Tower Hamlets really is the gift that keeps on giving. It’s always delightful to return from holiday to find a large inbox of issues to write about…and the usual brown envelope on my doorstep.
So where do we start?
Well, in journalism school they teach you to begin with the freshest news, so how about a bit of electoral fraud for you? Joe Churcher, of The Press Association, reports this evening:
A police investigation has found no evidence of widespread voting fraud in a London borough but action is needed to “restore trust and confidence” in future polls, a watchdog said.
The Electoral Commission called in Scotland Yard amid scores of allegations of postal vote scams in Tower Hamlets – including reports a dead person had cast a ballot in 2012 local elections.
Detectives found evidence of possible bogus postal votes in three of 64 cases they investigated but none was sufficient to identify suspects or bring prosecutions, the Commission said.
It called however for “significant changes” to address both a “breakdown of trust” between senior election officials and some councillors in the East London borough as well as “scepticism” about the Metropolitan Police inquiry.
Officers received nearly twice as many reports of fraud from the borough alone than the total for any other force in the country – mostly from local councillors – sparking an investigation that involved inquiries at more than 60 properties.
One from which postal votes were sent was empty, another no longer housed the people whose votes were considered suspect and those at a third denied applying for postal votes and would not assist further.
It was decided there was no prospect of tracking down suspects or getting sufficiently concrete evidence.
Many of the other complaints appeared to have been sparked by people referring to out of date registers.
The investigation also looked into media reports that a prisoner and a dead man had also “voted” but found no crime had been committed – the second individual having died after returning his postal vote.
In its report, the Commission suggested that some of the allegations may have been sparked by the “very diverse” nature of the local community – where a third of residents are Bangladeshi.
Some false claims of multiple entries on the register at the same address were found by the police to relate to people “who had identical first names and surnames but different middle names”, it suggested.
The Commission demanded an urgent review by the electoral registration and returning officers to find ways by May to improve fraud detection, transparency and systems for dealing with allegations.
Elected representatives “should make a clear public commitment to follow the Commission’s new code of conduct”, it said.
And Scotland Yard needed to review its plans for policing the next elections there in 2014.
The Metropolitan Police should review plans for policing elections in 2014 and improve its communications strategy to ensure an “appropriate balance” between keeping complainants informed about investigations and “more general assurance that the police are responding to concerns about electoral fraud and thoroughly investigating”, it said.
Commission chair Jenny Watson said: “Even a small number of cases of fraud can damage public confidence and there’s clearly been a breakdown of trust. Steps must now be taken to begin rebuilding trust to avoid future elections being damaged by allegations of electoral fraud.
“All politicians and campaigners in Tower Hamlets, including independent candidates, should also make a clear public commitment to follow the Commission’s new code of conduct. This code includes commitments about campaigning outside polling stations, handling postal votes and dealing with allegations of electoral fraud.
“We will be monitoring the situation closely and will publish our first progress report in July 2013.”
She also used the report to renew the Commission’s call for ministers to consider requiring photo ID at polling stations.
“Only so much can be done to give people reassurance when the system we have at the moment is largely based on trust.
“That’s why we called in 2010 for the Government to review the case for requiring photo ID in polling stations.
“We are disappointed they have not taken this forward. But last autumn we started a comprehensive review that will consider this alongside a number of other options for strengthening our voting system. We will publish our findings in in time to introduce legislation in the life of this Parliament.”
Of course, all this relates to complaints made during last year’s Spitalfields and Banglatown by-election in which Gulam Robbani romped home by 43 votes. While the investigation by Scotland Yard and the Electoral Commission found “no evidence” of fraud, they have pretty much said “we think it is dodgy and we’ll get you next time”.
The report is damning about the democratic state of Tower Hamlets where it recognises a breakdown of trust between councillors and senior election officials, one of whom is the currently absent monitoring officer, Isabella Freeman (the town hall’s press office refuses to say whether she is currently performing that role; so let’s just say she’s away from duties at the moment).
And note the specific reference to “independent candidates” in the Commission’s warning to behave at polling stations in 2014. I wonder if that’ll be mentioned at Mayor’s next election strategy meeting.
Yes, he does have them. That brown envelope contained the extremely interesting minutes of their first meeting last May. Here they are:
So the “campaign leader” is Shazid Miah, a youth worker who I listed here as Lutfur’s £44,000-a-year “community liaison officer”. His main task was to get the independent councillors to find 10 “support people” in each of their wards who would help tap into local mosques and other “multifaith groups”. I wonder who they found? Surely none would double up or be linked to the 17 “Mayor’s Community Champions Coordinators“, a recruitment scheme launched by Lutfur in January in which each ward will be given £10,000 to spend on various projects before the election.
I’m sure all would declare any interest.
Also, note the language in point 1, that each ward councillor should identify local “multicultural” issues and deliver. What exactly does this mean? What’s a “multicultural issue”? Surely by inserting the word “multicultural” they believe there are non-multicultural issues…and these are to be ignored. Maybe Lutfur’s councillors can explain. Surely they can’t mean “Bengali issues” can they…
And in point 4 on page 2, how generous of our cabinet members to donate £100, presumably monthly, of their taxpayer-funded allowance towards campaign funds. Still, they do get their taxis for free, I suppose.
And how interesting on page 3 that they considered forming a group. Presumably, they decided against such a move. Maybe they couldn’t decide on a name.
What would you have called them? Answers in a brown envelope please.
Trial by Jeory 
Ted. You commit blatant thoughtcrime by suggesting that the recognised Newspeak term “multicultural” is unthinkwise-doublespeak for exclusive Bengali interests. To imply that this borough is being run in the interests of just one community or suggest that every aspect of council business is being perverted (and has been for decades) to service one ethnic group at the detriment of all others is ungoodthinkwise and contrary to the party blackwhite doctrine.
Your mind has been corrupted and the Party’s reasonable expectation that you suspend disbelief demonstrably been undermined (probably by your holiday, which was unauthorised).
Report here immediately for your re-education http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaAQdwV5aDQ
The Labour party taught the Banglas all the tricks. First thing that needs to be done is to take electoral registration out of the hands of the borough.
“One from which postal votes were sent was empty, another no longer housed the people whose votes were considered suspect and those at a third denied applying for postal votes and would not assist further.”
“Some false claims of multiple entries on the register at the same address were found by the police to relate to people “who had identical first names and surnames but different middle names”, it suggested.”
With respect, this is bollo*ks. I am surprised that a body as august (ha ha) as the Electoral Commission and Scotland Yard can trot out flim-flam like this with a straight face. Any kid aged 5 can come up with more believable excuses than this. (Which – incidentally – brings it right down to the level of LBTH politics, whose councilors are known to bicker like primary school kids in the playground.)
To see blatent fraud like this being whitewashed away is a huge disappointment. I sincerely hope you are right Ted when you say that what they really mean is “We’ll get you next time.”
Tim.
Not sure if Grave is the real name or Abu, I’ll go with Grave. So Grave I would like to let you know that our community is not stuppid as you think! You will find that out after the election results. Ted how about ‘future crushers’ or ‘greedy chicks’? Grave please don’t be rude or abusive as this is what the mayor’s group are well know for, I worked hard today to see positive impact on people in this community to realise a lot can be done to help tackle poverty, unemployment, sex offences, prejudism etc fact: the mayor is not reaching out to everyone
ROFL!! I couldn’t help but uplike that fine example of the sort of “politics” we should all be proud of!!
Grave I salute your wit (the 1984 comparison) but I think you might have misunderstood what paru in his round about way was trying to say in his reply….
Ted in your last article you accused Councillor Oli Rahman of hypocrisy for attacking cuts while spending public money on taxi fares
What about the hypocrisy of tory Councillor Peter Golds,
Here is cllr golds talking about the mayor giving a character reference to the minicab incident:
“For you to say you ‘made a mistake’ is outrageous,” said Tory Opposition leader Peter Golds.
“You’re a solicitor and member of the Law Society—yet you gave a reference on Tower Hamlets notepaper for this corrupt, perverted criminal….”
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/tower_hamlets_mayor_told_to_say_sorry_to_sex_crime_victim_after_his_testimonial_to_her_attacker_1_865811
But his guilty of the exact same thing himself, here:
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/crime_archive/?id=24857
Has he apologized like the mayor apologized? Why did you not report this ?
Read those articles carefully – the two situations were only very superficially similar.
Rahman didn’t know what the crime his supportee was accused of. Rahman is a solicitor (supposedly, although this seems to be probably untrue). Rahman wrote a clearly deceitful character reference.
Golds knew the crime his supportee was accused of. He is not (and has never claimed to be, as far as I am aware) involved in the legal profession. Golds wrote a character reference that acknowledged the accused crime but spoke in support of him anyway.
You could also add that in the latter case the crime was very different and took place in entirely different circumstances.
Why wasn’t it reported on this Blog? Maybe because it happened in 1992 and this blog didn’t start until about 13 years later …
Tim.
In the same Orwellian spirit as GM can I “Double-Unthank” Annual for making me read that sordid little tale from over Twenty years ago. The eye-bleach will be applied as soon as I’ve finished typing this. The key point about the 1992 story was that the “victim” was below the then homosexual age of consent of 21. I’d like to think that if two gay men took their clothes off and went into a bedroom “for a neck massage” in todays climate neither would end up in Court. As it is Annual’s attempt at some subjective equivalence between Cllr Gold’s acting as a character witness for someone who he clearly knew and respected in the early 1990’s and Mayor Rahman being conned into providing a character for an sex offender he would have problems picking out from a rank of mini-cabs is disengenous in the extreme. It only proves Cllr Gold’s common decency and Lutfur Rahman’s reputation as the Bengali “Mr. Fixit”.
Riveting though this is, are we not going to hear your views on the boundaries, Banglatown, St Dunstans et. al?
Now there’s a feelgood story if there ever was one?
Riveting though this is, are we not going to hear your views on the boundaries, Banglatown, St Dunstans et. al?
Now there’s a feelgood story if there ever was one…
Why do you say “feelgood”? from what I have gathered there isn’t much of a feelgood factor in Spitalfields right now…
[…] « Election matters […]
I was pleased to see that the Boundary Commission supported the proposal I took through Labour Group on the Stepney Ward names.
Well done Judith, a good move.
What was the rationale behind the original preference to get rid of St Dunstans?
Not sure because I was on holiday at the time of the original discussions in Group and the local party. But I think Stepney East and West were intended as neutral suggestions to avoid the religious particularity of the original group suggestion put forward by Abdal and any bad feeling that might result in recognising one place of worship over another either in Stepney or in the Brough as a whole. It became clear however that the neutral option rather underestimated the attachment there is to local history and heritage from people of all backgrounds and seemed a bit bloodless so, when given chance to reconsider and when I was back to suggest it, the idea of having two names that had a clear local connection and which referred to local landmarks that everyone would recognise gained favour. It was also a very simple division of the current name which was given to the ward when the old Redcoats and St Dunstan’s wards were rolled together. Common sense gets there in the end
Maybe the real ostrich head-in-the-sand on this is Mr. Jeory… he seems quite reluctant to talk about the boundary review.
PS. Well done to the people who successfully campaigned to keep the name St. Dunstan’s.
Not at all. Just trying to find the time. Besides, it has been well covered elsewhere.
I’d like to know more,,, would you mind posting a link to this ‘elsewhere’ please