I’ve been banging on about East End Life for as long as I’ve been covering Tower Hamlets council and, following a meeting with him at the Tory party conference last October, I predicted here that Communities Secretary Eric Pickles would try to limit its publication by putting it under some form of statutory footing. On Tuesday, he announced he would do exactly that.
There are several views on this subject and BBC London did a small item on its news bulletin two nights ago (failing by the way to broadcast the views of a single Bengali resident).
The following is a guest post by Robert Scott, a resident of Wapping, a postgraduate student at Leeds University and an activist in the Tower Hamlets Labour party:
BBC London News recently featured a short segment, which outlined Eric Pickles’ intention to limit councils to printing four free newssheets a year, which heavily featured Tower Hamlets. Eric Pickles and the residents featured in the piece raised important questions regarding motives costs and the effectiveness of council newspapers. Considering East End Life costs ratepayers £1.5million per year, I don’t think it can be accurately described as a freesheet and I have doubts whether those costs are recuperated by advertising. [TJ: they are not and, as a senior accountant at the council has admitted to me, that £1.5million does not even include all the costs.]Councils are required to place public notices in two local newspapers. I don’t know how much that would cost but I don’t believe we’d get anywhere near to £1.5million a year. Anything above this basic requirement is optional and whilst it is valuable in certain instances, it ought to be reassessed in light of local budgetary constraints. The council’s communication chief Takki Sulaiman made a really poor effort defending East End Life in the segment:
“It’s about services, it’s about community groups, and it’s about community cohesion. Local authorities have a duty to promote community cohesion, race equality, a reduced fear of crime and promote healthy lifestyles.”
Whilst local authorities ought to be doing all of those things, East End Life is not the principal way or even a particularly effective way of achieving any of them.
THEOs (Tower Hamlets Enforcement Officers), useless though they are in responding to crime, play an important role in reducing the fear of crime. If you want to promote healthy lifestyles, why not look into the possibility of introducing universal free school meals for primaries like they have in Newham and crack down on the number of chicken shops in the borough?
If you want to promote community cohesion and race quality then supporting and getting involved in more community events might be a good place to start. You don’t need a weekly newspaper to do any of those things.
We need more support for grassroots initiatives rather than set peace propaganda delivered on a weekly basis and that’s only if you’re one of the lucky few who actually receives the paper: many residents don’t.
Reforming East End Life has the potential to release a lot of money that can facilitate other initiatives. The value of East End Life in its current form is questionable in the best of times, which is reinforced by the comments made by residents in the video. I think we’ve reached a point where the council ought to get rid of it altogether and think of ways to replicate some of it’s more useful functions at a reduced cost or in the very least severely reduce its publication and distribution in order to plug gaps in funding elsewhere.
Trial by Jeory 
Well I like it. Get lots of ideas on things to do, planning notices, info on councillors, local restaurant reviews, etc.
I agree with other when they say the Mayor uses it as a propaganda sheet and I am sick of him posing for photos all the time. But we shouldn’t have a directly elected Mayor anyway – madness!
Overall I think it really does a good job of promoting “community cohesion”. I used to hate the phrase, but I must be getting old. I want more of it and EEL helps produce it.
I like the name and shame aspect with regard to dodgy rat infected restaurants. It makes shopkeepers get their shops in order.
I don’t like the idea of Westminster dictating to local government what they should do. I don’t see East End Life that often now, but doubt it is any better or worse when it was spouting the Labour party line.
When Vincent Hanna set it up in 1994 he argued that the deal he’d set up meant it shouldn’t cost anything to produce (the salaries of the local government journos aside I suppose).
Whilst an imperfect vehicle EEL does get through to more people with some relevant information about what’s going on in the borough. I hardly ever bought the Advertiser simply because it lacked relevance, seemingly wanting to be the local equivalent of the Sun. I gave up sending ELA press releases about various community matters because they were very rarely used. EEL wasn’t much better, and papers have their editorial view, but at least the was a fighting chance of them picking up a story.
As a Tower Hamlets resident and employee of the LBTH I agree with the general sentiments of Jon and Stewart (For the record I have been a resident far longer than an employee and always felt that by and large LBTH did an OK job). EEL isn’t perfect but does get information out to the public and the distribution seems pretty good to me. ELA have a legitimate grievance about advertising revenue but the paper was already on a downward spiral. How can you run a local paper from Ilford?
The main reason I have been promoted to comment for the first time is the sheer pathetic nature of the guest contributor. As Stewart points out, EEL was no better or worse when we had a Labour leadership. Robert is a Labour Party activist whom I suppose fancies being a councillor. Another example of toadying up to the Labour leadership by slagging the Mayor off. I was a Labour party member and activist at one time and still think that people like John Biggs do a fantastic and grown up job. It seems that too many members of the Labour party in Tower Hamlets need therapy to resolve their issues with Galloway and the Mayor.
I don’t know how you’ve come to those conclusions considering I didn’t mention Mayor Rahman anywhere. I don’t have a problem with him or George Galloway. I just pointed out that I don’t think we can afford to spend over 4 million pounds+ every cycle on this.
“EEL was no better or worse when we had a Labour leadership”.
So the bar hasn’t been set particularly high. Just because the Labour party leadership may have used the ELL in a similar way does not absolve the current council leadership of continuing mismanagement. Labour wasted money so the Mayor can waste money? Shouldn’t Mayor Rahman and his team strive to do better than their predecessors?
The Economic climate has changed. We’re making cuts to public services whilst continuing to spend at least 4 million every cycle on a local newspaper. How many luncheon clubs is that or THEOs or functions to promote: ‘Community cohesion’, ‘Race equality’ and ‘Healthy lifestyles’? Advertising council housing stock can be delivered in other ways a freesheet in housing offices for example.
The first complaint from a resident was: “There’s too much of the Mayor sitting on it, I don’t know what he’s trying to promote. If he’s got something to say maybe he should say it once”. I think I’m right in saying that whilst the Mayor and his team have appeared in the literature of other political parties and candidates over the past two years they haven’t produced a single leaflet in their own right. Many of their achievements belong in party political leaflets not council newspapers. They should get on the knocker and sell policy to residents rather than using the ELL as a mouthpiece.
“Another example of toadying up to the Labour leadership by slagging the Mayor off”.
Provide me with a quote of me slagging the Mayor off in that post. As for toadying up to people why do you feel the need to tell us that you’re an employee of LBTH? Are you trying to curry favour with somebody?
I asked for the ELL to be reformed though I’d much rather they get rid of it all together and everybody who has commented so far agrees that it could be managed in a better way including yourself. With all the upheaval in local government at the moment how can anybody justify spending this sort of money on “getting information out to the public”?
I don’t think we need it but if we must keep it reduce publication put it in key hubs does it really need to go door to door when it’s on the internet? If you have a disability or you can’t get out maybe we can just deliver those ones? Or are we going to continue to spend money until we’re legally obliged to stop?
The thing is, there are arguments for and against the Council having a paper. Depending on the side of the political divide you’re on, you’ll find yourself on either the for or against side. Some people who don’t give a fig about the political divide have also taken sides in this argument based on its merits – again, some for and some against.
The Labour Party’s position isn’t one based on the merits of the argument. It’s based on political expediency. They’ve decided that there are votes in calling for the paper to be closed down. And they don’t like the fact that its a method by which the Mayor gets increased exposure amongst the residents of the borough. Which is a very different song to the one they were singing 2+ years ago – before they lost control of the authority, the paper was the best thing since sliced bread and getting yourself in the paper was once of the perks of being in power. It’s just a shame that the Labour Party in the borough has ended up in bed with the Tories. Although let’s be honest, it’s not the first time that’s happened.
The question is, in two years’ time, following the next Mayoral election, when (or rather if!) Labour are in control of the mayoralty, will they close the paper down? I can tell you that it’ll be a no. A multitude of excuses will gush forth from the likes of Peck, Saunders et al – ‘the economic circumstances have changed’, ‘local feeling about the paper has changed’, ‘it is, after all, the best medium for communicating with residents’. Anything but ‘ okay, we’re closing the paper down now’.
When (if) that day comes, where will you find yourself Robbie? Campaigning with Cllr Peter Golds for the closure of the paper? Or eating your hat?
The Labour Party in Tower Hamlets is opportunistic, short-sighted and, based on its current trajectory, extremely dangerous for the borough’s residents. Based on my quick perusal of your blog, you seem like a bright guy Robbie, what are you doing?
I’d like to add to the general support from Jon, Stewart and Robert. The EEL has always helped make me feel more part of Tower Hamlets, and it’s not hard to see past the political spin to get a good sense of what’s going on. It helps to make us feel good, even proud, of our Borough.
The weekly section of council lettings is indispensible for those of us bidding each week, way better than trawling through the lettings page on the internet.
Ted, put your prejudices aside, leave EEL alone!
If you read through this blog, you’ll see I’ve warmed to it more but what I object to is the total lie it publishes on p2 each week that it costs 4.6p per issue. Utter rubbish. If newspapers were so cheap to produce, they wouldn’t be in so much trouble financially…and i should know!
Ted, why don’t you find out how much it costs and then you’ll have a fact to start a debate. I live in LBTH and work in the borough. EEL, for all it’s faults, provides a good round up of the borough’s news for residents. Yes, parts of it are biased, but almost all readers know that. And anyway, isnt that the case for the rest of the media?
Ted, out of curiosity, what do you think it costs? What are they leaving out of the 4.6p?
Do you think it’s worth whatever it is you think it costs?
I don’t know about everyone else but I’d rather pay 4.6p+/week for the Council’s paper than 60p/week for the ELA!
The ELA is free now.
For those who work in Canary Wharf, that is.
For its longer serving and poorer readers it is stil 60p. I think that’s v wrong.
You must also remember that EEL competes with the ELA for ad revenue. That’s also v wrong.
For this council to still claim EAST END LIFE only costs £i.5 million is a insult to the taxpayers of the borough.Staff alone must be at least £500,000 per year. Add to this the contracts for printing and then distribution i think we are looking nearer a sum of £3 million plus.
Most homes in the borough do not even receive a copy.You often see large bundles dumped in the chute rooms on the estates.Also every Monday large amounts are removed from the stands,are bundled up in all the housing offices,one stop shops, libraries etc,even from the lobby of the Town Hall.Its a gross waste of money,and for this council to claim its self sufficient is laughable.Any advertising they receive from local eateries,businesses is peanuts.Also i refuse to believe this rag is a full time operation. Does senior management not check what this grossly over manned staff does all day, or do not care as its only council tax payers money.
@ Anon1
Well the expediency of opposition is a nice thing. I don’t even disagree with you on that but nobody seems to be able to justify the 4 million + we’re spending on the EEL. Mayor Rahman and his team are making cuts they’d rather not whilst remaining committed to the paper, essentially saying communication and dialogue and the added value that comes with them is worth more or as much as keeping x local service or expanding x provision. If residents could see that trade off I’d think they’d be in favour of getting rid of it or reducing it substantially.
Unless you operationalise the issue I think residents will remain very supportive of keeping the paper. I don’t think anybody could really explain this in a pithy leaflet or within 60 seconds on the doorstep. This issue isn’t something that will win Labour votes it would probably make you very unpopular in the borough amongst key Labour voters. Conservative voters might like the idea of reducing or ending the ELL but I doubt whether those residents would suddenly switch to Labour. I don’t see what Labour gains politically apart from stopping the Mayor and his team using it EEL as a mouthpiece.
The Mayor could make a lot of capital by complying with central government and blaming the reduction/end of the paper squarely on the Conservatives or local Labour Party pressure. So it’s not as if the independents wouldn’t gain anything out of this politically. It shouldn’t be about politics it ought to be about cost and I’d really like to hear somebody make the financial case for the EEL. Enjoying it is one thing but choosing it over another service would make a very interesting read.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Labour backtracked but I wouldn’t like to see a future Labour administration cutting services whilst they continued to spend money on the EEL. Mo Ali makes some really good points. In the very least Cllrs should be willing to discuss reforms to the paper.
Anon 1: “The Labour Party in Tower Hamlets is opportunistic, short-sighted and, based on its current trajectory, extremely dangerous for the borough’s residents”.
We have lots of very talented Cllrs in Labour group. Trajectories can change very quickly.
I like Cllr Peter Golds he makes me laugh and party politics aside I think he does a decent job at scrutinising the Town Hall albeit from his unique perspective. I don’t think this is a campaigning issue for Labour it’s a Town Hall one so no, I wouldn’t campaign with Peter on it. I’d like to have a coffee with him though.
There are lots of issues we should be willing to campaign with tories on, KEMP, the Olympic road closures and the Bow Missiles for example. They might have got more traction if you had a tory politician interested in them. Not all of them froff at the mouth Matt Smith (his election slur aside) is another example of a hard working Tory in the borough with a genuine interest in helping residents.
I’ve just finished my MA in Global Development. I’m writing my dissertation and doing bits and pieces for Compass and the East London NHS trust. Thank you for the comment on my blog but don’t fuel my megalomania! 🙂
I would prefer to keep EEl, and agree that a local newspaper should be based in the area. I buy the ELA every week but it has got very thin on local news and no real insight. EEL’s listings are useful.
Let’s be realistic about this. The only way of giving people a fair chance of saying whether or not they would keep EEL is to provide some indication of how the money could be spent on frontline services if it wasn’t spent on EEL.
It’s NOT a free paper. It’s a paper which costs a lot of money which by definition cannot be ploughed into local services. Hence this paper costs local people the benefits they’re not getting as a result.
Listings are useful – but you don’t need EEL to be able to access the listings. These could be accessed via the Internet and don’t require a lot of people to put them together.