straw man – proposal on the most-read website for Lib Dem supporters was fairly intense, perhaps because the Op-Ed itself totally decontextualizes the fact that the same legal protections being offered to the Muslim community were also being offered by Labour to the Jewish, LGBT and disabled communities.

But why decontextualize in that way? Isn’t that a sure-fire way to lose votes from the Muslim community?

The 2015 election is tight. Every vote matters. Political parties that draw broad-based support a diverse range of communities are more likely to win, and will be more resilient to adverse events, like, say, being part of a deeply unpopular coalition for 5 years.

Ed Miliband is explicitly courting the votes of a number of the most marginalised communities in our country. With a single policy that could deeply affect the way those minority communities are treated in law Miliband is ensuring the Liberal Democrat vote is further suppressed across a diverse range of people.

They say a picture speaks a thousand words. Here is a picture that should make a few Lib Dems pause for thought.

Why is it that the Liberal Democrat vote amongst many religious communities in the UK is so suppressed? Could it be that articles like the one published on Lib Dem Voice lead many Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, etc, to think that the Lib Dems are not serious about protecting them from religious hate crime?

I understand that in the white hot heat of a campaign the desire to shut down an opponent and point out that a particular policy is deeply wrong or illiberal, but the knee-jerk reaction by the Lib Dem Voice community against that mere idea that Muslims should be offered further protection under the law is unfortunate at any time. But so close to an election and when so few Muslims are Party members or supporters, or who actually vote Liberal Democrat, it’s self-defeating.

It would have been far better to have taken a deep breath and realise that stronger protection for minority communities, as in this case, does not necessarily equate to the absolute removal of free speech.

Wouldn’t a more appropriate angle of attack on Miliband when he says he’s going to start recording Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and hatred against the disabled and LGBT communities as distinct and specific crimes would be that that’s unequivocally A Good Thing, but that he’s only suggesting what has already been recommended by a Coalition Government report anyway?

Rather than being an opportunity to halt illiberal legislation designed to stop criticism of religion, this was in fact a chance for Liberal Democrats to look at the evidence for extending existing legislation to better protect not only religious minorities, but also the LGBT and disabled communities.

This is not really that complex an issue. The Muslims in the UK that I know simply want to enjoy the same freedoms and protections as everyone else. It’s really very simple. If you want to lose membership subscriptions and votes from the Muslim community, carry on targeting them as not deserving of the same rights as the other members of society.