Emdad Rahman’s blog has long been one of my favourites in Tower Hamlets. I first came across him when he took part in an excellent Tower Hamlets council organised school trip to Auschwitz about three years ago, an initiative which was designed to educate kids of all faiths the horrors of extremism.
Among many other things, he is the executive editor at the London Bangla newspaper. His interviewing style is not of the grilling kind, but he makes his subject relax and that’s a good thing.
On his blog, he has videoed three interviews with three of the mayoral candidates: Michael Keith’s is here; John Biggs is here and here; and Shiria Khatun is here. If you’re interested in the guff they’ve got to say, do spare the time when you have a chance. It’s interesting how all three of them, and not Emdad himself, raise faith issues. Shiria, in particular, boasts that she was Ken Livingstone’s “first Muslim adviser”, which seems a pretty bold claim. Silly me, I was under the impression that she was his “transport adviser”. I’ve made this point before, but aren’t the issues that affect people’s lives the same for all communities, regardless of faith? Why is a housing issue any different for an atheist than it is for a Christian or a Muslim?
Stick to those issues that we all have in common, forget the talk of religion…and we might just move towards the currently over-spun goal of ‘One Tower Hamlets’.
Anyhow, happy viewing…
Trial by Jeory 
You may be missing the point here regarding Shiria Khatun. She said “first female Muslim adviser on Transport” which probably is true. If not still you must be someone special to be selected as a government adviser as a female Muslim? Have some political clout? It really should not make a difference and I also fail to see how being female and Muslim would be an added bonus to the job of mayor but it does make her stand out of the crowd like it is important to point out that you are local.
I will take a look at the videos later, but I think there is an important point to be made regarding an elected mayor.
Regardless of how good (or how bad) the eventual Mayor turns out to be (irrespective of religion, gender, ethnicity even political party!), the scrutiny process needs to be established pretty quickly. It should be remembered that scrutiny is intended to act as checks and balances against an “over-enthusiastic” mayor, and not just a talking shop for backbenchers to give them the impression that they are involved in policy making – as is the case in Newham.
As far as directly elected mayors go, Newham is a good example of how not to do it.
Agreed on the scrutiny. Who is going to be responsible for establishing this process?