In April, around the time David Goodhart published his book on immigration, The British Dream, I wrote this article for the Sunday Express comparing and contrasting Robin Wales’s Newham and Lutfur Rahman’s Tower Hamlets.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I suppose…the esteemed Economist newspaper published its own version yesterday. It’s here.
Why not compare and contrast the two pieces. The Economist piece seems to have been written by someone making their first visit to the borough, by someone overawed by the Mayor’s Hollywood limo-driving charisma (ahem); by someone who hasn’t even considered the resentment caused by his policies, by someone who thinks synagogues are aplenty and the backbone of the community, by someone imagining Tower Hamlets is a microcosm for potential Middle East divide: note the lack of a single reference to any churches.
Note also how it is Lutfur Rahman building all these five bedroom homes–nothing to do with the Ocean New Deal for Communities regeneration scheme…
STRIDING into the east London Central Synagogue, Lutfur Rahman grasps Leon Silver, a wiry Jewish elder, in his arms. Mr Silver hugs back. Since winning the mayoralty of Tower Hamlets, an east London borough with a quarter of a million inhabitants, in 2010, Mr Rahman has allocated some £3m ($4.5m) to repairing religious buildings. The synagogue is one of them. Tactile and soft-spoken, with a beaming countenance, Mr Rahman—a Bangladeshi Muslim—is every bit the local champion. Crossing the street, he poses for a photo with the owner of a café. That causes a traffic jam, which worsens when drivers spot the mayor and demand to shake his hand.
Fans duly placated, Mr Rahman sets out his political philosophy. Religious groups are the backbone of Tower Hamlets, he explains. The riots of 2011 never came there because faith groups patrolled the streets and elders kept the young in line. Nurturing a community, he says, means building up religious outfits and charities that serve particular groups: mosques, synagogues, lunch clubs and the like. Mr Rahman also waxes eloquent about the social benefits of large extended families; he is building five-bedroom public homes to accommodate them.
Mr Rahman’s job is unusual. Only four of London’s 32 boroughs have elected mayors. Elsewhere party-political cabinets elect a council leader. Borough mayors emerged mostly where local councils were ailing. These days all are overshadowed by Boris Johnson, the TV-friendly mayor of the whole city. But two stand out, because of their contrary views.
East of Tower Hamlets, Sir Robin Wales, the elected mayor of Newham, has an entirely different notion of how to run a diverse borough. Whereas Mr Rahman soothes and smooths, Sir Robin fizzes and bulldozes. “We need to be constantly knocking down walls,” he says in a Scottish accent (he moved south 30 years ago). He means it literally: he points to a forest of cranes erecting new shops and housing, some of it on the Olympics site. He also means it figuratively. Sir Robin wants to take a sledgehammer to divisions between religious and ethnic groups in his patch.
In Newham, every spare penny goes on events and organisations designed to benefit everyone. The borough provides children with three years of music lessons and a visit to the theatres of the West End. Sir Robin refuses to give money to faith organisations and has cut spending on translation services. “If you give money to a group you make it more powerful,” he growls. Any street that wants to hold a party can apply for money—so long as the event involves all, not just one community. In allocating social housing, Sir Robin insists he is ironing out the divisions between different ethnic groups.
The two mayors’ philosophies are thus utterly at odds—and also rather odd, at least for Britain. Mr Rahman’s style of ethnic-group politics is reminiscent of urban America. Sir Robin’s determined secularism is more French.
One explanation is the different make-up of Newham and Tower Hamlets. Both have lots of immigrants and non-whites, but Newham is more diverse. No ethnic group constitutes more than one-fifth of its population (see chart). Tower Hamlets, by contrast, is about one-third white British and one-third Bangladeshi. And, because the borough’s white Britons are divided between yuppies, many of whom work in the financial district of Canary Wharf, and old working-class Cockneys, the Bangladeshis hold sway.
For all that Mr Rahman brandishes his support for other groups, Bangladeshis run so many religious and charitable organisations in Tower Hamlets that spending on such outfits tends to benefit them. And money given can also be taken away. John Biggs, a Labour opponent of Mr Rahman (who is an independent), says some organisations have cancelled meetings with him for fear of losing the mayor’s support. One man, whose charity did invite Mr Biggs and whose grant was cut, says he was subsequently told at the local mosque: “If you want to live in the water, you have to be a crocodile.” Mr Rahman’s allies and aides deny the removal of funding had anything to do with the invitation.
Because Newham is more diverse and more immigrant-heavy (over half of its residents were born abroad) its political complexion is quite different. No group dominates. As a result, the mayor can eschew patchwork politics and run his borough as a melting pot.
He has critics all the same. Sir Robin’s decision to refuse planning permission for a new mosque drew protests from local Muslim groups. It also persuaded Respect, a left-wing, anti-war party with a strong Muslim following, to stage a rally in the borough—at which George Galloway, the party’s sole MP, called on the mayor to resign. Sir Robin insists that the mosque contravened planning rules and that the land was earmarked for houses and businesses. “The public has already paid for new roads and services there,” he explains. “Why should only one group get the benefit?”
Both Mr Rahman and Sir Robin go before voters next May. Opponents are stirring. Mr Biggs is confident that despite his disadvantage among Bangladeshis, a high turnout will propel him into office. Sir Robin has cross-community appeal (he won 68% of the vote in 2011, albeit on a low turnout) but Respect will challenge him. And both men are threatened by bigger forces.
London is churning, becoming ever more ethnically, religiously and linguistically diverse. Every year almost 1m people move into or out of the city, or between its boroughs. Bangladeshis are moving out of Tower Hamlets and their share of its population is falling slightly, threatening Mr Rahman’s power base. And both he and Sir Robin have ever stronger competition in Mr Johnson, who is steadily grabbing powers from the boroughs. Local politics is unlikely to produce more men like them. Which is rather a shame.
Trial by Jeory 
Delusions of grandeur anyone? To think the Economist would imitate anything written by a two-but ‘journalist’ who has lost all journalistic integrity if he had any to begin with.
I like the Economist article, thanks for sharing. A refreshing outsiders view untainted by personal interests.
In other words, naive.
The Economist article also failed to mention:
£40,000,000 “invested” by Sir Robin to facilitate WHU’s relocation to the Olympic Stadium; £5,200,000 wasted on the failed London Pleasure Gardens venture; £100,000+ spent on electronic tracking of staff, and £400,000 spent on a four day music event is hardly spending “spare” pennies on events that benefit everyone.
How many players will Sam Allardyce get for that?
An interesting objective take on the two boroughs. One lead by a local man in every sense; loved, loathed and challenged every at every step. Grass root politics at its best and worst. The other lead by a party machine with an absolute dictator. Its London Borough of people power V London Borough of party power.
Pathetic.
Who was the journalist? I can’t find a by line. Whoever it was will rue the day they ever turned the computer on, it is the kind of stuff that third world dictators pay western has been hacks to churn out. Er, yeah!
The whole piece doesn’t ring true and is reminiscent of the Dear Leader school of journalism. If the event at the East London synagogue actually took place then it was obviously staged down to the motorists jumping out of their cars to shake the Mayor’s hand when they recognised him.
Lazy left journos churned out the same crap about Russia in the thirties and real reportage by real journalists was deemed to be fascist propaganda. All of those hired hacks are now forgotten while Orwell and Koestler remain.
It is very clear that both Tower Hamlets and Newham are poorly run boroughs subject to the whims and prejudices of a single individual. The whole concept of a directly elected mayor is flawed. The checks and balances of traditional local government better serves the needs of the people.
Of course before we get too much praise in of Robin Wales, intolerant of ghettoisation as he so rightly is, perhaps we should wonder how he contrived to give 2000 tickets for West Ham v Man City to the Stratford and Leyton mosques.
http://www.westhamonline.net/forum_flat.php?7031955|a0_b0
That’s why 90% of cities rejected the mayoral system in 2012 championed by ministers.
“motorists jumping out of their cars to shake the Mayor’s hand when they recognised him.”
I believe that is because if they are carrying a a copy of East End Life and say to him “you are Luther Rahman” he gives them a tenner
Ted is upset the economist did not run the article by him first. him being Tower Hamlets’ white gatekeeper.
Hi Terry.
Please try to use a more original name to post comments.
You seem to have exhausted many others, eg Steveo, tony, tone, john Terry, Jez.
You a Chelsea fan?
how dare you sir i am a hammer
The demographics of Tower Hamlets are interesting and Ted is correct in pointing out that the Bangladeshi population is dropping slightly. Following the Jewish dispersal out to Gants Hill, Woodford and beyond it will however be many years before this shift shows up in the electoral maths of the borough.
There are a number of factors that could however play a role in reducing the influence of Bangladeshis in East End politics that will come into play soon. One of these is the fact that for the next local elections a new system of voter checking is to be brought in.
I am told that voter registrations will be computer checked against NI numbers and information from HMRC. All of this can be done at the tap of a computer key. This will immediately eliminate two of Lutfurs councillors who live respectively in Redbridge and Barking and Dagenham, one is even on the electoral register there.
Expect to see an exodus from the Tower Hamlets register both voluntarily and by removal. An interesting example of this can be seen on the Boundary Estate
in Weavers Ward which featured in the excellent Secret History of Our Streets series of programmes.
Although at one time it had a Bangladeshi majority as a result of that community’s squatting campaign in the seventies it was thought that as a result of the right to buy that the Bangladeshi element was now down to about forty per cent.
A recent examination of the register and a comparison with the occupants of particular flats now shows that while there are as many as six or seven Bangladeshi occupants shown on the register in fact the actual occupants are from a variety of, mainly, European countries. The simple computer checks that show up Housing Benefit and other frauds will be brought into play.
One wonders why nothing has been done about the two councillors living outside the borough. Surely this should be one for a programme such as Saints and Sinners which exposes this type of fraud. I’ll give them a call today.
The one in Barking and Dagenham isn’t in Lutfur’s camp – at least last time I checked he was in the Lab Group…
Anyway, the law is clear that it’s perfectly permissible to live elsewhere providing that at the time of the last election you either lived or worked in the borough.
And last time I checked he wasn’t Bangladeshi either.
Do not hold your breath for any major changes. The councillors from outside the borough will simply be replaced by other Bangladeshis – possibly even less competent and more perks hungry.
In regards to Bangladeshi voting power. Yes, there might be a marginal movement up and down in the numbers of Bangladeshis but the statistical data in this area is highly unreliable. Sit down in a waiting room of a maternity ward in the Royal London Hospital to have some first hand experience. Secondly, Europeans do not vote so they do not balance the alleged reduction in the Bangladeshi voting power. Thirdly, the voting abnormalities in LBTH, cannot and will not be resolved by any computer data bases or data mining. If council houses subletting and housing benefit fraud cannot be tackled and this is about money how come anyone would invest time and resources in tackling election fraud. Fourthly, it is not only about the (real or not) numbers of voters and white voters disengagement – it is also about Bangladeshi “political activists and community leaders” (think Rochdale Grooming Gang) intimidating local Bangladeshis and other voters. Go to any polling station in LBTH on an election day and you would see an interesting mixture of young men in sport clothes and long bearded individuals in traditional outfits loitering there. Their primary aim is to make white people feel uncomfortable casting their votes – while you and me might not care – there will be a lot of others would simply not want to go through this experience in the future again.
“Their primary aim is to make white people feel uncomfortable casting their votes” LMAO! Are you listening to yourself? Please can we have a picture of these traditional guys because in all my years of voting I have never seen them, most Bangladeshi guys campaigning are non beardy as far as I can see. Too many deluded people in this Borough.
also why are beards and traditional clothes so scary? Has anyone ever expressed fear of them?
“there will be a lot of others would simply not want to go through this experience in the future again.” OMG! if there are people out there who fear beards they need to seek therapy. It’s not normal. If they fear traditional clothes remember that Prime Minister’s wives wear saris sometimes. what? you mean they fear only Bangladeshi people in traditional clothes? Bit racist innit?
The world recognized Economist is wrong because it does not fit into Ted Jeory’s right wing view of all Bengalis in Tower Hamlets…Sounds about right Mr I am right just because i write my views down on a blog…
What is my “right wing view of all Bengalis in Tower Hamlets”?
And how do you define “right wing”?
Peter.
I think you do the younger Bangladeshi elements a disservice by assuming that the old village loyalties and power brokers are forces whose powers cannot be challenged and are impossible to diminish. Everything changes even the loyalties of Syhleties. It is also not really addressing the real problems by blaming intimidation at polling stations
Certainly Lutfur Rahman has used the council’s coffers to, essentially, buy support and he is aided in this by the coterie of ” useful idiots” to use Lenin’s phrase who are willing participants in his various front schemes and faith forums which are of course smoke screens for his real agenda.
There is however a generation of younger Bangladeshis who are sceptical of the old guard and who are capable of making their own decisions. It is this generation that Labour have to appeal to and that can only be done by directly approaching them instead of leaving them to the mullahs and maddrassars. Bangladeshi Labour councillors are simply not high profile enough, they have got to pull their fingers out big time.
John Barnes is obviously someone who is shilling for Lutfur or is a white leftist who still hasn’t got his head around why Respect collapsed.
While there is here and in other places reasoned criticism of Rahman and his ilk, there is no plan, it seems to me, in place as to how to get rid of him and he is beatable. His nominee should have taken that last by election in Weavers Ward yet Labour won with a white candidate so he is vulnerable.
May I make a few modest suggestions as to how to at least start the campaign which in my part of the borough isn’t yet on the radar.
Recognise that Tower Hamlets is the only inner London borough not controlled by Labour. That in itself should shock the leadership into beginning to prioritise the area. It is where the Labour Party was founded and the fact that it isn’t Labour should be a matter of the gravest concern for the party leadership.
There should be a continuous stream of high level MPs and significant others to events in the borough, let’s face it, for most of the year they are not that far away., fifteen minutes in a paid for taxi.These people have a high profile within the Bangladeshi community which is totally aware of what is going on in terms of British politics.
There has been a stream of extremist clerics and ultra left has been wannabees willing to speak at various forums in the borough in support of Rahman, where are the Millibands and Balls’? If you want a community to take you and your local representative seriously you have to engage with them. That means turning up and talking.
Why not have at least one high profile Labour politician a fortnight in the borough? Make Tower Hamlets a national Labour Party issue stressing the importance of taking the area back under Labour where is where it has been in one way or another for the best part of a century.
Do not shy away from tackling the issues of Islamic extremism. To discuss a subject isn’t to pander to it and the whole issue is hot button with white voters and those Muslims who are appalled at what is being said and done in their names. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that Muslims are a monolithic block, they are not. What the moderate elements need is leadership from democratic forces and in Tower Hamlets that can only be Labour.
Use the Bangladeshi media instead of leaving it as Rahman’s private means of communicating with his electorate. Why doesn’t Milliband or some other high profile member of the party speak on one or all of the Bangla TV stations? Use legislation to make these stations stick to the law on what is political campaigning with the threat of licenses being withdrawn by a future Labour government. They will go with the money.
Lay down the law to the likes of Livingstone, Shawcross and Meacher that if the want to be seen as supporting Lutfur they are out of the party and that goes for everyone else. Apologists who take the Lutfur shilling like Mark Seddon should have it made clear to them that they are out as far as a future Labour government is concerned.
On the issue of councillors living outside the borough take the high ground and name and shame Lutfur’s two as well as demanding the resignation of Bill Turner who I understand has moved to Barking and Dagenham and is trying to get elected to something there for Labour. It seems that he is within the law but that should not be the issue. Demand his resignation.
Use the whole issue of the annual Love Box in Victoria Park to mobilise several thousand local votes. The whole area becomes uninhabitable for several days and I know people with young children who have had to send them away to stay with friends and relatives because of the noise. Publicise the statement by one of Lutfur’s councillors that if locals don’t like the noise they should move. H L Mencken once said that all politics is local and there was outrage at the statement. Use the issue, it’s cross party.
Talking of parties work out a deal with the others to not take votes off each other. Labour narrowly lost a by election in Spitalfields because of the Tory, Green and Lib Dem vote. It’s time for an end to vanity politics the main enemy is Lutfur and his kleptocratic regime.
And lastly it’s time for the Labour candidate to get out and campaign and to disprove the allegations that whatever happens in May he still has his GLA salary. There is a tremendous amount of goodwill for Labour out there but it has to be mobilised. Let’s do it. The above is not exhaustive, I’m sure others will have their own opinions and I proffer mine as the basis for the start of the discussion.
You are a wise man themadmullahofbricklane.
In the meantime though, while parents of children denied places to Chisenhale Primary were organising their petition and protest movement John Biggs took no notice – busy with the tragedy of the collapsed factory in Bangladesh.
He seemed to have been more involved in celebrating Ramadan and Eid than Lutfur himself.
Instead of engaging with local issues, local community, activating people around things that matter to them the most (such as Love Box mess, school places, parks) Biggs is trying to be more Muslim and more Bangladeshi than Lutfur. This is a really naive, ill advised and silly way of campaigning.
The fact that Galloway managed to manipulate Bangladeshis into thinking he was the forgotten son of Muhammad does not mean this trick will work again especially against such a confident player as Lutfur who wastes no time pumping money into Mosques and Islamic community centers.
Labour and Biggs stand no chance even if they manage to get on board a few intellectually blooming young Bangladeshis who have enough of the politics at the back of a curry restaurant.
The only way forward if Biggs is really motivated enough to win is to start engaging through local issues, with local people and local problems without the whole let-me-please-Muslims agenda. You wanna make people happy – fix the things close to them and their everyday lives regardless of their skin colour and language. Not a bloody factory in Dhaka!
Peter.
We are not in disagreement. Biggs and Labour have got less than eight or ten weeks to kickstart the campaign or they may as well give up. At the moment there is no sign that they are going to put their backs into it and I am not hopeful that they will. The book referred to by Ted at the beginning of this article “The British Dream” is actually a blue print of how they should run the campaign although I doubt any of them have actually read it.
Other essential reads are Ed West’s ” The Diversity Illusion” and ” From Fatwa to Jihad” by Kenan Malik. All deal in a positive way with the problems we face in Tower Hamlets and are essential reading for anyone concerned with the issues.