Councillor McAsh defects to the Greens

[CPR Dave]

Thanks James. I will correct my posts referencing full time work. His register of interests simply states "Primary School Teacher" without mentioning that it is limited hours. 

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDeclarationSubmission.aspx?UID=50001002&HID=2492&FID=0&HPID=0

 

The same claim is made elsewhere without mentioning part time or limited hours:

https://x.com/mcash?lang=en :

"Primary School Teacher"

"I am a teacher and this is my publicly stated desire to overthrow capitalism."

 

https://southwarknews.co.uk/featured/breaking-news-james-mcash-defects-to-the-green-party-seven-months-after-his-southwark-labour-leadership-victory-was-overturned/

"McAsh went on to say that “as a primary school teacher, trade unionist, and socialist, my values and principles have not changed, but they are no longer consistent with the Labour Party,” but added that they “are consistent with the Green Party”."

https://southwarklabour.com/profile/james-mcash/

"James is a local primary school teacher "

 

All of this implies regular employment as  full time teacher.

 

[Sue]

55 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

Thanks James. I will correct my posts referencing full time work. His register of interests simply states "Primary School Teacher" without mentioning that it is limited hours. 

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDeclarationSubmission.aspx?UID=50001002&HID=2492&FID=0&HPID=0

 

The same claim is made elsewhere without mentioning part time or limited hours:

https://x.com/mcash?lang=en :

"Primary School Teacher"

"I am a teacher and this is my publicly stated desire to overthrow capitalism."

 

https://southwarknews.co.uk/featured/breaking-news-james-mcash-defects-to-the-green-party-seven-months-after-his-southwark-labour-leadership-victory-was-overturned/

"McAsh went on to say that “as a primary school teacher, trade unionist, and socialist, my values and principles have not changed, but they are no longer consistent with the Labour Party,” but added that they “are consistent with the Green Party”."

https://southwarklabour.com/profile/james-mcash/

"James is a local primary school teacher "

 

All of this implies regular employment as  full time teacher.

 

I don't see anything he has said saying he works full time as a teacher?

Many teachers work part time.

Edited Tuesday at 12:17 by Sue
Adding info

[Blah Blah]

2 hours ago, James Barber said:

Most Councillors work full time and are councillors in their spare time. Some become full time councillors with Cabinet positions. Done well these are really full time roles. Imagine trying to sort out Southwark Council Housing where only half of repairs calls are completed. Utter chaos. 

The current administration introduced a lot of deputy roles with extra allowances. My lot have long argued these need to be significantly parred back. 

Because the previous Libdem/Tory coalition council did so much better? ....Oh wait. Selling off the Heygate at a bargain price and reducing the number of council homes it replaced? Being in opposition is so much easier isn't it James. 

The point on allowances etc is a valid one, and that is about finding the right balance between the responsibility of those cabinet roles and the role of service that should underpin all political aspirations in an ideal world. Holding down a full time job, while having to attend meetings and then deal with case work on top, is a huge ask imo. People in key roles need to have the time needed to do those roles effectively, so some renumeration makes sense. It's just a question of where the balance should be. McAsh has walked away from that, so his convictions are doing more talking than careerism arguably. 

18 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

The idea that serving as a local councillor (including dealing with the public, internal party politics - which is always the most vicious where the stakes are lowest, and plenty of unpaid prep work) is a great pathway for careerists and moneygrabbers is utter shite. On a per hour basis you'd be far better off working at Sainsbos.

Worth pointing out that most MPs started out as party/ political activists/ campaigners on a local level. Different parties have different processes for selecting candidates, but everyone starts out at a low level. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

27 minutes ago, Blah Blah said:

Selling off the Heygate at a bargain price and reducing the number of council homes it replaced?

What happened with the Heygate was absolutely scandalous. The lack of accountability is shocking.

[Spartacus]

I guess, in a few weeks we will see if he is still a councillor or goes back to teaching 🤔 

[Suggsy]

Surely the question is whether James Mcash is effective in his various roles? I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise as a GG councillor or cabinet member. No idea about the teaching but he's made a career of it, so one would think he's perfectly fine on that front too.

What I do object to is him being elected under one banner and hopping under another one, I suspect out of naked self interest. His headline rationale for the move is scarcely credible. He claims "the council was “planning for funding gaps larger than those faced in almost every year of Conservative and Liberal Democrat austerity, this time imposed by a Labour government...Unless something changes, Labour cuts will devastate the local services that as residents of this fantastic borough, we all rely on.” But what he's actually talking about here is the new Fair Funding Review, undertaken by notorious Tories Angela Rayner and Jim McMahon. 

 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-fair-funding-review-20/the-fair-funding-review-20

The Fair Funding Review is explicitly about the redistribution of resources based on updated needs assessment, which, last time I looked was a key tenet of the left (including the Greens). Mcash also claims Southwark "cannot and does not stand up to the government" but that simply isn't the case as Southwark, Lambeth and London Councils have objected to the FFR because it fails to take into account Londoners' high housing costs. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2025/southwark-and-lambeth-leaders-call-fair-funding 

He seems high on bluster and low on actual detail. And the great problem Greens have to overcome, like everyone else, is that the country has no money. 
 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 18:06 by Suggsy
typo

[Blah Blah]

50 minutes ago, Suggsy said:

The Fair Funding Review is explicitly about the redistribution of resources based on updated needs assessment, which, last time I looked was a key tenet of the left (including the Greens). Mcash also claims Southwark "cannot and does not stand up the the government" but that simply isn't the case as Southwark, Lambeth and London Councils have objected to the FFR because it fails to take into account Londoners' high housing costs. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2025/southwark-and-lambeth-leaders-call-fair-funding 

He seems high on bluster and low on actual detail. And the great problem Greens have to overcome, like everyone else, is that the country has no money. 
 

 

 

And that fair funding review is crucial if we are ever going to tackle the divide between London, and regions that have been in extended decline for some time. London has its fair share of deprivation - 1 in 25 according to data (the Southeast of the country is 1in 33) but has many avenues to money from wealth, higher band Council Tax revenue, etc. Go to say, the Northwest or North East, and deprivation there is 1 in 5. Councils struggle to just stay on top of essential services, which face higher demand proportionally because of that higher deprivation. That is why there needs to be some adjustment in funding, addressing need vs purely population size. So McAsh's objection to this make no sense for someone who was a member of the Labour Party and a Union activist.

Edited Tuesday at 16:02 by Blah Blah
Grammar correction

[Suggsy]

@blahblah agree. And I can't see that Zack Polanski has raised any objection to the FFR. So McAsh's position seems ever more emptily performative, as well as illogical. 

[Spartacus]

Whilst its not local, the overnight results in the Gorton and Denton  by election, a Labour stronghold for the last century, does raise the question of can similar happen elsewhere in the local elections in May. 

Maybe he was right to jump from what he sees as a sinking ship bit the question is which party will be locally strongest after May ? 

 

[Sue]

7 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Whilst its not local, the overnight results in the Gorton and Denton  by election, a Labour stronghold for the last century, does raise the question of can similar happen elsewhere in the local elections in May. 

Maybe he was right to jump from what he sees as a sinking ship bit the question is which party will be locally strongest after May ? 

 

It's not just "what he sees" as a sinking ship though, is it?

It's been a sinking ship ever since Starmer took over and pushed  it further and further to the right.

And I think locally many former Labour supporters who can no longer vote for what Labour now seems to stand for  will be voting green.

I may of course be totally wrong and this is wishful thinking ....

[Moovart]

I think if a councillor or an MP switches party then they should resign their post and wait until the next election before they can stand again. 

If a constituent voted for a person because of their party affiliation rather than for the person themselves, which I suspect is the most common vote, then that vote has basically been taken from the constituent by the councillor's or MP's defection.

[Spartacus]

Interesting discussion point @Moovart, should they wait till the next election or should it trigger an immediate by-election so the post is not left empty ? 

Your concept is logical and may have the added effect of swaps, lke the Premier league, only happening in a defined transfer window just before each election. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Spartacus

[Insuflo]

2 minutes ago, Moovart said:

I think if a councillor or an MP switches party then they should resign their post and wait until the next election before they can stand again. 

If a constituent voted for a person because of their party affiliation rather than for the person themselves, which I suspect is the most common vote, then that vote has basically been taken from the constituent by the councillor's or MP's defection.

I agree but in the case of McAsh, that would just have left his constituents without a councillor for 3 months until the May elections. MPs switching parties is really galling. If an MP is suspended for law breaking etc., then a recall petition can be issued and, if enough of the constituents support it, a by-election is called. I think the same should apply for defectors. 

[Jenijenjen]

54 minutes ago, Sue said:

It's not just "what he sees" as a sinking ship though, is it?

It's been a sinking ship ever since Starmer took over and pushed  it further and further to the right.

And I think locally many former Labour supporters who can no longer vote for what Labour now seems to stand for  will be voting green.

I may of course be totally wrong and this is wishful thinking ....

I think there's a lot in what you say. Although bi election results aren't usually indicative of GE results, I was horrified to see Reform support was so high in what had previously been a Labour stronghold, Labour and Conservative results reflecting the tired old parties they are. 

It isn't our generation (sorry @Sue if I'm being presumptuous!) that will decide the outcome of elections but those in their 20s, 30s, 40s ... if they can be bothered to vote. The Greens and Reform now present a real choice instead of two centrist main parties of the last 30 years which has put people off voting. Perhaps locally I will continue to vote Labour, i really couldn't bear for the LibDems to return and we have to consider the demographic of the whole of Southwark. But come the GE I will probably vote Green.

 

[Insuflo]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

the question is which party will be locally strongest after May

I’m going to stick my Gregory Peck right out and say not the Tories.

[richard tudor]

Give the Monster Raving Loony party a shot. They cannot be worst than what is around now.

[Jenijenjen]

16 minutes ago, richard tudor said:

Give the Monster Raving Loony party a shot. They cannot be worst than what is around now.

 

Not been the same since their dear founder died

[Spartacus]

21 minutes ago, richard tudor said:

Give the Monster Raving Loony party a shot. They cannot be worst than what is around now.

 

Aten't they already running Southwark? 

[Angelina]

God forbid it's Labour (or the Tories for that matter

 

Edited 4 minutes ago by Angelina