This post was updated on Saturday, October 19, following a demand from Mark Seddon, the “media adviser for Mayor Lutfur Rahman”. See bottom of post.
Robin de Peyer of the East London Advertiser has the story:
A town hall chief earned £115,000 for 46 days’ work, prompting a government minister to accuse Tower Hamlets Council of paying him “footballer’s wages”.
The council, which is facing budget cuts totalling £100million over three years, has been criticised by local government minister Brandon Lewis after it paid its interim chief executive £2,500 a day during the stint last year.
Aman Dalvi’s role ended after just six weeks, but he received his year’s salary at taxpayers’ expense. He then landed another top council job, earning an extra £119,000 as a corporate director for development and renewal.
His total publicly-funded remuneration package for the financial year 2012/13 – published in a public council document – topped £256,000 once pension contributions were added.
Mr Lewis said: “The fact that the chief executive of Tower Hamlets can be paid more in two weeks than the average household in the borough earns in a year is astounding. Paying a council official the same rate as a premiership footballer is an outrageous waste of taxpayers’ money.”
The average household income is less than £30,000, according to a council-backed report. Mr Dalvi was appointed as interim chief executive after councillors could not agree on a permanent candidate for the job. The position has since been scrapped as the town hall tries to trim its £1.2billion annual budget.
A spokesman said: “The council has complied with its statutory requirements in the preparation and publication of the annual accounts. We will not be commenting further.”
Mr Dalvi could not be reached for a comment.
In fact, there’s a fair bit more to it.
The figures are taken from the council’s Audit Committee report on September 26. The relevant page is 113.
Here’s a screen grab from it.
Aman, who is close to Mayor Lutfur Rahman remember, was appointed interim chief executive on September 26, 2011. Prior to that he was the director of ‘development and renewal’. When he stepped up, the council promoted someone else his development job on a temporary basis.
So in the financial year 2011/12 (April 6, 2011 – April 5, 2012), Aman was paid the best part of six months for his development job (about £64k) and a further £90k as interim chief executive, ie about £155k in total. But there’s no note in the 2011/12 accounts to explain that.
For the next financial year, it’s substantially different.
The 2012/13 accounts state Aman earned £115k as interim chief executive, a role he performed until May 21, 2012. As Robin reported, that’s £115k for 46 days’ work in that financial year. He then returned to his development job, for which he earns £131k a year.
Whereas his rate of pay for 193 days’ work as chief exec in 2011/12 was £466 a day (equivalent to about £170k a year), in 2012/13, that jumped to £2,500 a day.
It just doesn’t add up. If he’d remained on his £466 daily rate, he should have earned about £21,400 for those 46 days.
He seems to have earned some kind of bonus worth about £94,000 in 2012/13 (ie £115k – £21k). (And if that is the case, the accounts are misleading – I wonder whether this was discussed during the audit process.)
But what was the ‘bonus’?
In January of this year, Robin reported this:
A corporate director at Tower Hamlets Council has been named as the recipient of what is believed to be a six-figure compensation payout after settling a discrimination claim with the Town Hall.
Aman Dalvi, who is corporate director for development and renewal, brought the claim against the council and Labour group leader Cllr Joshua Peck in September after Labour councillors voted to block his appointment to the chief executive position at the Town Hall.
But Mr Dalvi – who earns more than £125,000 per year in his role at the council – settled the claim in December at an estimated cost of around £100,000 to the tax-payer.
A statement released by those involved said: “Following agreement between the parties Mr Dalvi’s Employment Tribunal claim against the Council and Cllr Joshua Peck has been withdrawn and dismissed by the Employment Tribunal.”
The dispute arose after Mr Dalvi failed in his attempts to replace former chief executive Kevan Collins, who left the £195k top job in July 2011.
Despite enjoying the support of Mayor Lutfur Rahman, Mr Dalvi was unsuccessful in his attempts to take the job after Labour and Conservative councillors blocked the move.
The council had then faced the prospect of intervention from Town Hall trouble-shooter the Local Government Association after an exodus of senior officers caused concern over its ability to function effectively.
But at a behind-closed-doors vote last Wednesday councillors unanimously agreed to approve the extension of acting head of paid services Stephen Halsey’s contract until after the 2014 Mayoral election.
So now we have the proof that his pay-off was about £100k.
What was the dispute? In February, I wrote this post when I reported that Aman and Josh Peck had had a private row during the process to appoint a permanent chief executive. Josh had been concerned that Aman was too close to Lutfur, that he was too malleable, particularly over nominations and appointments to external regeneration bodies.
Add in Isabella Freeman’s questionable legal advice to councillors during this appointment process (more about her delightful deal at the Homes and Communities Agency very soon) and the entire episode adds up to a costly shambles.
Over the next few months as Lutfur steps up his re-election campaign, we’ll hear a lot about his One Tower Hamlets bollocks, how he has been “progressive” and how he repelled the EDL, but the fact is he’s a terrible man manager, one who has cost taxpayers a small fortune in payoffs to senior officers.
In 2008, he effectively sacked Martin Smith at a cost of some £300,000. Aman Dalvi got a £100k bonus for being Lutfur’s failed first choice when Kevan Collins jumped ship, and then there’s all the headhunter fees thrown down the drain.
I suspect he’s wasted around £500,000 on top level personnel issues. Or to put it another way, that’s 1,250 of the £400 educational maintenance allowance grants he boasts as his proudest achievement.
PS Here are two more screen shots of the council’s accounts for your interest.
This one shows the number of staff earning more than £50,000.
And this one shows the breakdown of the £8million paid out in redundancies to 320 staff over the past two years.
Scandalous, really.
UPDATE: October 19
A few people people have called or emailed to say they think this post is “unfair” on Aman Dalvi. They assure me he’s a professional, that he’s been hard-done by and he was handed a £100k payout because he merited it.
Well, he gets paid £131,000 a year, which is quite a lot of money. He was warned by those with experience of these matters that he wasn’t suitable for the job of chief executive, yet, encouraged by Lutfur (for whatever reason) he chose to apply.
He then chose to sue the council, ie the taxpayer. I haven’t seen the detail of the legal arguments, but in my view, there would have to have been an egregious slur on his integrity to warrant suing a council he admitted in his own private and public offerings was suffering from financial problems.
Greed seems to have got the better of him. He could easily have made his legal point, if there was one, then handed back the money.
I’m not the only one who will now be scrutinising his actions from now on.
One of those to contact me was Mark Seddon, the famous journalist and former editor of Tribune, who is now Lutfur Rahman’s £55,000 a year communications guru…(a fact never disclosed when he does newspaper reviews on BBC Sky News).
This was his email on Thursday.
The East London Advertiser has withdrawn a story which made the claim that a former chief officer of the council, Aman Dalvi OBE, had been paid £115,000 for 46 days work.
The request is that you immediately do the same.
The claim is simply untrue. Unfortunately, for legal reasons, Mr Dalvi cannot speak to you, in order for the record to be set straight.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Seddon
Media Adviser to the Mayor Lutfur Rahman
This was my reply:
Perhaps you can demonstrate how what I have written is untrue?
As you know, I’ve expanded on what the ELA wrote. I’m q happy to update the blog with your response, but I’m currently happy that I’ve simply reported what’s in the accounts with some additional fair questions.
Can I also please ask why you are acting as spokesman for Aman Dalvi? I thought you were the media adviser to the mayor. How is this your remit?
He then repeated his original email without answering those other questions.
The East London Advertiser did withdraw its article, which was, as I demonstrated, misleading, but it then replaced it with this more accurate version.
Since then, however, MailOnline regurgitated the original piece adding further inaccuracies, prompting this warning to national newspaper newsdesks today:
Information has been published in some media outlets relating to Mr Aman Dalvi an employee of the Council. The details published are not accurate.
In particular and by example only, there is the suggestion that Mr Dalvi was paid £2,500 per day as an interim chief executive which is incorrect.
Continued publication of the alleged figure earned by Mr Dalvi and other factual inaccuracies is damaging. This is unacceptable and the Council is seeking advice from its lawyers.
While I agree with the council sending out this warning, what is not acceptable is the threat to spend more taxpayer money on another legal fight of its own making.
Aman chose to have a gagging clause preventing him from commenting…because he bagged a large payoff. And the council’s press office failed to guide the East London Advertiser when its journalist approached them with the outline of its original story prior to publication.
They really do create their own horrible mess.
No wonder Mark Seddon felt compelled to go outside his remit and appoint himself spokesman for a poor (well, not so poor) senior council officer…
Trial by Jeory 
I usually try to find an alternative viewpoint to counter your conclusions and some of the comments on your blog. But I’m struggling to find one this time. The facts you posted are mind blowing. The entire political leadership of the Council including Labour is responsible for this colossal miss management of public funds.
Blocking Delvi’s appointment, who I understand was a credible candidate was an unwise move from Josh Peck. He therefore must take the responsibility for the fallout from this. But Delvi’s behavior in suing the Council is disgraceful and does not befit a MBE. Especially as he continues to work for the same Council passing judgement on others.
It is worrying how so many top officers are screwing the Council. Makes you think if any of them actually care when they make big life-changing decisions.
Given the selfish agenda these officers have, it is all the more remarkable how the Council is delivering so well on development & renewal, education, social care, communities and localities etc. etc.
I recall in a previous post you said the credit should go to the Council officers and not the politicians. Yet, it appears some of these same officers are filling up their pockets.
So if its not the politicians and its not the council officers, then who is looking after the Council?
It must be the prayers of the thousands of worshipers in East London Mosque! Borris take note!!
These politicians need to get their act together. They are a disgrace. For them it’s about their own status and not the community they are supposed to represent.
No change here then. Corruption everywhere you look and no legal action taken. Might as well be living in Bongo Bongo land.
If you look at the pension payments as a proportion of salary it certainly seems to support the idea that the 2012/13 figure includes a compensation amount (£13,982 pension payment on a salary of £90,033 in 2011 compared to £3,884 pension payment – which would seem reasonable for a 46 day stint – on a much greater salary of £115,007 in 2012/13).
I don’t understand why he would want compensation paid back through his salary, though, where it would be subject to tax and NI. Or does the compensation count as “fees and allowances” which are the other two categories covered by the column?
Astonishing as always! What a complete waste of money that should have been channelled back into the borough. Maybe the Council should spend more time and money on its youth services (that aren’t working) instead of paying themselves ridiculous salaries.
Or better still, maybe they should go back to outsourcing the youth services to the many excellent organisations in the borough and then they’d have more time to clean up their own house!
Of course this is a dream…..a man can but dream!!
I heard from a friend who works in the youth service, that within the on-going restructure, that many posts will go and interestingly a few people at the Town Hall are set to receive big pay increases. A scandal in the waiting? the words “its all political” can be heard.
Can you explain how Lutfur is to blame for this pay-off?
He wasn’t party to the settlement.
And the council wouldn’t have agreed a settlement unless there were strong grounds for believing that were the case litigated, the council would have to pay out even more money.
That suggests Dalvi had a strong claim – as observed by the lawyers here:http://www.youblawg.com/employment-law/corporate-director-at-tower-hamlets-council-settles-discrimination-claim-for-100000.
As far as I’m aware, he only named one member in his (strong) claim – and it wasn’t Lutfur.
I should add that the employment tribunal doesn’t compensate mayors’ ‘failed choices’ or people hurt by ‘private rows’ with Josh Peck. It compensates people who are victims of unlawful behaviour.
Oldford are you nuts? Dalvi didn’t lose a single day’s pay – so why any litigation? OK he didn’t get chosen for the job he wanted butmany who know him, and like him and respect him also said that he had no experience of managing large numbers of people or large budgets. So there are all sorts of subjective reasons for him not getting the job. His case was ridiculous and of course Lutfur was party to the claim – he holds the position of awarding jobs, benefits, projects, favours etc. throughout the counci. If you’re not nuts – I’m sorry for the insult but I’m angry – then you are naive.
Don’t worry about the insult, Phil.
Because one’s coming your way: you’re clearly profoundly ignorant.
1. A very basic element of mayoral systems is that the mayor does NOT have the power to award jobs at the most senior level. That power is reserved by the majority group. The same goes for their pay – all HR committee, which is majority Labour group. Lutfur was NOT party to the settlement.
2. Dalvi’s claim was clearly not ridiculous – as the lawyers I referenced above say, it must have been strong.
3. No experience of managing people and budgets? The man is head of development – can you think of any are of government involving more people and money?
Clearly Dalvi was the victim of unlawful behaviour. But I share your frustration that taxpayers should not foot the bill – because it wasn’t us that behaved unlawfully.
Yes, it was a certain leader of the opposition. Why should tax payers foot the bill for Mr Peck’s actions? Actions that lawyers deemed to be discriminatory and illegal.
I agree. I’ve said it before, but why should council tax payers in LBTH foot the bill for all this. Where are the standards in public life we should expect?
Eric Pickles – if you ever read this – we urgently need a new Local Government Act. Bring back the historic counties you so love, and while you’re at it, abolish the mayoral system everywhere except those places which have formal “City Status”.
If you’re wondering what they are, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom#England
If it were up to me I would also take away some key powers from London Boroughs (like control over Social Services, Housing and Education) and give those powers to the GLA.
“It is worrying how so many top officers are screwing the Council. ”
It is more worrying how the Council itself is screwing taxpayers, including those who live outside Tower Hamlets but have to pay for the crooked charade.
Tower Hamlets is supposedly one of the poorest boroughs in the country, yet it is clearly receiving way much too much in the way of central government grants for such obscene amounts to be creamed off and wasted. It would probably be better off for everyone (apart from the numerous crooks and their client bases) if the place was centrally administered. The people living there are clearly not up to it.
This is all getting too much. Mark seddon speaking on behalf of a council officer as a spokesperson just shows exactly how the council is operating behind closed doors. I’m not surprised how mayoral quotes and his new soon to be party member quotes appear on every single story on the website. He has loads of media advisors/political advisors who do the same job as a media advisors yet they have a room full of communications advisors/officers who do nothing but promote a political party!?
@Grave Maurice. Don’t do it! There are too many crazies around especially in TH.
How typical of the arrogance of the council and the contempt with which they treat taxpayers. Firstly they say ‘we will not be commenting further,’ then they send bully-boy Mark Seddon to try and stop the truth being told. Perhaps if they were more cooperative with those who pay their salaries we might have a better relationship with each other.
The reason Dalvi cannot speak to us is because he signed a gagging order so he could get his pay-out away from the eyes of those who pay the bills: the taxpayer.
The coverage of this issue has been highly disingenuous and not a credit to journalism nor a fair coverage of local issues. It has deliberately avoided questioning the important tier of transparent local government which each and every local authority in the country has – the AUDIT COMMITTEE of the Council
Anyone like myself who has been a Councillor (and I have checked this with another former Councillor, and a currently serving Councillor), knows that it is the Audit Committee which has the ultimate role of full SCRUTINY of all Council accounts. It is this body that and ultimately signs Council accounts off.
Therefore, as the Audit Committee is Chaired by a Labour Councillor and has a Labour majority, why are you not asking the Labour Group on the Council why they signed off on these payments? Why did they not ask questions at the time, or do they have something they are trying to cover up?
That to my mind is the sensible question to be asked on this important issue. Residents I speak to and explain the mechanisms local authorities have in place, now want to know what exactly the Audit Committee was thinking and/or doing when it signed off the Council accounts covering these payments. Their role is crystal clear, yet this blog has side-stepped it.
To point the finger at “the Council” (ie the Mayor’s administration), is not honest journalism and not presenting the entire picture.
Thanks Nigel. Yes, I hear an awful lot of people talking about the mechanisms of the Audit Committee.
But let’s ask that question then…to its chair Mizan Chaudhury and to all the other members, ie
But while we’re on the subject of transparency and honesty, can you disclose your current affiliations and intentions regarding next year’s elections?
Have you been approached by Lutfur or any of his people about standing for them or as an independent?
Will you?
Or as a Lib Dem?
You keep popping up now and again, only to disappear.
Here we go – tabloid journalism at it’s best.
Ted, I don’t disappear – ask anyone in Bow – I am consistently giving cases to current councillors and have done so for years; Organising community events (Ray did think you might want to cover that one but I guess good news stories don’t sit well here); visiting community groups; talking to residents on Roman Road each and every day (fact); sitting on a community centre management committee; working with the impressive Geezers Club on their website etc etc.
To say I am disappearing is very far from the truth, and as for my affiliations, I am not a member of any political party, having forgotten to renew my LibDem subscription a few months ago now you kindly remind me.
Now can we return to the topic at hand – the role of the Audit Committee?
“tabloid”…? Don’t fall into that trap, Nigel.
Let’s be clear, this blog isn’t the local paper. I do it in my spare time and I pick subjects I think need wider airing when I have the time to do them. The Geezers Club is excellent and I covered their work in a two page feature for the Sunday Express a couple of years ago, as you know.
But let’s repeat the questions you’ve just ducked like a politician…because I’m sure you’ll want to be transparent..
I have said, and am happy to repeat, I am not affiliated to any political party but what has that got to do with a genuine question about the role of the Audit Committee?
As the final body that scrutinises all public accounts why are we not asking them for their take on the issue? This is not confrontational or party political nor am I saying who is right and who is wrong (I have not been privy to any documents relating to the sorry Dalvi saga – my knowledge is based on what is available here and in the Advertiser) – I am merely asking a question that does deserve probing.
I was always led to believe the Audit Committee (on which I never sat), does the final sanctioning of accounts. If this is not the case then I am happy to stand corrected.
Nigel, you have raised the issue of transparency yet you now hide behind weasel words and duck a straight question. This makes you a hypocrite.
It matters because this whole issue around Dalvi is thoroughly political and there are a number of conflicting versions about what happened…and these versions largely reflect party or personal affiliations.
So if you as an ex-Lib Dem councillor come on here and start taking shots at Labour, shots that happen to mirror those from Lutfur’s camp, then it’s only fair readers know where you’re coming from.
So let’s ask for the third time:
Ted you can call me anything you want, I have been called worse!
But, as any resident-voter, I feel I have a legitimate right to also ask about this saga from any angle I decide to take. My posts have asked about the Audit Committee’s role – I was always told that this is the scrutiniser of all end of year accounts. Perhaps I am wrong.
You want to deflect away from that and start asking me questions about my political allegiances – I have been honest and open, I am currently not a paid up member of the LibDems or any political party.
I thought you welcomed debate on news stories – I am starting to think you do not wish anyone to disagree with your take on the story. That is fair enough and your prerogative.
I have nothing further to add about the LibDems except to say Stephanie Eaton has been a superb leader and I am in total awe of her massive contributions to Tower Hamlets – no mean feat without other LibDems on the Council to support her. She has been a councillor of enormous energy and foresight, and she continues to be a community champion I feel everyone admires.
This blog post is however, not about any political party and my intervention was to raise a question I, in my humble opinion, felt deserved probing. After all this issue has gone national – it is not simply about a local story any more. Surely the Dalvi saga was discussed at Audit Committee, and if not why not?
Nigel, I’m not deflecting away from the debate, just curious to know from what angle you’re approaching it.
Good for you for coming on the blog under your own name: several other politicians don’t.
But you have three times now ducked, as politicians are wont to do, a straightforward question that would enlighten reader, residents and voters.
It may be that your “probing” is tainted by a desire to ingratiate yourself with the mayor and his team with a view to supporting them in 2014.
But we don’t know.
It’s been suggested to me you have been approached by Lutfur’s crew and you fail to deny this.
And of course, this blog welcomes debate, but it was you who raised the issue of transparency and it was you who questioned my journalism in your original comment and then used a pejorative term to describe it.
So it’s difficult to understand why you can’t maintain those standards of transparency you rightly desire in others.
Ok, thank you, and now I see.
For transparency, I voted for an Executive Mayor system – initially unsure of this Respect initiative (I am instinctively always wary of GG’s motives), after watching Michael Portillo’s TV documentary “Power to the People” on the pros/cons of the system, I felt that it was a good way of developing civic engagement with local politics. I still think Portillo’s conclusions are spot-on, and still prefer the system to a Leader of the Council system.
I also voted for Lutfur Rahman: the reason was simple, I knew the LibDem candidate could not win, and when I served as a councillor, and I think my colleague Ray Gipson will confirm this, Lutfur Rahman, as a Lead Member and fellow councillor albeit on the Labour benches, was always gracious, kind, straightforward, helpful, courteous and professional. I most definitely could never say that about Labour’s candidate for Mayor at the last election. In fact, what I could say about him is unpublishable!
I still believe very strongly, as I have written on this blog before, that commentators and the chattering classes do not always reflect the topics that ordinary voters care about – they don’t discuss for example, a flawed Housing Choice system which means many tenants and leaseholders are living under quasi-totalitarian unaccountable Registered Social Landlords. The problems this fundamental and critical issue causes run from pensioner poverty, through to fuel poverty, unresponsive repairs leading to sub-standard homes, an incredible lack of resident involvement leading to the destruction of “communities”. Housing is the fundamental issue in Bow for the majority of the residents.
I have never met Cllr Rabina Khan, the Lead Member for Housing, but I have honestly been impressed with the way she handles the brief and is challenging RSLs on behalf of residents. Although again in the interests of transparency, I have been in touch with her this very week via email regarding an issue about community facilities in Bow, as I would with any Cabinet member for Housing, regardless of their political party.
I have not met Cllr Oli Rahman since 2006 when I stood down. He did help enormously with a piece of casework affecting a resident’s tenancy 2 years ago, and I am grateful for that. In terms of the grants – although modest – for higher education, and the EMA, I am supportive of these schemes.
For the record, I have also passed casework to Respect & Tory councillors over the years – all dependent on the ward they applied to or the topic. And indeed, Stephanie has helped me in the past with lodging enquiries, and as I stated earlier I have a huge reservoir of respect and admiration for what she has achieved for the local community since 2006. She is in my opinion (and again I say this in a non-partisan way), a real role model for any man or woman wishing to serve as a councillor.
How I will vote next year clearly depends on how the bread and butter issues affecting Bow are dealt with, but currently I genuinely cannot find fault with the Mayor’s team in how they are tackling the main issues of housing, community, safety and education. As a resident and as a voter I am surely allowed to say this? And, as a resident and voter surely I am allowed to mull over the options and decide who to give my vote to.
Just as in the GLA Mayoral election, upon much reflection, I gave my first preference vote to Jenny Jones – how is that for transparency?! 😉
Of course there are other issues that are often raised in these blogs, but I can only speak from what I know living in Bow, and I am delighted with the commitment the Mayor is showing to Bow, in fact he did a mayoral surgery here recently, and I can personally attest the warm welcome he got was phenomenal (from non-Bangladeshi heritage voters). Bow has felt neglected over the years – that is changing and I do thank the Mayor for giving it equal status with other parts of the borough.
Even the Hindu Temple in Bow and the historic Sikh Gurdwara are very grateful that while funds dry up elsewhere there has been a pot of money available for them locally. Of course, there are Mosques who have bucket loads of money, and the Roman Catholic Church centrally is not short of a bob or two. And yes, there are agnostics and atheists but I personally have no problem that buildings of all faiths can access important funds.
My probing on the Audit Committee stemmed purely from a personal question niggling in my head – a question I even asked Ray about this very week, and we both couldn’t come up with the answer as neither of us had sat on it (hence my post): why did this committee go ahead and approve this expenditure? Either the committee did not scrutinise properly or they felt it was the only option available.
I dislike personalised/dirty politics – it turns residents away from engagement. I truly wish we had 90%plus turnouts in elections, but when politics turns nasty and personalised, and ‘navel-gazes’ too much creating a Mulberry Place bubble alien to the majority of resident, this will tragically never happen. So, if any of my comments were taken as pejorative, I publicly apologise.
I do hope that on reflection, you will find merit in my point, which is not meant or intended to be party political: why did the audit system fail, or did it not fail and did it feel these payments were appropriate?
Thanks, Nigel.
Maybe I’ve missed the answer…but
And I believe these are the questions you Ted have so far ducked, dived and obfuscated over … as a Welshman I thought you would have been more transparent. Just answer the question, man:
“Therefore, as the Audit Committee is Chaired by a Labour Councillor and has a Labour majority, why are you not asking the Labour Group on the Council why they signed off on these payments? Why did they not ask questions at the time, or do they have something they are trying to cover up?”
BTW looking forward to catching up for a coffee – hope there’s a decent place in your new patch.
🙂
Not Welsh…Wooly back..you’ll understand..
Re ducking and diving…see my comment below. Question has been posed.
Nigel really enjoyed your comments obviously Ted only wants to pursue the angle he wants and at the moment everything in this world is Lutfur and his Groups fault. I hear his trying to find a way of putting the national economical problems on Lutfur. Ted seriously why don’t you ask Tower Hamlets Labour Party to explain their role in the Dalvi saga and how the Audit Committee signed this off?
If Lutfur was at fault don’t you think the One East John Biggs would be the first releasing 100 press release about this? On the point of One East End what is JB looking to do take over the whole of his GLA Constituentcy, or may be his not aware his only standing for Tower Hamlets!!
it’s One Tower Hamlets John….
Another one unable to read.
The questions to Labour have been posed. If they don’t respond, I’ll point that out.
Nigel.
Amongst your overuse of out-dated buzz-words I’m really struggling to understand what point you’re trying to make.
As an ex-Lib-Dem Councillor who has stated you have no desire to ever be Mayor or ambitions to be an MP what do you suggest is the answer? Why don’t you ‘do’ instead of go continuing tot try and trade on past glories from your short stint as a Councillor from 2002 to 2006?
[…] of this was detailed on this blog last month, of course. Lutfur’s team of advisers have all been very excited by it because they’ve […]