The Demolition of Democracy at Tower Hamlets Council, and why you need to vote on 22 May

Posted on | Friday, 11 April 2014 | No Comments

The primary reason I’m campaigning to be elected as a local Councillor on 22 May 2014 is to rebuild democracy – comprehensibly demolished at Tower Hamlets Borough Council (THBC). It has been replaced by a dictatorship, and no one seems to give a damn. Council officers have effectively become quislings to an Administration that shamelessly flaunts its rejection of the democratic process. You don’t believe me? read on:

(In a later post I’ll explain how this American system of Elected Mayors can so easily fail within the structure of our – unwritten – Constitution of Parliamentary Democracy).

The THBC web tells us all we need to know about the flawed process.  It states under the heading Council and Democracy:

Tower Hamlets Council is made up of 51 elected local councillors from 17 wards across the borough. The council operates an elected Mayor and Cabinet form of executive decision-making, with an overview and scrutiny committee, a standards committee and various other decision-making and regulatory committees.
The political composition of the council is 26 Labour councillors, 14 independent councillors, 7 Conservative councillors, 2 Respect councillors, 1 Liberal Democrat councillor and 1 Labour Independent councillor.

Note, the above description hyperlinks to the 51 elected councillors, but does not link to the all important Cabinet. It also tells us the political allegiances of the councillors, but not the cabinet…
Let’s see what it’s concealing:

The Mayor and Cabinet
Tower Hamlets has a directly elected Mayor, Lutfur Rahman, who is supported by eight councillors who each have a defined area of interest. Together the Mayor and Cabinet make the decisions on strategy, policy, service provision and finance that ensure the council is run in accordance with our Community Plan and the relevant statutory guidance and legislation.

 (My highlighting).

You see, the ‘Cabinet’, the composition of which is shown below, are all (so called) Independent Councillors, i.e., none from the majority party or from any other party for that matter, and they alone make the major Council decisions.

The effect is that the majority party in council becomes the opposition! Absurd but true. Further, the Mayor’s gang of councillors in cabinet (as I’ve highlighted below) make the final decisions on strategy, policy, service provision and finance. Democracy? You decide.

Cabinet members, (as of July 2012):
The following councillors are not in the Cabinet, but have advisory roles:
p.s. Yet to be examined is the legal relationship between the Mayor’s ‘Tower Hamlets First’ party and ‘Independent Councillors’..

Category: , , ,

UKIP To Scrap East End Life

No Comments

We can discuss Editorial integrity at length. But with the soon to be despatched East End Life the conversation has to be brief because integrity simply doesn't exist in this rag; never has under the current regime, never will.
This is the latest edition - post the arrival of Inspectors from PriceWaterhouseCooopers on the express orders of the Department for Communities and Local Government. Nothing on the front page to report what just about every national newspaper covered!
But the rag still carries '5' pictures of Lutfur Rahman, but more than this...remembering there are 51 Councillors across all parties in the Council ...6 pictures of (Rahman supporting) Councillors - all  Independents (3 of which are in Rahman's Cabinet). Go figure. Open, balanced journalism? or quisling reporters?

Front Page EEL 7-13 April 2014
Front Page EEL 7-13 April 2014

In fact coverage came in a defensive series of statements on page three..with no mention of the Ministers statement which read, '“It is a matter of public record that I have long been concerned about a worrying pattern of divisive community politics and alleged mismanagement of public money by the mayoral administration in Tower Hamlets'. Integrity?


Finally, how about this on a later page...

No title but its all about Roman Road Parking. Reading through you'd expect to find out who the 3 are holding up the plaque in the picture. No, just the mention of Councillor Shahed Ali (Independent in case you weren't aware).

UKIP are committed to scape this politically divisive circular posing to be a newspaper

Category: , ,

Fun with Numbers - Is Lutfur Rahman Innumerate or Just Putting a Favourable Spin on Tower Hamlets' Crime Figures?

Posted on | Sunday, 22 July 2012 | No Comments

On the subject of Crime, the Mayor has informed us, variously:

Mayor"I know that crime and the fear of crime is an issue for our borough even though crime is falling - 2.7% drop in overall crime (744 fewer crimes), including knife crime – down by 10.4% since the previous year (50 fewer incidents)" Tower Hamlets Web site Community safety

"Overall crime is down 30% since 2003"  East End Life, 9 July 2012

"In the last three years overall crime has dropped by more than 23%" Tower Hamlets Web site Crime prevention

(Note: the picture of THEOs comes courtesy of EEL: their agenda seems to be to link them, not the Met with any perceived crime reduction)

Now, the above statements by Lutfur Rahman are all pretty impressive, if taken on face value. I mean to say, 'overall crime down more than 20% over the last 3 years'. That's a huge turnaround. One can't deny it's a staggeringly profound achievement - am I right? Yet some may say this is all propaganda, even intentionally meant to deceive. But what possible grounds would detractors have for challenging these figures? Surely Lutfur Rahman wouldn't lie on a matter as serious as crime statistics in the Borough - would he?

Perhaps we should consider the official Metropolitan Police figures as grounds to challenge the Mayor's version? You decide..


Here is an extract of the official crime statistics for the Borough courtesy of the Metropolitan Police DoI Reporting Service:


Tower Hamlets       Offences
     2005                 22,560
     2006                 29,677
     2007                 29,385
     2008                 26,811
     2009                 25,684
     2010                 26,884
     2011                 28,110


You don't need to graph this data to see that crime in Tower Hamlets has actually been on the increase since 2010.... Hang on, isn't that when Lutfur Rahman took office as Mayor?


Reference: Freedom of Information Request Crime Statistics Tower Hamlets 2005 - 2012

Category: , ,

Anti Social Behaviour and Lutfur Rahman's Cheeky Roadshow

Posted on | Sunday, 17 June 2012 | No Comments

There is an old East-End Music Hall monologue that starts, "Saturday night in Bethnal Green, naptha lamps a-flarin' Along the gutters for nearly a mile, and men and wimmen blarin". Times have changed in a 100 years, but we can still find a modern version of long lost Music Hall entertainment at the Town Hall and every Sunday night courtesy of clown Lutfur Rahman's East End Life (EEL). This little man's army of quisling editorial staff routinely haul the integrity of a free press through the gutters of dictatorial third world censorship and cheap propaganda, and then have the gall to force this rag through every letter box in the Borough. I say 'force' as it somehow appears in letterboxes in secure apartment blocks, but then that's another issue. 


Today's monologue - how much of this rag does today's Joseph Grimaldi write himself? - promotes him, his small posse of followers, and his THEOs. It's the sheer impudence of the man that's turning him from a threat into a Music Hall act. Most in the Borough will remember that the Metropolitan Police, in conjunction with Safer Neighbourhood Teams, recently completed an exhaustive series of Ward by Ward community meetings. They were big, and well resourced by the Met, SNT, and occasionally THEOs. The focus was unreservedly on anti social behaviour (ASB) and it was a Met initiative.


Notwithstanding the sheer effort and co-operation of the above exercise, scantily reported in the EEL incidentally - in fact I only remember the Met's own advertisements, Mr Rahman has ordered the penning of this piece of self publicity in today's EEL:


'Residents had the opportunity to raise their concerns about ASB....when Mayor Lutfur Rahman put on a community road show with his Deputy, and Cllr Gulam Robbani'. Gulam Robbani, remember, is the controversially elected councillor for Spitalfields and Banglatown. 


Music Hall, aka Town Hall - have times changed that much after all? Perhaps the difference is that we once laughed with the clowns, not at them.


Category: , ,

The Shame of Tower Hamlets' East End Life

Posted on | Monday, 28 May 2012 | No Comments

And the shame of all those directly associated with this publication. It's a sham and we all know that, but what I find particularly distasteful and loathsome is the editorial staff's bootlicking subservience to this third world political regime, so clearly steeped in cheap propaganda, accusations of corruption and racial disharmony. It's quisling editor applies a third world meaning to the paper's byline, 'News from Tower Hamlets Council'. Let's all understand what the editor means by this, i.e., 'What Tower Hamlets Council Want You to Know'. Familiar propaganda stuff isn't it?!

Real Council News this last week would have been, as every other local 'news'paper reported - 'Councillor Arrested for after Brawl and Death Threats in the Council Chamber'. But, no, not a mention in East End Lies!

And what of the illegally hung portrait of the Führer Mayor in Brick Lane - where the planning Application was never granted and the Banner swiftly removed after unprecedented opposition. Not even a back column mention.

Clearly these newsworthy events were of a type that Mayor Lutfur Rahman and his multicultural quislings consider politically too damaging to the Mayor's image. Honest News from Tower Hamlets Council will have to wait until honest people take the helm - and write the log.

Category: , ,

Lutfur Rahman - a step too far

Posted on | Monday, 21 May 2012 | No Comments

Left Futures, describes itself as dedicated to socialism and democracy but endorses derogatory reporting, calling a respected Tower Hamlets' Councillor a 'gay Jew', and comfortably aligning itself with the belief that biased reporting and censoring out criticism of its political drivel is all part of left wing democratic principles. Take a look at this article, published on the 19th May, and lapped up and Tweeted by Tower Hamlets' Mayor Lutfur Rahman, 'Time for Ed to apply the lessons of Bradford to Tower Hamlets'.

It seethes with the dogma of personal abuse and ignorance. And to make matters worse it moderated out critical comment. Here's their response to my comment:

.....Your comment at Left Futures is abusive and will not be published.


This is rich from an article labelling a Councillor as a gay Jew. Like me, you may ask yourself why make issue of sexual orientation and religious belief? would a celibate Christian or a heterosexual Muslim carry the same prejudiced undercurrent?  Against this offensive piece of 'journalism', what did I say that they considered so abusive....just this:


"An inept, bigoted article that has found a follower in a similarly minded (here today, gone tomorrow) politician".

Hardly abusive in my humble view, critical yes, but 'abusive' no, and definitely not by their own low standards. No surprise that Lutfur Rahman's own publication, East End Lies, suffers from a similar aversion to criticism.

It's interesting, and potentially explosive to note that Mayor Rahman applauds through Twitter this article, labelling one of his own Councillors as a gay Jew! And this from a man gripping an anti-racism gun with a feather trigger!

Thank goodness for the open debate of blogs, and the freedom a good spanking allows us through Tweeting the truth.








Category: ,

Grave concerns over the electoral process in Tower Hamlets

Posted on | Tuesday, 24 April 2012 | No Comments



In a letter I received from the Department for Communities and Local Government dated 11 April, a spokesperson stated, ‘Ministers in this department certainly have grave concerns over the upkeep of the electoral roll in Tower Hamlets’. However they then proceeded to wash its hands of any responsibility stating, ‘Ministers hope that recent allegations will be taken seriously and appropriate action is taken by the Council, the Electoral Commission and (if appropriate) the police’.

How then do we deal with the latest scenario affecting the bi-election in the Tower Hamlets Ward of Spitalfields and Banglatown?

The issue on this occasion focuses on the abuse of Postal Voting

On the day following the bi-election (Friday) I requested details of postal returns and was promised these would be emailed to me by the end of the day; unfortunately nothing arrived. It turns out all the departmental staff were told they could leave early (by 3:30pm) as they had worked so late to cover the bi-election the previous day. So be it - it meant I had to wait over the weekend before I could access the data available to the general public.

The Manager at Electoral Services finally returned my numerous telephone calls on Monday afternoon to say the information I requested would be emailed to me by 4pm that day. And here is the information I finally received:

Name of Candidate Number of Votes
BLAKE, Kirsty
Green Party 99

MACMILLAN, Richard Alan
Liberal Democrats 39

ROBBANI, Gulam
Independent 1,030 (Elected)

SMITH, Matthew James
Conservative Party 140

UDDIN, Ala
The Labour Party         987

Electorate: 7356  Ballot Papers Issued:  2,312 Turnout:  31.43  %

Number of envelopes returned (956) divided by number of postal votes issued and not cancelled (1418) = 67.42% return

Number of rejected envelopes (135) divided by number of envelopes returned (956) = 14.12% rejected.

Reasons for Rejections

No Signature 0
No Date of Birth 1
No Signature and No DOB 5
Signature No Match 72
DOB No Match 30
Signature and DOB No Match 17
Valid PVS - No BP 7
Ballot Paper - No PVS 3


My understanding of the process is that all votes – polled and posted – are scanned into the council’s files by the end of the polling day, albeit that is involves working into the early hours of the following day. Once scanned and counted the completed polling forms are held in a secure polling box. It’s unclear whether rejected voting papers are also retained.

With regards processing postal votes, they are opened and checked for completeness and accuracy; this includes the Voting Paper and Polling Vote Statement (PVS). Valid postal votes are then added to the polling station votes to be counted. Unfortunately no record is maintained of whether a vote for a particular candidate is received by post or polling station – I believe this is a weakness. For example we have no record of the postal votes received for a particular candidate. Further we have no record of the rejected votes received for a particular candidate.

It’s disappointing that it takes so long to extract basic information from what, let’s face it, was a small bi-election with a small turnout. It’s also disappointing that we cannot scrutinise invalid submissions to establish which candidates they related to, or how many were rejected. This should surely be part of the due diligence embedded in the process.

Of greater concern than the reject rate of postal votes (14% compared to 0.7% for polling station votes) is the stark fact that 41% of votes cast were postal votes. That’s a huge percentage. We have to keep in mind that postal voting is stripped of the key controls administered by polling stations, e.g., there is no control to either prevent duress or enforce secrecy. Refer to Andrew Gilligan’s article; it provides potentially incriminating evidence, and sufficient grounds one would think, for a criminal investigation into the abuse of postal voting. Notwithstanding this, postal voting was essentially intended for those unable to get to the polling station. Are we to believe that 41% of those who voted in Spitalfields and Banglatown were unable to get to any of the three polling stations?!

The Electoral Commission does state that a person on the electoral roll does not need to state a reason for preferring to vote by post, however it goes on to say, voting by post is an easy and convenient way of voting ‘if you are unable to get to the polling station’. In my humble opinion this is a clear abuse of the postal voting facility.

As I mentioned earlier, no record is maintained to show whether a vote for a particular candidate is received by post or polling station. At this stage we don’t know how many of the 1,030 votes cast for Gulam Robbani were postal. This is important in light of the foregoing, i.e., the postal votes should roughly match the proportionality of the overall vote distribution.A significant deviation would be a Red Flag in anyone’s book. Further, we have no record of the rejected votes received for a particular candidate and the same argument applies.

I am assuming a ‘probe’ ordered by the Council's returning officer will scrutinise this data. However, to cover the unlikely possibility it doesn’t, I’m calling for it under a FoI request. I am also requesting appropriate action is taken by the Electoral Commission and (if appropriate) the police.



Category: , , , , ,

Evening Standard reports Tower Hamlets forced to remove names from Electoral Roll including one at address of Mayor Lutfur Rahman

Posted on | Friday, 23 March 2012 | No Comments

In today's Evening Standard (Friday 23 March 2012) a half page spread by Simon Freeman reports the findings of the Electoral Commission into claims of voting fraud in Tower Hamlets.

The review by Adrian Green, Regional Manager of the Electoral Register for London, found the council had a 'very thorough approach to trying to ensure the integrity and completeness and accuracy of the register'. And Aman Dalvi, the borough's Acting CEO and Returning Officer is reported as saying the Commission's report was an endorsement of the borough's practices and would help to reassure residents and help put a stop to the unfounded allegations which could have undermined confidence in the democratic process within the Borough..

This is all rather confusing when we then read that the council were today forced to remove 127 names from the electoral roll following the Commission's review. Like anyone else reading this article, I'm reading it as a statement of fact not rumour. Similarly with the paper's revelation, 'Tower Hamlets had to remove one mystery resident listed at the home address of its mayor, Lutfur Rahman''. It goes on to state that in the council's own follow-up probe, 3 of 5 properties identified by the Evening Standard as being suspect had the number of registered voters cut. As I say, these are no longer accusations by the newspaper, they are being reported as fact and accordingly have serious consequences, particularly for Lutfur Rahman who had on 3 March 2012 declared in both the  'itspolitical' and 'Huffington Post' web sites:-

'I would simply remind politicians who have hopped upon this particular bandwagon, that following complaints of voter fraud in the 2010 General Election, investigating police failed to find a single case in our borough. Council officers vigorously check any suspicious registrations and take people off the electoral register where deemed necessary'. 

So, I'm reading the, 'very thorough approach ...'  has revealed serious failings. A point Aman Dalvi prefers to hide under the guise of process. 

As Cllr Golds has stressed, its time the Police thoroughly investigate how these names were registered, and take decisive action in recommending prosecution where appropriate. 



Category: , , ,

Concerns surface as Tower Hamlets Council deliberate an Electoral Review

Posted on | Sunday, 11 March 2012 | No Comments

Earlier this year, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) consulted with Tower Hamlets Council on the most appropriate Council size for the Borough, i.e., the preferred number of Councillors to serve on the Council. This was only a preliminary review, and will soon be followed by consultations on Ward boundaries and representation.

I only accidently stumbled on news of this significant development while checking the forthcoming by-election plans for Spitalfields and Banglatown. 

My primary concern here is the lack of transparency coupled with the fact that these consultations run contrary to central government’s commitment towards devolving power down to the electorate. They – you and I, the electorate - should have been advised these consultation were taking place from the outset. It is totally unacceptable to announce that there will be a period of public consultation later this month, as we are now advised, when Councillors have already submitted their preferences to the LGBCE!

The Governments White Paper on Open Public Services was only published last July and in its second Principle it states: power should be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level – the electorate.  The same theme was enacted in the Localism Bill with its ‘bottom up’ rights to give local people the chance to take on powers that have previously only been exercised by local authorities. And then there is the maligned Nolan Principles of Transparency; who in council has ever applied these? So why weren’t we advised?

Our Councillors, to summarise from Tower Hamlets web site, have already submitted the following proposals on council size:-

Mayor of Tower Hamlets:  45 councillors
Cllr Rofique Uddin Ahmed (Independent): 45
Labour Group:  51
Cllrs Khales Uddin Ahmed and Helal Uddin (Lab):  51
Conservative Group:  42
Cllr Stephanie Eaton (LD): 38
You can read their respective arguments for these numbers here.

With all but the Labour Party proposing the number of councillors be reduced, shouldn’t we have been notified? In fact, the consensus view of those proposing a reduction is that each Ward be reduced to 2 councillors. Using December 2011 figures giving a Borough electoral base of 172,072, this computes to 3374 electors/councillor based on 51 councillors and an alarming 5000+ electors/councillor based on just 34.  Frankly, neither figure comes remotely close to an effective representation.

One final concern, and you may have already spotted this, is that the LGBCE site shows that a 7th proposal was received (the Tower Hamlets site shows only 6 as above). This was from 5 Labour councillors who have declared they do not support the official Labour proposal and have instead aligned themselves with that submitted by Lutfur Rahman! Were any of these decisions reached after consultations with the electorate?



Category: , ,

Strange Happenings on Lutfur Rahman's Twitter links..

Posted on | Saturday, 10 March 2012 | No Comments

On the 3 March 2012, Lutfur Rahman made this Tweet:

Lutfur Rahman ‏ @MayorLutfur
My response to the Evening Standard http://bit.ly/wwpEp5

The link pointed to the site 'itsPolitical.co.uk' where his blog, dated 2 March, appeared under the title, 'Lutfur Rahman: In Response to the Evening Standard'. It was this Tweet that alerted me to check his comments at 'itsPolitical.co.uk' and make my own comment on the site. If you go to this originally linked site now, you will see his blog entry together with 2 damning comments, one from myself.

The strange thing is, on checking back to this original Tweet, it now reads:

Lutfur Rahman ‏ @MayorLutfur 
My response to the Evening Standard alturl.com/gnxoy

Note that the link address is now different, no longer linking to 'itsPolitical.co.uk' but instead linking to 'huffingtonpost.co.uk' where the two original comments have disappeared to be replaced by less damning comments.

How is this possible? Is it perhaps possible to make retro changes to old Tweets? The answer is no - unless they are hacked. (Like this post, notice that the time stamp is missing - clue to a clumsy hack) 

p.s.  Coincidentally, a related earlier blog entry on this site has also disappeared.  

Category: , ,

Electoral Review of Tower Hamlets - Lutfur Rahman's Warded Communities!

Posted on | Friday, 9 March 2012 | No Comments

In his Electoral Review Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE), Lutfur Rahman wastes no time in revealing his understanding of what community means to him, i.e., community identity is represented by ‘strong ward boundaries that reflect communities’.

So, given that by ‘community’ he accepts the commonly held definition that it means to have a common cultural and historical heritage, we are left with the realisation that he intends ring fencing Tower Hamlets’ communities based on ethnicity. Should we therefore expect his revised Ward boundary recommendations to support, e.g., a Cockney Ward perhaps, or a Jewish one, or why not a Bangladeshi one? Is this his understanding of multiculturalism? His master class in multiculturalism would need to be supported by a housing policy restricting applications to those sharing the ethnicity of the appropriate Ward, and the same would apply to schooling of course; there would be no place for a young cockney sparrow in a Bangladeshi warded school nor any cross ward blending of cultures.

Is this what we want? Are we aware that this is where we may be taken? This is not integration – it’s the frightening opposite; segregated communities. Don’t let it happen! 

Category: , , ,

Ken Livingstone receives the Kiss of Death from Mayor Lutfur Rahman

Posted on | Sunday, 4 March 2012 | No Comments

My response to Lutfur Rahman's rather pathetic attempt to counter comments made in the London Evening Standard (LES). He used the itspolitical.co.uk web site to respond, as he says the LES refused to accept his response. I'm posting this here while awaiting moderation clearance from itspolitical.co.uk  More here: http://bit.ly/zacNqm

'east-end-lies' Huzzah! And well said! But it barely scratches the surface of 'his' borough's festering malaise. How unfortunate we are to have a mayor who decided to 'go into' politics, rather than one prepared to devote himself to public service. Our borough deserves a finer thread than him weaving into its rich history.

I'm sure we all understand the parapraxis of 'to represent all the diverse communities', rather than, 'integrate the diverse ethnic mix'. We don't want diverse communities being represented; we want a single integrated community. Calling himself a Bangladeshi Mayor doesn't help; Mayor (albeit a 12.5% Mayor) is entirely adequate.

The Cabinet, now there's a topic worth highlighting. In a Council where Labour holds a 63% majority, his Cabinet consists 60% Independents and a mere 40% Labour, thus transforming the majority in the council chamber into the opposition. And if that weren't enough, the 'Mayor' retains sole executive power to make decisions. Demolition of democracy? - you decide.  Hardly surprising he is under sustained attack.

Mr 'Mayor', history should tell you that Tower Hamlets has weathered the contradictions of wealth and poverty for over a 1,000 years, every since the Tower of London was built - a resented symbol of oppression, inflicted upon the hamlet by the then new ruling elite. Canary Wharf is the Tower in today's world. But the difference is that we now live in a free capitalist society where the benefits of capital, trade and entrepreneurship must become open to all; that's the challenge, to seek to strengthen the links between local individuals, organisations and communities that create social capital. We need action not worthless politicising platitudes.

Some of our schools may well outperform others academically, but academic excellence is a questionable achievement when it is borne out of a segregated schooling system. Ofsted confirms that many of our schools consist of over 80% Bangladeshi students - this is not an integrated schooling system. We should be integrating minority ethnic cultures into our wider community and national culture, not the reverse. These are not the statistics a 'Mayor' ought to be blowing his own trumpet about.

On the question of voter fraud, this case has certainly not been closed. The Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, Minister for Housing and Local Government has recently called for an investigation into accusations that Tower Hamlets Electoral Roll has been rigged. As well as this he has been asked to carry out an independent case review into how the jailed Cllr Shelina Akhtar - a convicted fraudster and social housing tenant, was allocated social housing.

I hope sufficient light is being shed on the darker side of someone 'going into politics' under the guise of representing Tower Hamlets' interests.

Category: , ,

An Evening with the Spitalfields Community Group

Posted on | Friday, 2 March 2012 | No Comments

I was given the heads-up to attend the 1 March 2012 meeting of the Spitalfields Community Group as Rushanara Ali, MP for Tower Hamlets, was to attend.  It presented an opportunity to raise the issue of Brick Lane (sic) and other heritage concerns including the demolition threat to the Fruit and Wool Exchange.

The Community Group has a sincere enough aim - 'to promote and protect the rights and amenities of those who live or work in Spitalfields and/or own property in Spitalfields'. And it certainly can't be challenged in its ability to attract major political players. When Rushanara Ali finally arrived, she was greeted by fellow Labour Party faithfuls, John Biggs the London Assembly Member (City and East Constituency),  and Joshua Peck, Labour Group Leader at Tower Hamlets’ Council.  All in all, one would think, a suitably well qualified panel to hear our concerns and answer our questions. The panel was chaired by John Nicholson on behalf of the Community Group (although he introduced John Biggs as the Chair, Mr Nicholson – to the bafflement of John Biggs – actually chaired the meeting himself).

A suitably well qualified panel? I’m not so sure as while the assembly was kept waiting for the local MP to arrive I began to question the need for such an event in the first place. The fact that any community considers it necessary to form such a group must challenge the effectiveness of our current system of local government, which presupposes local Councillors will fulfil the functions such groups are set up to deal with. This thought further alarmed me when I realised there were no local Councillors on the panel.

The first couple of questions from the floor concerned licencing laws, substance abuse and law and order.  Clearly major concerns to the community and more pressing than my question about tarmac being laid in Brick Lane. 

Undaunted by my lesser issue, I took the floor next and asked the panel how we could best represent our concerns to Council when the panelists themselves are in opposition - at Local, Assembly and National level? How could they effectively represent us when the majority (Labour) party is considered the opposition and the Executive is one man, Lutfur Rahman, wielding autocratic power?  

I asked why there wasn't a local Councillor present, even if the remaining two local Councillors aren't obviously part of the Executive's sycophantic inner circle. After a puzzled look from the panelists someone pointed to a sheepish fellow in the back row who turned out to be Anwar Khan, Labour Councillor for Bow West. So, no show from either Councillor Helal Uddin Abbas, who holds the Chair at the Council's Development/Strategic Development Committee, or from the mysterious local Councillor Fozol Miah. 

Let me just spend a moment to highlight the significance of this. Of Spitalfields three absentee local Councillors, one is in jail for benefit fraud, one (Fozol Miah) has a 70% absentee record at Council with a 100% no show as a member on the all important Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and the third, Councillor Helal Uddin Abbas - the one sitting on probably the most relevant Committee, didn't see fit to attend. So the Group's representation channel through local Councillors would seem tenuous at best. But the problem runs deeper than this. The invited MP, Rushanara Ali, as a career politician has little time for representing local concerns. She is currently part of the shadow team for the Department for International Development and much of her time is spent shouldering this responsibility - although she did in fact find time to vote against her own party's anti-terrorism laws. Of the 4 Early Day Motions she participated in during 2011, one was related to Kenya, one Sudan and one Egypt.

It was very gracious of John Biggs to attend, but he also had little to contribute. The MP for her part, in one of the few exchanges with a resident, refuted she had ever seen correspondence sent to her from him - the Chairman of the Spitalfields Market group and continued to droll on in an acquired parliamentary style of humdrum platitudes offering no encouragement to the assembled audience. Only Joshua Peck provided any hope by stating the points he would follow-up.

By the time the session closed at 9pm, only Joshua Peck went away with a mission of sorts. Although John Nicholson attempted to create an awareness of the heritage issues in the Ward, it basically fell on deaf ears. I left feeling that little had been achieved on any front and that our dependence on the present system of democratic representation was no longer fit for purpose. If the Spitalfields Community Group is to achieve its admirable aims, I would humbly suggest it focuses on using e-Petitioning in the interim, rather than lobby career politicians with their concerns – at least until a more effective and reliable system of local government can be delivered.

Category: , , , ,

Tower Hamlets and the Councillor Achievement Awards 2012

Posted on | Monday, 27 February 2012 | No Comments

The venerable Mayor Rahman was reported in the 23 February edition of Docklands & East London Advertiser to have nominated one of his close Cabinet allies, Clltr Rania Khan for a prestigious LGiU award. 

On the day, she didn't win any award. The national winners are shown here http://bit.ly/yvSYxD

That this nomination happened at all just doesn't sit well with me. For a start, anyone - Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer, Peter Gurney, Peter Davy, Dan'l Whiddon, Harry Hawke, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all can submit a nomination. I'm not sure the general public are aware of this. If they were, maybe we would have seen more nominations from among the 50 Councillors representing Tower Hamlets. But as it was, Lutfur Rahman decided to single out just one Councillor, from his own Cabinet and a close Independent ally, for nomination. (With only a small Independent team to choose from he should count himself lucky he didn't choose the jailbird).

Did he announce and justify his nomination to the full Council? Was his chosen one selected for work in the community or to give kudos to his own political image? 

He certainly made sure his personal nomination was gazetted in the local press. East End Life splashed news of the nomination across the page coupled with a column headed, 'Councillor up for Award'. The Docklands & East London Advertiser took a more cynical approach with 'Politician up for Anti-Sex Club Award'.




Category: , ,

Why was Jailed Cllr Shelina Akhtar allocated Social Housing

No Comments

Tower Hamlets' Cllr Peter Golds has quite rightly raised the question of how a woman with no known housing need could jump approximately 23,000 other claimants on the local housing list. The list is based on the Housing Act 1996 and managed through a 4 Band system of prioritisation (http://bit.ly/zlpfrm). It would also be helpful to know which Band Cllr Akhtar was registered under.

Cllr Akhtar, who is now classified as a criminal, is still officially a Tower Hamlets Councillor and member of Lutfur Rahmans inner circle of Independents members.

Like Cllr Golds, we are waiting for a response. The longer we wait the graver becomes our concern. The response needs to come from the Mayor himself. I would press Cllr Golds and other Councillors, to raise this issue regularly until it is answered to the satisfaction to the constituents in Tower Hamlets.

Category: , ,

Minister Calls for Enquiry into Tower Hamlets' Electoral Role

No Comments

The news that a local Government Minister has called for a new enquiry into Tower Hamlets' electoral roll is encouraging for those who have been demanding an investigation into vote rigging. Absent from those calling for action has been - guess - Tower Hamlets Council. Now that's worrying, when the Government Minister responsible, both local MP's, the London Assembly Member, and local Labour and Conservative party leaders all join resolutely in airing their concern. The Council for its part responded by saying that it refuted suggestions that voter fraud is rife. One would have thought that a Council whose reputation had already been seriously damaged by the fraudulent antics of ex Councillor and Deputy Council Leader Manzila Uddin, and jailing of Councillor Shelina Akhtar for fraud, would adopt a somewhat more circumspect position. Not so, their attitude is defensive where it ought to be grave concern and agreement with those calling for an investigation. The Council's failure to robustly acknowledge that there is an issue further erodes our trust in the integrity of their current leadership.

Mind you, calling for an investigation is still some way short of getting it underway. All those united to see this happen need to ensure pressure is maintained on Central Government as a matter of urgency as local elections are only months away  

Category: , ,

A Call for Action Following the Defacement of Brick Lane

Posted on | Sunday, 26 February 2012 | No Comments

Tower Hamlets' Council, as we now all know now, have defaced Brick Lane. We are not going to let it rest.
The issues are threefold; (1) an autocratic decision by Lutfur Rahman to tarmac Brick Lane in the face of local opposition, (2) a partisan publication promoting the political agenda of Tower Hamlets’ executive management, whilst excluding the voice of those opposing the Council’s actions, and (3) – linked to (2) – the lack of any cohesive representation to spearhead and publicise public objection.
Let’s firstly address the total lack of editorial integrity shown by the Editor of East End Life, Ms Loraine Clay in gazetting the pro tarmac articles by both Rahman and Rennie in the same issue, while omitting any reference to significant local objection. This, coupled with her refusal to respond to my own request for an explanation illustrates the paper’s shabby editorial oversight. We should not be deceived into believing this pretence for a newspaper is ‘by the people, for the people’; it is not. It is in reality simply a political vehicle for Tower Hamlets Council which as we know is itself a conduit used by the Mayor, Lutfur Rahman to promote his political aspirations and agenda. Until there are major changes to the editorial staff we can pretty much assume East End Life won’t effectively represent the views of those objecting. To the contrary, the paper can be expected to give bad press to any efforts made in challenging the Council’s tarmac decision. So we can assume East End Life will not be covering our endeavours in any supportive way. Better the devil you know as they say.
I don’t underestimate the great work everyone has done so far in objecting through blog comments, but we need to be a great deal more proactive, on and off the Internet. For example, I recommend we make better use of social networking to promote our cause as we’ve established that we don’t have the luxury of a tax payer funded sycophantic publication to support our case. Consistent use of Twitter, Facebook and a raft of complimentary social networking tools to publicise our case and gain support will potentially be more effective than the occasional item in the local press anyway – it simply needs organising in a disciplined way.
That being said, what other avenues are available to us to represent our cause? Well, we should formally approach the Councillors for the Ward of Spitalfields and Banglatown. Regrettably with one in jail, that only leaves two, namely Councillor Helal Uddin Abbas (Labour) http://bit.ly/zVNXBy and Councillor Fozol Miah (Respect) http://bit.ly/zwxSKo. I recommend we write an open letter to both expressing our concern and outlining our argument for reinstating original cobbles in Brick Lane.
Next we should arrange for a Petition to be signed by residents and businesses in Brick Lane and this petition formally handed to both Councillors, ideally with photographs of the event to publicise the presentation through our social networking channels.
Last but certainly not least important will be a public show of strength, and this means an orderly demonstration in Brick Lane with the consent of residents. Again photographed and networked. We can make this work without, or in spite of, the press.
To summarise I’m recommending:
(1) Build an effective Social Network presence branded as, e.g., #BrickLane
(2) Write to Spitalfields and Banglatown Councillors
(3) Organise and present a Petition
(4) Make a public show of strength to support our case
No progress will be made unless we push ahead with these or similar actions. My time is available to help. If others are prepared to step up to the line and get involved, please do so and let’s set the project up in a constructive way.
On a final note, regarding John Rennie, we oughtn’t to hold our breath for him to honour his promise. The last entry he made to his own web site, which few, if any read – eastlondonhistory – was on 7 December 2011!

Category: , ,

Tower Hamlets’ dismantled democracy – where the majority is the opposition

Posted on | Saturday, 25 February 2012 | No Comments

Events that unfolded during the Council’s 2012/13 Budget review, on Wednesday 22 February 2012, revealed the blatant misuse of power and the depths we have blindly allowed ourselves to sink to in accepting a dysfunctional democratic process.

Midway through the proceedings, shortly after the leader of the Conservatives, Peter Gold raised an issue of probity which challenged the council’s adherence to the Nolan principles of transparency, a surprise request for an ‘Emergency Amendment’ was tabled by the Independent member Cllr Alibor Choudhury  (Cabinet Member for Resources).  It proposed cutting the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) provided to Peter Gold, by some £5,000 pa. A paltry amount you may think, when the council was deliberating a £1.3billion budget.

Below is a copy of the Motion, with my notes added in italics. It refers repeatedly to the ‘Report from the Independent Panel on the Remuneration of Councillors in London’, published October 2006.

Motion – Independent Amendment: Additional savings and income opportunities
Proposer: Cllr Alibor Choudhury
Seconder: Cllr Aminur Khan

This Council Notes:

1. On SRA’s:
a) There are currently two levels of SRA’s for the leaders of groups with over 6 Councillors: The leader of a group with 6 members receives £5,531 pa, whilst the leader of a group with 7 or more councillors receives £10,174 pa (These arrangements do not include the leader of the majority group, who receives an SRA at the same level as a Cabinet Member).
         
Choudhury, or his boy adviser Landin, has the facts wrong from the start. The two levels are not for groups with over 6 Councillors, the first level is for groups, ‘up to 6 Councillors’. A minor point but they need to get their facts right.

b) Currently there is only 1 group in Council with over 6 Councillors.

Technically wrong again, as there are 2, Labour (with 32) and the Conservatives (with7); whether Labour is a majority or not, it’s a group in terms of the Motion. Now this is interesting, as they do not consider the Independent Councillors a group, and are accordingly referring in b) to the Conservatives only.

c) That the leader of this group’s SRA is £10,174 over and above the basic allowance of £10,065.

Referring to the SRA being ‘over and above the basic allowance’ is provocative as all SRA’s are payments made in excess of the basic allowance.

d) This is higher than the recommended level by the Independent panel on the remuneration of Councillors in London or £2,368 to £8,852

Indeed it is, and the Council approved and adopted the higher payments through the Members’ Allowances Scheme less than a year ago - on 13 April, 2011 – 5 years after the panel’s recommendations were published. This established the following SRA’s:
·         Leader of the Majority Group on the Council: £12,658 (i.e Labour)
·         Leader of any other Group with over 6 Councillors:  £10,174 (i.e., Conservatives)
·         Leader of any Group with up to 6 Councillors (subject to having at least 10% of the Council):   £5,531

For reference, the Independent panel recommended 5 Bands and the figures given by Cllr Choudhury  are taken from Band 1 (Leader of second or smaller opposition group).

e) This is far higher than in comparative boroughs Lewisham and Newham, where the SRA is £5,275 and £3,621

Entirely irrelevant, as any comparative analysis would need to take into account a far more complex sampling.

This Council Believes:

1. On SRAs:

a. The two tiered system is unnecessary and not supported by the Independent Panel’s recommendation.

The Council applied the two tiered system on 13 April, 2011 as part of the Members’ Allowances Scheme in full knowledge of the Independent Panel’s earlier recommendations.

This Council Resolves:

1. On SRAs:

a. To bring the SRA of the leader of any group other than the majority group inline with the recommendations of the Independent Panel and other comparative Councils.
b. That this level of SRA should be the same level as for a Committee Chair, at £5,531. This would create a saving of £4,643.

Cllr Choudhury has cherry picked from the Independent Panel’s recommendations. Should the Council have applied all the Panel’s recommendations, the leader of the Conservatives, Peter Gold should receive an SRA of between £14,418 and £26,609, i.e., under Band 2 as the leader of the Principle Opposition Group. And here is the crux issue that this slimy motion has revealed. In a constitutional sense (parliamentary constitutional conventions) a party/group cannot be both in a majority and at the same time in opposition. The Council has already accepted that the Labour Party is the Majority Group in Council (63%); it cannot therefore be the Principle Opposition Group at the same time. As the Conservatives are the next largest party/group after Labour, they logically and constitutionally become the Principle Opposition Group. Hence warranting a Band 2 SRA leader’s allowance.

The cunning Cllr Choudhury has been hoisted by his own petard and in so doing has highlighted a serious constitutional crisis at Tower Hamlets’ government. This has been the installation of an autocratic Executive Mayor with the authority to overrule an elected council chamber, including his own Cabinet, (see here). It is Mayor Lutfur Rahman who has turned a majority party/group into the opposition. Tower Hamlets’ Government, if we can call it that, is where the majority party is in opposition to just one man – Lutfur Rahman. Aren’t these the politics of a third world dictatorship?

A further example of the misuse of power was demonstrated by Lutfur Rahman in his ridicule of the Conservative’s amendments to the 2012/13 Budget. After spending time explaining his reasons for agreeing to Labour’s amendments, he picked up the Conservative’s amendments, dramatically motioned as if throwing it away, and said simply non of their amendments were accepted. It’s worth noting that of the 17 Councillors who attended the earlier 8 February 2012 Cabinet meeting to discuss the 2012/13 Budget, non were Conservative.

In my humble view Lutfur Rahman and his ‘Independent’ followers must expect to suffer the very serious consequences of undermining the integrity and process of our constitutional system. It won’t be enough for central Government to intervene and restore a democratic Cabinet, and remove Rahman’s executive powers. Lutfur Rahman must also be removed from ever taking public office for his blatant misuse of power in dismantling the democratic process; power unwisely entrusted to him by the people of this borough. 

Category: , , ,

Update on the Controversy Surrounding Brick Lane

Posted on | Wednesday, 22 February 2012 | No Comments

Tower Hamlets Council, through there publicity vehicle, East End Life, support their decision to tarmac Brick Lane with the statement, 'The irony is that the 'traditional' surface of Brick Lane in centuries past is far likelier to have been hard-packed mud than fancy granite setts'..

Historically wrong, and dangerously misleading. This philistine act of replacing an earlier attempt to recapture the look and feel of our past with tarmac is an insult to all those who care fervently about heritage. It's extraordinary that their limited research into our heritage didn't uncover this photograph and others corroborating a cobbled surface - readily available in their own (underfunded) Local History Library and Archives. At best a sloppy oversight...

The photograph was taken in 1895

Update 23 February 2011
In response to the article in East End Life, I wrote to The Editor:


'Dear Ms Clay

I refer to the above article by John Rennie in your current edition (20 - 26 February 2012) of East End life.

It is both inaccurate and cynical. You will see that I have posted a photograph of Brick Lane circa 1985  at my blog; this clearly shows the street was originally cobbled well before tarmac was laid. Other photographs obtained from the same source - Tower Hamlets Local History and Archives - show connecting roads also laid in cobbles, corroborating the historical fact that the area as a whole was cobbled.

That your columnist was only able to refer to one photograph from Tower Hamlets Local History and Archives, and not those disproving his argument is cause for grave concern. As I have stated in my blog, this is at best sloppy investigative journalism.

Under the circumstances, I'm requesting that you issue an appropriate update and perhaps redrafting your story to account for the fact that the council recognises that they have laid tarmac on a street original laid in cobbles - and this against the wishes of the local community. Here then is the thrust of the issue - your paper, supporting the council's decision, run roughshod over local opinion and saw fit to ignore evidence contradicting the council's statement on Brick Lane's architectural heritage. It's dishonest reporting and lacks the integrity we so sorely need in our media. An apology please.'

She hasn't afforded me the courtesy of a reply; maybe she only responds to council communiques. However, my email was copied to John Rennie the journalist responsible, and here is his reply:

'Dear Grenville,
Thanks for your note. I'm not sure this is either inaccurate or cynical. My point isn't that the street was never cobbled - I don't actually say that - but that the setts that are being covered up aren't especially historical (dating from the 1990s), and that tarmac isn't especially modern. Personally, I like the cobbles, a point I make at the end of my piece ... I think it's a shame to cover them up, and my piece certainly isn't intended to be an apology for the council's love of tarmac. As for the picture - there's no great conspiracy there I can promise you, it was simply a picture I had to hand. Your point about older cobbles is of course an excellent one and well made. I have no control over what goes in East End Life but I will put your comments on the end of the piece when I publish it on my website eastlondonhistory.com.'

East London History? Draw your own conclusions. Never mind, the message here is clear, and one we already new. The paper lacks integrity - and under its present regime it's unlikely to represent the views of the community over the directives issued by the inner circle of the council.

ps In the same issue, Lutfur Rahman focused his column on Brick Lane too. He also conveniently ignored the historical fact that Brick Lane was originally cobbled. Referring at times to its 'tasty curries', 'quirky shopping' and naming it 'Curry Capital 2012', he placed little value on its heritage. In stating the estimated cost of re-laying cobbles (he says bricks but I hope he meant cobbles and understands the difference) he omitted to mention that TfL had partly funded this work. He goes on to say that the cost of ongoing repairs 'would not provide the tax payer with value for money' - a 101 phrase for career politicians unable to put together a sound argument in support of unpopular decisions. So, for someone who holds his position based on 13% of the Borough's vote, and a tax payers funded allowance of  £65,000/year, he talks of 'value for money'!  And, frankly who is he to tell us what price is to be paid for retaining our heritage. Wait, there's more, 'the tarmac will ensure Brick Lane remains a safe, exciting, and attractive place to visit'. Well, I suppose we ought to be replacing our historic cobbled streets nationwide in a sort of Rahman mania as they're all, on this basis, probably unsafe, unexciting and unattractive. His final learned words were, 'the tarmac will provide long lasting improvements'. Really? so tarmac will last longer than 300 year old cobbles with equally minimal maintenance, right?  

Category: , ,

Our Shameful 'Democracy'

Posted on | Sunday, 19 February 2012 | No Comments

Or how we meekly allow ourselves to be are governed by a minority in our community.

Tower Hamlets Council consists of 51 elected councillors, i.e.,

32 Labour (representing 63% of the full council)
9 Independent (17%)
7 Conservatives (14%)
2 Respect (4%)
1 Liberal Democrat (2%)

However, the council operates on a Cabinet form of executive decision making. This means that key decisions are made by a smaller executive - in the case of Tower Hamlets - 9 councillors selected by the Mayor from the above. However the Mayor retains sole executive power to make decisions within his Cabinet.

Now to the layman, a Cabinet selection would logically, and democratically be based broadly on the representation within the full Council, i.e., it would consist 6 Labour, 2 Independent and 2 Conservative. Am I right or wrong?

What we have in fact is a Cabinet, autocratically selected by an Executive Mayor, (himself representing only 13% of the local electorate) consisting of 6 Independent (his followers) and 4 Labour councillors!

Democracy? You decide...

Category: , ,

Search This Blog

Categories

Grenville Mills