Earlier today, as I sat through David Cameron’s speech, I received two emails. The first urged me to come along to what was being billed as a “hustings” tonight for the Tower Hamlets mayoral election on October 21. And the second also made my heart sink. (I’ll deal with that in a separate post.)
After five days of Birmingham and Tories, I wasn’t sure I had the energy for the Tower Hamlets version of politics, but I shouldn’t have worried. The event described as a hustings was anything but. The organisers were Telco Citizens; it was held at St Mary’s and St Michael Roman Catholic Church in Stepney; and the audience – made up of Telco’s constituent groups including students from Queen Mary University, various churches, the East London Mosque and the Islamic Forum of Europe – numbered about 300, possibly more.
These Telco events are deliberately tame affairs. The candidates are invited onto the stage, or as it was tonight, the pulpit, and asked by a Telco member whether they agree with a Telco demand. The candidates are even briefed beforehand on what these demands are. So in answer to tonight’s five questions (will you as mayor meet with Telco twice a year; will you encourage employers to adopt the living wage; will you support subsidising criminal record checks; will you deliver 1,000 work experience placements in the council and other public organisations; and will you support the development of community land trusts as a way of boosting social housing), not one candidate uttered the word ‘no’.
As a way of strong-arming candidates into commitments, it was fabulous; as a spectacle for those of us who have grown use to Tower Hamlets tub-thumping, it was a touch too grown up.
However, each candidate was given a couple of minutes to say why they wanted to be mayor – and that’s when it became more interesting. Helal Abbas is many things, but a public speaker he is not. I’ve seen him many times on various council committees and his questioning is among the best at the town hall, but he’s never going to be one to raise the roar of a crowd. And so it was tonight. Abbas did not want an elected mayoral. system and his argument seemed to be that because the borough has two Labour MPs, there was also a need for a Labour mayor.
Lutfur Rahman, meanwhile, was a revelation. When he was town hall leader, he often struggled for coherence in his council chamber speeches and regularly came across as somewhat plastic and nervous. Now that the Labour shackles have been removed, he seems to have found a voice and real fire in his belly. Tonight, he actually bellowed and shouted at his audience – and his supporters, including many in the IFE section, clapped and cheered. Perhaps he’s been watching George Galloway videos.
While the style may have been good, the substance was disingenuous at best. He said that as council leader, he had “delivered” on housing, that he had delivered 1,500 affordable homes. “What Labour failed to do in 13 years, I did in two years,” he said. Puzzlingly, he even claimed credit for the changes that have yet to fully happen (and which were developed well before his leadership) on the Ocean estate. He also claimed the saving of the Bancroft History Library and Archives in 2008 was his work, when in fact he was the one who proposed selling off the building and he only changed his mind after a campaign spearheaded by the East London Advertiser, as detailed on this hugely popular Downing Street petition here. And he then claimed the credit for developing plans to save Poplar Baths, when in fact those plans were drawn up, practically single-handedly by deputy council leader Joshua Peck. I know politicians have a tendency to re-write history, but come on….
And then something miraculous happened outside the church: Lutfur spoke to me. I asked him whether he’d had any media training and he said, “No, I’m just an East End boy, I really care.” I invited him to write a piece for this blog and he has agreed and I should have it by the end of the week. In return, he invited me to have dinner with him “after this campaign is over”.
What about during the campaign, I asked? No, he said. Detailed questions are what he wants to avoid, right now.
Trial by Jeory 
Lutfurs writing a piece- Mark Francis more like!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’ve always voted Labour, but the point of a directly elected Mayor is to have a figurehead, an advocate for the borough who will speak out on our behalf.
Abbas? Don’t make me laugh…he could hardly string a sentence together.
I went into this feeling pretty sure I’d back whoever was the Labour candidate but now it’s definitely Lutfur Rahman all the way.
You come on Mr Ted, Mr Pack may be your friend but truth is Poplar Bath Steering group became sick and tired attending meetings after meeting with no hope. Mr Pack put as many red tape as possible in his two years term, group only had hope when they approached the leader directly, ask the Chair. She is genuine, decent and reasonable lady, will not be surprised if she is called fundamentalist link.
Ted, stop picking on Lutfur Rahman and your disingenuous biased reporting! Is it because you support Abbas and are looking for every opportunity to attack Lutfur? Come on do us all a favour and do some serious reporting that is unbiased and without your own political prejudice!
I guess your article also proves the point that Abbas isnt going to make a great leader if he cant even speak properly!
I hope Abbas doesnt get into power or he will end up being a puppet for the Labour leadership. TH will be “ethnicly cleansed” of working class people and public land property will continue to be sold off to housing associations and the 23,000 overcrowing will continue to spiral!
Josh Peck is also known try to take credit for other people’s work. He once tried it in a meeting in Bow which I attended on the Malmesbury Estate. He tried to claim the window replacement program that was happening on the estate was his work and tried to take the credit. The secretary of the community centre and TRA got up and corrected Josh Peck by saying it was the TRA and that he as the secretary lodged the bid for the window replacement program and worked with the LBTH major works department and that Josh Peck did not have any input in this.
It’s interesting that after the TELCO hustings it’s said that Lutfur proposed to sell Bancroft library. I think it’s well known that isn’t true.
I’d advise people to visit the following website: http://www.savebancroftlibrary.org.uk/id9.html# . You’ll see the proposed sale began in December 2007 and Lutfur became Leader in May 2008.
So Cllr Denise Jones who was Leader at the time should have been cited. I wonder why this bit of information was left out.
I remember the campaign, and yes the East London Advertiser played a part, but we shouldn’t forget the efforts of the Bancroft Library Campaign group.
They went to great lengths to organise the community and ensure Lutfur and his administration listened and acted in the interests of the borough and its people.
I actually spoke to members of the campaign group yesterday. They were very concerned about S106 money (recently allocated to the library for improvements works) going missing – we’re not sure if it’s been diverted to the controversial Rich Mix Centre or the planned (rail roaded) Idea Store in Watney Market. Anyway, I think it’ll be helpful if we concentrate on getting the library restored to its former glory instead of putting out inaccurate stories that give cover to people who want to run the building into the ground so they have the perfect excuse to flog it.
Alibor, you make a good point that plans to sell Bancroft to Queen Mary were initiated long before Lutfur became leader; in fact, it’s likely that they came across Lutfur’s desk while he was cabinet member for culture in 2006. I agree that Denise Jones and Josh Peck were more heavily involved in those sell-off plans, but let’s not rewrite history here.
Here’s the relevant passage from the Save Bancroft campaign website. And I’m copying it here:
SPRING, 2008
Queen Mary University had attempted to buy Bancroft Library in 1990, as reported in the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER – ( read it here). In 2008, as the negotiations between Queen Mary University and Tower Hamlets Council are being finalised, the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER again discovers the plan to ‘dispose’ of Bancroft Library to Queen Mary University. In advance of a Council Cabinet Meeting decision, scheduled for 30 July 2008, the ADVERTISER’s reporter TED JEORY alerts local historians including resident and former teacher TOM RIDGE and CLIVE BETTINGTON of the JEWISH EAST END APPRECIATION SOCIETY. Also, the WHITECHAPEL SOCIETY, ISLAND HISTORY TRUST, the RAGGED SCHOOL MUSEUM and EAST of LONDON FAMILY HISTORY SOCIETY.
When I found out about the final deal to sell to Queen Mary in summer 2008 (while Lutfur was leader), I had several long and heated discussions with Cllr Marc Francis in which I warned him of the public backlash if he and Lutfur were to proceed. It is to Marc’s credit that he eventually saw sense, changed his mind and brought Lutfur on side. I have repeatedly praised Lutfur for that decision, but what I won’t accept is any politician claiming credit without telling the full truth.
As for your comments about section 106 money being diverted to Rich Mix and away from Bancroft….if that is indeed the case, it is a scandal and I will look into it. I have previously written about Rich Mix on this blog and intend to revisit the matter.
Ted – that’s NOT the relevant passage from the Save Bancroft website. It’s here:
DECEMBER, 2007
Queen Mary University meet with Tower Hamlets Council to buy the Bancroft Library. A deal is brokered for the sale of the building, with the University to pay £1.2m for vacant possession of the former Mile End Vestry Hall and Carnegie Library.
This is the source:
http://www.savebancroftlibrary.org.uk/id2.html
Yes, DECEMBER 2007 is when the deal was being brokered (under Denise Jones.) You cannot rewrite history here Ted just because you did not find out about the deal until June 2008.
At the risk of going around in circles, I’ve already acknowledged that the deal was brokered in December 2007. What is important to grasp is that Lutfur initially agreed with it. The question of the sale was scheduled for council cabinet in July 2008. Such a proposal would have been discussed at meetings of the Leader’s Advisory Board and the Corporate Management Team prior to cabinet.
I know from my own conversation with the players involved that Lutfur was initially in favour of the sale. I’ll repeat again: Lutfur’s eventual U-turn, after enormous grass roots and political pressure, was crucial and worthy of high praise. But it is rather disingenuous of him to claim that he had such a strong attachment to heritage in the first place.
Ted, I fully agree that you were one of the key influencers behind my eventual decision to stop the crazy plans to sell-off Bancroft Library, but let’s not downplay the vital role Brenda, Tom and the rest of the Campaign Group played. You are right to say this didn’t happen immediately after I became the Council Leader, but I never expected to be confronted with this issue and it took a while to fully understand the background and our options. It certainly did not come across my desk as Lead Member for Culture in 2006.
The plans were first drawn to our attention in LAB on 18th June 2008. Senior council officers were insistent that the building was beyond repair and that disposal was the only way forward, even though they had no realistic proposal for the relocation the history library and its archive. My attention was focussed on our plans to increase investment in council housing, youth services and policing, and it took considerable effort to drive these through into reality over the summer. We made the decision to stop the sale in October.
You will have to ask Cllr Denise Jones why she was so determined to pursue the disposal of this priceless part of the East End’s heritage, especially at such a “knockdown, bargain basement” price. It might also be worth asking why she cut off the £350,000 that was being lined up for the second phase of works at the Bancroft this summer, and stuffed it into the Rich Mix’s coffers instead.
An earlier poster has already comprehensively debunked your laughable suggestion that Cllr Josh Peck was the saviour of Poplar Baths. But I am equally amazed at your claim that I simply implemented the plans of my predecessor on the Ocean Estate. I certainly did not. Those plans were an absolute disgrace. They involved tearing the heart out of the estate and replacing it almost entirely with private housing. After several showdown meetings with council officers and the arrival of a new Corporate Director, the plans were fundamentally rewritten. We applied for and secured £41 million from the Homes & Communities Agency to ensure that half the new homes were affordable.
Disenfranchised because no one this side of care in the community could vote for Abbas or Rahman.
[…] this post last week, I mentioned receiving a depressing email. It came from a member of the Conservative […]