WHEN even the Great David Dimbleby starts sighing live on the BBC about a “shambles” in the Muppet land of Tower Hamlets, we know we have a problem.
The Guardian journalist James Ball tweeted in the early hours of this morning: “There’s always one. And it’s always f***ing Tower f***ing Hamlets.”
Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament was understood to be irritated.
Today, broadcaster Iain Dale devoted an hour of his LBC radio programme to it.
Delaying the results of the European Parliament elections by five hours last night wasn’t the best of PR moves.
A borough that had already been branded by some as a byword for sleaze is now (perhaps a little unfairly) a byword for incompetence.
If Eric Pickles was in need of any extra camouflage for a form of intervention when the PwC auditors hand him their report by June 30, he now has it.
There will be many reasons for the counting shambles of the past few days, but the most basic is that we have a dysfunctional local authority at a political level.
John Williams, by day the head of democratic services at Tower Hamlets (a job in which he largely excels, given the circumstances), is a very decent and straightforward man.
But I’m not sure he was the most senior employee available to act as Returning Officer.
My understanding is that he was thrust into the role because other more qualified individuals may have ducked the job or could not be trusted by some of the political parties.
And the reason the parties felt they couldn’t trust some of these candidates is because of previous political shambles.
The chaos and dysfunctionality that some of us have been writing about for years manifested themselves right at the heart of the democratic process at the weekend.
Clearly, we are now at a point where serious action is needed.
Which brings us back to the election and the results.
Maybe the words spoken in the aftermath of election war aren’t the best guide to future thinking, but they can reveal innermost thoughts.
At his press conference in the early hours of Friday morning, Mayor Lutfur declined to say John Biggs wasn’t a racist. I think that was a mistake and perhaps Lutfur also knows this.
Some time later, he tweeted this to John:
I extend my thanks to @johnbiggs4mayor for the work he put into his campaign and hope we can work together to better Tower Hamlets.
John replied:
@MayorLutfur I am happy to repeat best wishes & offer support for nxt 4 yrs. Non-sectarian partnership always possible.
This was conciliatory and professional.
John, having been baited by Lutfur’s supporters, also tweeted these messages over the weekend:
3 tweets: 1 Thanks for the support. Pleased many know I’m a good guy. Not a racist. Proud to be here and of what we have achieved together.
2. & I don’t mind the abuse – it helps understand the polarised, dishonest, and often quite racist thinking behind the Mayors party.
3. Finally most of us in East End want to live together. We must continue to fight those who try to divide us. From right, or pretend left.
The more learned in Lutfur’s camp believe John was wrong to react to the thugs, but I disagree. I think he was quite right to take them on and he probably should have done so in similar language during his election campaign.
A worrying race-fuelled frenzy was whipped up by the Tower Hamlets First campaign. In the same way they believe the EDL came banging on the borough’s doors due to errant words and inaccurate labelling, they must now recognise similar dangers by their own words.
The mayoral election result and the campaign that went with it underlined the racial divisions in the borough. I’m fairly sure they’re mainly at the political level at the moment, but there’s a serious risk of that becoming part of a wider mindset.
Community cohesion, a phrase that has for so long been associated with Whitehallspeak, now has to take on real meaning.
Even many in Lutfur’s own camp, and in the Bengali media, recognise his victory was too narrowly based. He has a strong mandate, but mainly from one community. His Tower Hamlets First group has, at the time of writing, 18 councillors, all of them Bengali, 17 of them men. Just one woman.
He now has to show he can truly lead for the whole borough.
So how does he do that when there are so many dynamics at play?
My greatest criticism of Lutfur in his last term were his disregard for scrutiny and an insecure appetite for trappings of power.
With a bigger group behind him in council, I suspect we’ll see him become more confident and address some of these criticisms. In the council chamber, I think he’ll start to take more questions and I suspect he’ll ditch the chauffeured Merc and hire an eco car instead.
And wouldn’t it be lovely if he issued a call for reconciliation, a plea for everyone to work together to draw the poison from Tower Hamlets politics? He could ask Labour to supply members to his cabinet, he could form a group of resident advisors to act as a monthly sounding board; he could have public question times every six months.
But I think his overriding desire for readmission to the Labour party (on his terms) will drive him more than anything else. On Channel S TV tonight he said his door is open to the Labour group if they would like to cooperate.
He has a cabinet to pick by June 11, the date of the Annual meeting of the council. I’m sure he’d love to have the likes of David Edgar and Marc Francis serve with him, and quite possibly Rachael Saunders.
Whether Labour would allow that so soon after the election is doubtful. Personally, I think they should just get on with it and give him a go. Nothing wrong with a trial period.
But what would be Lutfur’s price…and also the cost to him?
He has a much larger group to please now, including a certain Abjol Miah, the former IFE-aligned Respect leader, who doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to getting along with party colleagues. Those who served with him in Respect remember him as a rather malign influence in group meetings, someone who shouted at women members. Personally, I’ve always found him courteous, but there’s certainly a risk he could cause internal trouble for the mayor: I understand they’re not best buddies.
Lutfur could of course try to do what Sir Robin Wales is said to do in Newham and placate his group with artificial new committee/advisory positions that pay generous allowances. But because he doesn’t have a controlling majority of 23 councillors, that might be tricky.
Some Labour members might defect of course; but then again, those who lose out under Lutfur may be dangled a destabilising carrot back into the Labour stable.
So among the soft and fuzzy ideas of peace, a complex and hard-nosed game of realpolitik poker is about to be played.
On Lutfur’s side, he has many cards to play. He’s shown what a superb grassroots organiser he can be and he’s devastated Labour while even using many of their policies for his campaigning. What now worries them is whether he can suck in more of their councillors and whether he can mobilise his support in next year’s general election against Jim Fitzpatrick and Rushanara Ali.
His sole female councillor, Rabina Khan, is said to be keen to take on Rushanara in Bethnal Green and Bow. That would be a close fight. In Poplar and Limehouse, Jim is probably safer, but the danger is there. Lutfur could offer to call off this potential war in return for his re-admittance, but he would no doubt demand all his councillors go with him. I think that would be too much for Labour to stomach. Could Lutfur agree on a certain number going with him? I doubt it; he’d be branded a traitor by the rump.
On the other hand, Lutfur may also overestimate his own victory. He’s very popular personally among Bengalis but his success was also due to a collective Bengali ‘patriotism’: many voted for him, not necessarily because they thought he was particularly good, but because they felt he had been wronged and he was fighting a non-Bengali in John Biggs. Had Labour fielded a popular Bengali in Biggs’s place, the story might be different today.
Labour’s post-mortem on its defeat is going to be painful. Next week, they have to elect their new group leader and this will give us an indication on their thinking.
But here’s one last thought. In a recent pamphlet of essays from the think tank, Demos, Max Wind-Cowie, a policy wonk, suggested Tower Hamlets was now so dysfunctional that it should be abolished as a local authority. He said it could be absorbed in parts by neighbouring Hackney and Newham.
I’m not sure Jules Pipe or Robin Wales would be thrilled at that prospect, but is there some merit in that kind of idea?
After all, Tower Hamlets as an authority is a fairly artificial entity, having existed only since 1965. Before that we had the boroughs of Bethnal Green, Stepney and Poplar.
Former Labour councillor Kevin Morton tweeted last night that David Owen, who lives in Narrow Street in Limehouse, once suggested a London Borough of Docklands. Kevin said it was perhaps time to revive that idea…a borough that took in Canary Wharf, the Isle of Dogs and parts of Poplar and Wapping.
Perhaps not as daft as it at first sounds.
In fact, I think a certain Ken Livingstone thinks we have far too many boroughs in London. Maybe he can help drive that campaign.
Trial by Jeory 
I’m not sure that Labour should allow his return. However, I think the priority is for the council to be stabilised. Could the government impose a chief officer and leadership team who could face down the disgraceful politics and serve all the people in Tower Hamlets?
A pretty extraordinary omission from Ted. After all that’s happened he simply can’t bring himself to say “Congratulations, Lutfur.”
The ordinary courtesies of British culture are absent from the man who offers us a lecture about what is and is not appropriate to say following an election.
Why don’t you add a comment below to correct that, Ted?
Dan on another planet again. Read my last post.
Why should anyone congratulate a man who has bought his re-election with public money, and won it solely and explicitly with the support of one community in the borough that constitutes only 30% of the population? Sod congratulating, call on DCLG to do an Anglesey on the place.
Sorry but you lot are starting to sound a bit middle eastern in your attempt to over turn democracy as we see it, just because an election didn’t go your way. Very socialist indeed.
Changing the goal posts are never a good idea if you have any respect for the principles of democracy. You lost, suck it in and stop alienating East Enders and engage better. Not bloody push for an Egypt style coup of your rival that you failed to beat in a fair fight. Sheesh
What I care about the most is the place where I was born and have lived my life. This election has again placed more shame on Tower Hamlets – is it right to accuse a person of being racist to win an election? The political class are causing tension between the “communities” that make up this community for political gain. I hope the government impose a senior management team to refocus the local authority towards the people it should serve and not this gutter politics
Gutter politics… Labour are no stranger to this my dear Snowman.
I believe the racial elements existed within Labours campaign and may well have started it. The accusation of Lutfur focusing on one community, is essentially calling him a racist. I think it’s true, but don’t think it wasn’t present in both camps.
Politics becomes gutter it seems when you lose. You think Labour have been shrinking violets in all of this?
And I heard Peter Golds today on BBC and he came across rather infantile. Which is a shame because I normally like him. He has started making accusations of voter intimidation, referring to the groups that shove leaflets in your face near the polling stations, but then tried to make this seem like an exclusive problem for Lutfur’s party.
How supremely disingenuous, as Labour are equally guilty of this. Historically as well as most recently, this time round. Arrows pointing to Labour’s rose and Crosses on the exact box shoved in your face as if your are illiterate and forgot how to draw an ‘X’ … all tactics Labour use all the time.
Mr Golds please be fair and call out Labour as you know they are guilty of this as well. You will lose the respect of people like myself, who are otherwise great fans.
Peter Golds is just awful. I commented on his piece where he lets his prejudices shine through. An absolute disgrace. Why doesn’t he does try to be a bit more subtle? Senior Tony figures should have a word with him. He is also responsible for why the number of Tory councillors halved.
Although it is not in my hands, the Tory group really should replace the disgraceful Golds as their leader. I have seen the same incident about a THF candidate using his phone and talking to a female council official described in two different ways by Golds and Andrew Wood. Golds wanted to portray the THF candidate as somehow degrading women (insuniating that this is how Muslim men talk to women) whereas Wood was much more measured. They are both Tories but sound so different from each other.
Man on the Clapham Omnibus, I described what I saw, Peter Golds was closer and would have heard what was said, I could not hear what was said or the tone used. I might have not been so measured if the person lunged at me in the same way that he lunged at Peter, which I also saw. Peter gets a lot of stick for putting his head above the parapet but if he did not do so we would all be worse off.
yeah, that’s stuff’s a bit of a silly fuss I think.
In Islington, and Westminster, and Camden, you have polling stations where large groups of Bengali men hang around outside and shout ‘Put your X besides the rose’ in Bengali when people come past. There’s nothing sinister in it. i don’t think anyone finds it intimidating. Just people getting involved in democracy.
I don’t agree, Old Ford. I think there is something about Bangladeshi men that makes them want to be in a crowd. There are a nuisance.
I suppose the rose is important because lots of people don’t read English well.
Blow me, Marc, you truly are a disgrace if you think the gangs hassling voters outside polling stations are just “people getting involved in democracy”. If you think no one finds it intimidating plainly you aren’t a good judge of other people.
Wrong – very, very wrong – people do find it intimidating, especially women.
I’ve voted in different authorities and I’ve seen polling stations in other places. The only place that I’ve ever seen or encountered crowds near the access point to a polling station is Tower Hamlets.
Frankly I think the Metropolitan Police ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Sorry, Ted. I must have missed it.
NEC meet on 6th June. They’ll speak about it then. I imagine that allowing Labour people to serve in Lutfur’s cabinet might be a simple first step in reconciliation.
And several tweets on it. And personal message of congratulations
Yes, I would like to highlight that Ted has been rather graceful. There has been a change in his tone. It all started with his ‘good deed of the day’ when he left the count in Troxy to walk his sister-in-law home.
Hopefully, Ted will usher in a new era of constructive criticism and balanced journalism.
Interesting piece, Ted. I will look forward to seeing how leading figures in the various camps react to this result. I hope they will think carefully before making any decisions and consider the long-term impact – rather than knee-jerk reactions. That goes for all camps on the council.
@Snowman
This is all sounding a bit Thailand.
In this country, we vote for local politicians run things. You can’t start talking about the Tory central government imposing unelected rulers, or abolishing the authority and hiving it off to neighbouring authorities just because you don’t like the electoral result and it’s a way out.
There isn’t that kind of way out. We live in a democracy. You have to accept the result, or it makes a mockery of that democracy. And then when you get your way in elections next time, the other lot can decide that they’re not going to accept the result and they’re going to have a coup. There’s no rewind button, or eject button. You just have to deal with what the majority went for and in four years you’ll get another chance to get your guys in. In the meantime, hold the victors to account to do the best job possible.
And if holding Lutfur to account means asking him questions in Council – yeah, I think he should answer them. Yeah, Robin Wales never answers any, but Lutfur doesn’t need to stoop to the lowest denominator. Not all of them but like in most London councils he can answer a handful and his cabinet leads can answer the rest. He said on the night of the count that he intended to serve all the electorate, not just his voters. I think we should allow him to make good his word.
Well said, Oldford. The desperation by those who lost is just too much. Abolish the council. Bring in unelected officers to run the borough. Next, someone will say arrest Lutfur and put him in jail. How dare he win an election? How dare he defeat Labour, not once but twice? How dare he become so popular. It is just pathetic and designed to insult residents of TH who voted for Lutfur to their mayor fair and square.
Officers are not elected. We need a strong leadership team. Remember we do not have a CEO as Lutfer wanted his choice and the full council blocked this appointment – I am not saying suspend democracy. I am saying improve democracy by providing a strong, accountable and robust executive team
Oxford – I’m not saying any of the above. I will be able to comment fully in a few weeks. But if you work in this organisation it is clear that it lacks a stable and focused management team due to political stale mate. I would be saying the same if Biggs won. I’m talking about the executive I.e senior officers
I don’t know what council you’re looking at but there is a functioning SMT with a head of paid services at the top in LBTH. There is no need for a centrally imposed management team.
‘Strong leadership’?? What like in Egypt and Mubarak and now Sisi? I’m sorry but what you lot are suggesting is just diabolical. I hate Lutfur, but your remedy to this problem is the suspension of democracy just because you can’t fight fair?
Ridiculous. I’m very depressed at the lack of clear thinking, even after taking such a mullering. Once high turn out was the holy grail, and now that it backfired, unfair coups are the only way for Labour to win? Come on..?
Cllr Rabina Khan would defeat Rushanara hands down. Rabina’s housing legacy in TH is the best in a generation.
I personally would love to see such a contest. Rushanara is rather unimpressive. She has been spending too much time with John ‘Second Choice’ Biggs.
That would be the same Rabina Khan who has been convicted of Housing Benefit fraud not once but twice?
And who charged £120.35 in expenses for a taxi journey from the Town Hall to Victoria Park (which was not only over the top in cost but also totally unnecessary as there is a bus which goes directly between the two locations)? https://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/cllr-rabina-khans-120-cab-for-a-1-5-mile-trip-to-the-park-bus-fare-1-35/
Vote Rabina and let her loose on the system of MPs’ allowances and expenses!
So far as I’m aware Rabina has never been convicted of anything and if this is untrue (if it’s not presumably you’ve got some evidence) it’s defamatory and I suggest you get Ted to have it taken down pretty quickly in order to avoid liability.
That is defamation because Cllr Rabina was never convicted of housing benefit fraud. It was a different former councillor, Shelina Akhtar and she lost her seat as a result.
Ted, you should not allow such a defamatory post from this bloke.
Other than your defamatory comment, the expenses point actually makes Rabina quite suitable to become an MP. That is what MPs do – claim loads of expenses!
You should get your facts right before you start blabbing mate. Makes you look stupid otherwise.
Re the housing benefit – my mistake, sorry. The question mark at the end of the sentence indicated that I was asking a question and seeking information rather than stating a fact – you have corrected my error and given the information.
Man on Clapham Omnibus: I presume your post was a joke because I would be even more ashamed of this borough if Tower Hamlets were the first to send an MP whose qualification for the job was their proven ability to abuse expenses.
I think the question of what happens when the report comes out on the 30th June is one that is sightly overlooked. It’s many questions; what will the report say and what will that fat idiot Pickles do as a result? (What powers are available to him anyway?)
What is not in doubt is that The Despicable Rahman’s victory is both bad and sad as it means another four years of the racist politics of division that we have all become so used to from him and his people. What is also not in doubt is that Labour would arguably have been little better; they created the Son Of Labour and an administration headed by them may well have been just as corrupt and contemptible. Has The Despicable Rahman’s victory actually saved us from a fate worse than THF?
An aisde, but didn’t Josh Peck say that THLabour would never allow the re-inclusion of Rahman?
Tim.
Ah yes, Josh Peck – he is the person who is single most responsible for the demise and destruction of Labour in TH. He started the non-cooperation with Lutfur back in 2010 when Lutfur won. Many from the Labour ranks then jumped ship to Lutfur while Peck was leader of the Labour group.
With the defeat of the likes of Motin uz Zaman, Carlo Gibbs, Helal Abbas and Abdal Ullah – they will be looking for someone to blame and take revenge. All fingers will point to Peck. Stabbing in the back is an age old Labour tradition. Peck, watch your back!
Spot on. What difference would Labour have made? None!
What Lutfur is being accused of today by Saunders and cllr Golds, Labour did last Thursday like it was no man’s business. I don’t understand this shameless hypocrisy that everyone is all of a sudden happy to partake in.
“The demise and destruction of Labour in TH”. Hang on A.M. aren’t you forgetting the whole Respect era and the invasion of Iraq I think that was the cause of many grassroots leaving the party. Are you Mr Abjol Miah respect candidate and all that? If so it’s your fault mate. Well done for splitting the borough
John Jee, you make a good point about Respect and Iraq war. However, Labour seemed to have recovered from that in the May 2010 local election. Respect got wiped out in the borough. Then, Lutfur got elected as mayor and Josh Peck and co started dragging the Labour party down with their non-cooperation and back-stabbing tactics. This is why Peck should shoulder the blame. If he had been more cooperative, Labour would not have been in this situation today. It is worse than when Respect emerged in the borough.
Don’t forget what I still consider to be a historic first on Labour becoming bedfellows with the Tories, in their bid to thwart their rival. That was a sad saga in Labour’s history indeed. And Joshua Peck will be forever remembered to have presided over that ridiculous strategy, for which they got thoroughly punished at the polls.
Labour’s attempt at suddenly becoming the champion of the the traditional East Enders was nothing short of insulting.
There’s one option you forgot to mention Ted. David Cameron could send in the army and replace Rahman with a viceroy. The locals are familiar with this kind of governance so shouldn’t complain too much.
I am also uncomfortable about the make up Rahman’s group but find your article patronising and disrespectful to the thousands of people who voted in this election.
There’s only one solution to the shambles in Tower Hamlets and that is for Labour to accept they made a mistake in getting rid of Rahman.
Rahman as a Labour mayor, supported by Labour cabinet colleagues and defended by the Labour party machine and media would bring the stability Tower Hamlets needs.
Bring Lutfur Back!
Imran do you think Labour should ignore the way Rahman & Co have behaved in office (lack of transparency, accountability, dividing the community, etc) just for the sake of “letting him back in”. To let him back in would endorse his behaviour and only those seeking power at any cost would be able to bring themselves to do that.
John Jee, those accusations against Lutfur are not true.
Community is not divided. They (Bangladeshis and non-Bangladshis alike) united and rallied behind Lutfur to re-elect him.
Lutfur is transparent. Police found no evidence of criminality against him. PwC are doing their investigation. John Biggs was himself not hopeful that PwC would find anything.
Lutfur is accountable. As a directly elected mayor. He is accountable to the electorate. They judged him on his record and gave him the thumbs up for another four years.
I agree with you Imran, but any re-admission should be on Lutfur’s terms. Labour need him more than Lutfur needs Labour. Lutfur demonstrated that his own brand is more powerful than the Labour brand in TH.
If re-admitted, Lutfur should sideline all the destructive elements (i.e. Peck and his cronies) that bring the TH Labour party down.
Aha – so it’s all about “the brand”! Have you just given the game away as to who you are?
Anyway I wouldn’t worry spending time thinking about either the idea or the “terms”, IMO it’s not going to happen and part of the reason why you explain in your final sentence.
Imran – there are thousands of people in this borough who are feeling totally disrespected by the current composition of the Council.
Two thirds of the people of this borough are NOT of Bangladeshi origin.
One half of the borough are women
This Council does NOT represent the community at large.
Yes. Do that. Send in a viceroy. Seriously.
Can somebody please explain to me what benefit would be brought to Labour by readmitting Lutfur and his compatriots? I am trying to understand this and also to understand what benefit would outweigh the cost of having him back?
As Ted says, he would only go back on his own terms and as far as I can see if he and his compatriots didn’t get their own way in the future the toys would duly be thrown out of the pram again. Holding a party continually to ransom is a major threat to that party’s democratic future and I cannot see any benefit that outweighs that threat.
Yes, Labour have failed to win back a borough which has been central to their history but that is just a matter of hurt pride. Surely getting the council back by allowing Lutfur back into the party is pursuing power at any price? If the national party still has principles it should not be opening the doors to Lutfur (unless he makes significant changes to the way that he and his associates behave and campaign).
There’s been a long factional war and a lot of people on both sides are very bruised. It’s important that everyone takes time to consider what’s in the borough’s, and the Labour movement’s best interests.
If they ditch the non-cooperation line, they’ll have the chance to put their skills into delivering excellent services. They’ll be able to help ensure that the council is run by an administration which better reflects the entire community. They’ll be able to help implement a policy platform they mostly agree with anyway. They save their energies that would be spent defending the seats they’ve kept and their MPs – and focus on the Conservatives, which is what Labour are meant to do. Besides, spending four years doing nothing but thinking up new attack lines, scandals and smears is pretty exhausting and a thankless task.
With respect, can you reconsider your use of the word ‘compatriots’ to describe Lutfur’s colleagues? Some people might find it deeply offensive.
Noted re ‘compatriots’ but I despair about why such an innocuous word might be found offensive? I used it in its meaning as ‘colleagues’.
Fair enough, but it doesn’t mean colleagues. It means people from the same country. That’s why ‘patriot’ is part of it: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=compatriot
At some point British Bangladeshis need to decide which country they belong to!!
Deeply offensive? Deeply? Oh get real. If saying ‘compatriots’ is “deeply offensive” what description will you leave for things which are deeply offensive, like incest, necrophilia, grave robbing or bestiality?
I think you’ll find the word ‘compatriots’ is “slightly annoying” at the most.
Lutfur’s policies are no different to those of Labour. His election strategy was based on what was needed to get reflected. It was wasn’t rocket science who would and wouldn’t vote for him so it’s not surprising he concentrated on his likely voters. Regarding his attitudes in power, much of it I suspect is media hype and reports from those who are ‘out to get him’
Here’s 10 quick reasons why Labour should re-admitting Rahman.
1. Secure the future of 2 MPs
2. Take back control of a large London borough.
3. Stabilise a disintegrating party.
4. Remove the shadow of discrimination within the party.
5. Get on board the most active electorates in London, possibly the country; a huge asset for the London mayoral elections.
6. Correct the injustice they did booting out Rahman.
7. Bring stability back to TH which no doubt is sucking up regional Labour resource and time.
8. Neutralise the anti Labour feelings amongst the sizable Muslim electorates in London and elsewhere.
9. Neutralise the local socialists and left wingers.
10. Stop the continuous negative media attention of TH and celebrate the great success in education, housing, regeneration as Labour success.
They can’t take Lutfur back until they’ve got themselves sorted out and off special measures!
First things first!
Nope. And then the Trojan Horse project can be expanded to include Her Majesty’s Opposition….
I know your game
I agree with you Imran, but any re-admission should be on Lutfur’s terms. Labour need him more than Lutfur needs Labour. Lutfur demonstrated that his own brand is more powerful than the Labour brand in TH.
If re-admitted, Lutfur should sideline all the destructive elements (i.e. Peck and his cronies) that bring the TH Labour party down.
All this thinly veiled calls for the suspension of democracy in Tower Hamlets, by the likes of Saunders and Peck (and obviously cllr Golds) must be done away with. It is sickening and short sighted, because how long will it be before the old boy network (which Lutfur is clearly not a part of) does the same for other future community based candidates, such as UKIP.
This is an attempt by Labour to maintain their grip at any cost, even going as far as to destroy the principles of a working democracy. The truth is there is a fragmentation of politics happening, which is good imo because the mainstream parties are clowns masquerading as our representatives. Snuffing it out in the case of Lutfur will usher in the acceptability of such an action further more down the line.
We should stop using phrase like “on Lutfur’s term”. It helps no one.
Lutfur will achieve much more for TH by being in the mainstream of British politics. He and vast majority of his supportersi are Labour to the core. They only needs a chance to get back in.
Last thing TH needs is another Galloway and Respect.
Labour does not need Lutfur.
Labour needs to work out why it fails to appeal to people when those same people in other local authorities have no problem with backing Labour.
The way forward for Tower Hamlets is to recognise that the way things are simply isn’t acceptable for any number of reasons. I’ll focus on a couple below and then highlight what might be some constructive solutions to a way forward.
A review of the processes and behaviour during the recent election(s) will I think show they fell far short of what is regarded as a proper election. The Returning Officer even did us the favour of identifying what sort of things would be breaches of the rules on how to run an election – before they happened. No amount of PR by Takki Sulaiman is going to offset the very poor impression that has been given to London, the UK and Europe.
Let’s face it Tower Hamlets has just had its “dirty washing” to use a colloquialism – hung out in public and going viral on Twitter. It’s making a lot of people feel very depressed about living in Tower Hamlets.
More importantly it certainly does not send out the right sort of ‘vibes’ for inward investment into Tower Hamlets. Who wants to partner with a Council which can’t even run an election properly?
On top of that we now have a Council which is grossly unrepresentative of the community – and that’s because two thirds of Tower Hamlet’s population are NOT of Bangladeshi origin and half of them are women. The profile of councillors elected to date is way out of line with what it should be in a well functioning community led by a competent Council.
The government has a habit – which has been developed by different administrations because it works – of resolving problems in public services with systemic and endemic dysfunctionalism.
It puts them on “Special Measures”. It’s happened more than a few times in relations to schools, NHS Trusts and Councils.
Depending on what happens in the next few weeks with respect to the PWC review I think Tower Hamlets should be prepare itself for a dose of ‘special measures’ or something very like it.
Typically what this means is bringing in a team of people to address those areas which are seen to be dysfunctional. That team works alongside the existing team until such time as effective change has been introduced and the dysfunctional behaviour has been eliminated.
In some instances, a member of the team is put in overall charge of the officer side of the organisation in order to identify, manage and steer through an action plan for change. They continue to work with the organisation until the problems which exist have been addressed.
I’d personally identify the lack of a strong and proven CEO figure at the helm as being one of the key reasons for the difficulties Tower Hamlets faces.
Here’s an example. Let’s say that somebody like Barry Quirk, the current (and longstanding) CEO of Lewisham under Mayor Steve Bullock, was brought in alongside a team of other experts.
Here we would have the man who has just been trusted with being the Regional Returning Officer for London for the Euro Elections – and the man who has personal experience of what it’s like being in the middle of an almighty cockup by LBTH.
He’s also a man who has been a CEO under a Mayor and knows a lot about their respective roles and responsibilities and what makes for effective working between a Mayor and his CEO.
Plus he’s a man who has developed role models for strong leadership in communities with different perspectives. Read about him here http://www.barryquirk.com/ – there’s a lots of scope to examine how his ideas might help LBTH
In addition, there are models of better ways of working that can be found in Councils which have experienced problems in the past – like in Oldham.
In May 2001, Oldham experienced race riots. These resulted from tensions in what was in increasingly segregated town. It also has experienced major problems with failing governance. It’s been to the place that Tower Hamlets needs to avoid – and it’s come out the other side – but only as a result of a lot of investment in community cohesion and working on leadership. In 2012 it won the Most Improved Council in 2012 in the LGC Awards.
Partnering with places like Oldham and looking at the ways they now tackle community cohesion could I believe, be very productive for Tower Hamlets.
The report on Oldham’s Co-operative Council – A Social Productivity Framework provides some ideas for ways forward. I’d suggest people might like to take a look – remembering all the time that this is coming from a very much improved Council which has been to a bad place and come back from the brink.
The reality is that somebody needs to draw a line and say we’re starting over – before Tower Hamlets gets anywhere near to a very bad place.
Some good suggestions, though not sure special measures are quite right. Apart from the election fiasco, the Council is actually well run administratively. The problems are political. There is deep and personal animosity between leaders which no special measure from government can sort out.
I do believe, Labour needs to take control of the situation. Only they can bring stability to TH. Cooperate with Lutfur, work towards bringing him back in. It’s the only way forward.
I do also think there’s a danger of thinking it was all rosy prior to Lutfur’s expulsion.
It wasn’t; it’s the major reason for the shambles.
Too many people were in Labour for their own benefit and wages and who had no idea about policies or political principles.
Labour has been in special measures in LBTH for a decade or more.
Part of Labour’s thinking post-Lutfur 2010 was a need to sort those things out.
The faction fighting was poisonous then and it would be again.
LBTH needs a strong opposition.
The Council is not well run.
It lacks a Chief Executive who is a vital person in any place where there are very strong tensions between political parties. It’s often the CEO who brokers deals between parties in order to get things done and/or moving forward.
It is absolutely vital that the CEO is seen to be apolitical and non-aligned to either side – it’s the only way that works when you have a divided Council.
Similarly it’s also vital that the rest of the Chief Officers are seen to be the same – non-aligned and in nobody’s pocket – but serving all politicians equally.
It’s absolutely vital that there is a CEO in place who will make things happen – according to policy set by the politicians – but who will also provide very strong messages and stand up and tell Councillors what they can and cannot do and refuse to take political direction on administrative matters which breach the rules of governance.
One day the story of why Martin Smith left will be told. I’m wondering if Pickles already knows the explanation.
Not having a very strong, very experienced Chief Executive in place is ultimately a recipe for disarray. I simply cannot believe that the election and count are the only examples of very poor performance in the realm of corporate governance.
I’m very much of the opinion that the PWC report and Pickles will think likewise.
Ted – I’m not saying Labour don’t also need to sort out their problems. They very clearly do.
The fact that the local Labour Party has been on “special measures” for so long only tells me that the Labour Party has no idea what “special measures” actually means.
* It’s root and branch stuff (no pun intended.)
* It’s big and it’s time-limited and
* it very often takes people from elsewhere running the organisation to get it sorted.
* It very often also means some people having to move on if they can’t ‘cut the mustard’ and sign up to “the way things are going to be around here” in the future.
Try working in the council !!
This is pretty much correct. Bringing in the auditors before the local elections was a pretty strong hint by the Government to the electorate to make the ‘right decision’ in the elections.
The electorate thought it best to re-elect the incumbent. The consequence will be that the Authority will be run by the Commissioners; if the Secretary of State needed a further excuse then holding up London’s result in the European Election is a pretty good one. Doncaster is probably a better example than Oldham (as it has a directly elected mayor_: http://www.doncasterrecoveryboard.org.uk/
The readmission of Lutfur to Labour is a red herring. It’ll never happen. Nor should it: he expelled himself by standing against a Labour candidate. And then did it again.
A key point not made in either the article or any of the replies is that local elections in the borough need a reboot. It’s reached a stage mistrust that local authority staff shouldn’t be involved on polling day or the count.
I thought about using Doncaster as an example. However I still maintain Oldham is a better comparison.
The corruption of Donneygate in the early years of the 20th century was particularly prevalent in all matters relating to planning.
In Doncaster the fraud and corruption was also endemic at the Chief Officer level as well as amongst the politicians and I don’t believe that to be the case in Tower Hamlets – as yet.
However without a strong CEO, who is acceptable to the opposition as well as the administration, overseeing the action of Chief Officers – who knows?.
The subsequent exposure of Doncaster in 2010 related to the torture of children and the Council’s inability to run basic services properly. I don’t honestly don’t think LBTH is at that level re services – but Councillors need to be very mindful that this is the sort of outcome which emerges from a dysfunctional Council.
Also Doncaster did not have the race relations tensions that erupted in Oldham and which the Council must prevent in this borough.
The thing is Doncaster has twice been exposed as a disfunctional Council over a period of fifteen years – see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7606755/Doncaster-council-branded-dysfunctional-as-Government-urged-to-intervene.html
Also Doncaster is still subject to Intervention – they have not yet ‘recovered’ – which in part just goes to show how bad things got in Doncaster.
The really important thing to know is that Councils which have ended up in very bad places and have been topics of endless national news stories have started out in exactly the same place as Tower Hamlets is right now.
Nobody should be under any misapprehension of the importance of changing the way things work around here.
On the reboot question of local election issue……
That was exactly my thinking last night. Elections in Tower Hamlets have now got to the point where their conduct has lost the confidence of the electorate.
IMO it’s got to the point where we need to bring in independent people to manage and run the election and do the Count and quality assure the performance of the Presiding Officers at the different Polling Stations.
I’m sure that’s something which could be easily managed using the London Councils organisation http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk as a vehicle for bringing together sufficient people with enough expertise to get the job done properly.
It’s a very effective organisation for doing a lot of things that need London-wide co-operation.
If team Lutfur tried his bully boy tactics against Robin Wales he’d be in for a shock. Wales would eat him alive.
“…Had Labour fielded a popular Bengali in Biggs’s place, the story might be different today.”
Labour tried this with Helal Abbas but Abbas was his own undoing.
Bangladeshis have been voting for non-Bangladeshis for 50 years, so why can’t they choose to vote for a person of Bangladeshi origin for a change?
“… Max Wind-Cowie, a policy wonk, suggested Tower Hamlets was now so dysfunctional that it should be abolished as a local authority. He said it could be absorbed in parts by neighbouring Hackney and Newham.”
Has this “wonk” visited Newham recently? Robin Wales is completely ineffective as a directly elected Mayor, in fact it’s a farce there. Newham residents are not happy and could achieve more for themselves without Robin Wales.
You very obviously have no idea what Newham was like prior to the arrival of Sir Robin Wales!
Lutfur made vile smears about his Muslim opponent Helal Abbas calling him a wife-beater and enemy of Islam.
Hackney and Newham have refused to work with the extremist-linked Lutfur. Robin Wales, described Lutfur as “very bad news” and as creating a form of apartheid.
Lutfur never accused Abbas of that. It was an ad placed in London Bangla, which is run by Lutfur backer Shah Yousuf.
You need to make a distinction between those operating at a political level – the Mayors – and those operating at the officer level.
Councillors would do well to remember that if they can’t get their act together that a Council created by an Act of Parliament can be taken apart by an Act of Parliament.
Tower Hamlets is a fiction.
The only way Sir Robin Wales would come into play is if they split the borough – with the north going into Hackney (and Sir Jules Pipe) and the South becoming part of the Newham Docklands agenda.
Frankly I wouldn’t expect this to happen under a Conservative Government – but who knows what a Labour Government might think re the endless problem of Tower Hamlets……
How does an ad about your opponent placed by your financial backer for your electoral communications differ from electoral communications funded by your financial backer?
I thought that was the whole point of the formal guidance stating that ALL communications about the election by a candidate and his supporters falls within the remit of electoral communications that must follow the guidance re what you can say about other candidates.
Well Wales did just get re-elected so clearly the antipathy towards him isn’t that widespread. There were the people using the Tories there as a political vehicle to get the mega mosque through, and generally fight the secularism he feels is essential to keep the borough united.
Abbas was used and manipulated by Labour. He was really only a pawn and is now on the scrap heap. He represented both communities effectively and stood up against the Islamist mafia that control politics in the borough.
We should stop using phrase like “on Lutfur’s term”. It helps no one.
Lutfur will achieve much more for TH by being in the mainstream of British politics. He and vast majority of his supportersi are Labour to the core. They only needs a chance to get back in.
Last thing TH needs is another Galloway and Respect.
In principle I agree with you – if this is what Lutfur wants to do.
However, if Lutfur and his supporters want to get back into Labour I’d suggest a very good start could be made by demonstrating how to be civil towards other politicians – and that includes people commenting on this blog.
If people are badmouthing individuals who are not of the Lutfur persuasion on this blog I can only assume that’s because it’s allowed behind the scenes.
Role modelling is what is required.
Heavens; if Labour let this man back in we will need to question their values.
But two points in response to Ted’s post. First, I always thought it was a mistake for Labour not to select Siraj Islam. One of the best councillors I have ever encountered, I think he could have given Lutfur a run for his money. From the moment this decision was made, I feared for the outcome.
The other thing is that Lutfur is presently uncontrollable, as Peter Gold’s tweet topically demonstrated. What the Council urgently needs is a Chief Executive who is the guardian of law and ethics and can tell Lutfur that he can’t do things he wants to – raid reserves to fund his office, for example. There has to be a day to day legal constraint on him.
In the meantime we can
(a) hope that the special auditors discover what has been going on and
(b) begin the campaign to abolish the role of mayor in Tower Hamlets and get back to some sort of democracy.
btw can we remind ourselves that Tower Hamlets schools are a success story so not everything is crap as some correspondents suggest
Can we also remind ourselves that the schools are a success story due to the Heads and the Teachers!
All of you who just cant handle that lutfur won again just stop whingin and bore off
I have a lot to say but found this comment below from another bit and he/she took words right out of my mouth,
Sheraz on May 24, 2014 at 5:11 pm
5 5 Rate This
Been a long time since I bothered commenting on here let alone bother to read, but due to some of the racists from gilligan’s blog getting back into their closets… the closet being this blog along with Lutfur’s legitimate democratic win (until someone cries foul again), just had to see how much people on here are stressed and pulling their hair out…. we’ll worth it.
But anyway on a serious note the wait has been very worth it for me to be able to come on here and say the following:
LMFAO!!!!!! (If I knew how to enlarge and embolden that I would along with bells on)
The knowledge that most of you will be kept frothing at the mouths for another 4 years (and it will be 4 years – don’t pin any hopes on fat-pickles investigation) will keep me away from coming on here again…. until at least 2018.
Keep up the good work Ted…. I’m not going to say ‘none of this could have been possible’ without you and that gimp gilligan, but SOME of it has been possible down to the likes of yourselves.
PS – hope all the above are to people’s English, grammatical and of course syntax liking…… if not…… I really couldn’t give a flying f**k.
Can anybody answer the question which I am sure Pickles has asked.
Can the Secretary of State just abolish the role of Mayor in a borough and make it revert back to a normal Council?
No.
Not even if he introduces an amendment to the current legislation with respect to making it a privilege only available to well-run Councils?
Actually yes, he can. He has reserve powers.
Thought so……
Care to quote what they are?
I took a look at the Demos publication “Mapping Integration” http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/mappingintegration
in which Max Wind-Cowie takes a look at and compares integration and community cohesion in the boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets (Chapter 14 ‘On the Ground 2: Tower Hamlets and Newham’ by Max Wind-Cowie – it starts on page 97
You can download it for free
His conclusion
“And what about Tower Hamlets? Frankly, I think we should abolish it. It is a borough that has, in part because of demographics, descended into a poisonous and unhealthy politics of ethnic division. It doesn’t need to be that way. We should break up the borough and incorporate elements of it into the surrounding boroughs so that the particular demo- graphics of Tower Hamlets are watered down and so that real democratic participation and integration are possible. This would be a radical step. But it is better than simply hoping to play Rahman at his own game and win back power for mainstream politics. The divide is real and it is intractable. The answer is to start afresh.”
That’s called gerrymander. To divide up and dilute a group of people because they vote the wrong way. Shirley Porter tried it in Westminster. It didn’t go down too well. The only framework we can operate in is that returned by the democratic elections. Within that, everything is possible. If you try to interfere with that, we all of us have a lot to lose.
Yes I agree. Very silly idea. In any event, Tower Hamlets is a proud and historic borough that just deserves much better governance. Far better than it is getting under Rahman.
btw what has happened to the Bromley South result? Still not declared
Recount is (and always has been) scheduled for 6.30pm.
It is NOT a historic borough – it’s only existed since the 1960s!!
It’s actually a total fiction created because of the fact a decision was taken to amalgamate small metropolitan boroughs.
Boundary reform is what has just changed the boundaries of wards in Tower Hamlets.
You’ll note if you read the chapter that the author proposes the reverse of gerrymandering i.e. that boundary reform needs to focus on more than just population – it also needs to consider avoiding the concentration of one group of people in one area of an authority – because of the potential this creates for causing unnecessary tensions.
You’ll also find that Councils which create a reputation for being “trouble” have a habit of disappearing in boundary reforms.
It’s not a solution which is the first port of call – more an action of ‘last resort’ – but it does happen.
There’s been a notion doing the rounds for quite a while that there are too many London Boroughs and that some further amalgamation is in order to make savings. It’s already happened in the NHS,
Troublesome boroughs just add fuel to that particular fire – it might only be a matter of time for local government in London.
It is historic. It brought together in the 1960s together the hamlets that clustered round the Tower. It is also the real East End. Read the history. Dismembering it, particularly in these circumstances, would be scandalous. Don’t know how long you have lived here but obviously not long enough to be proud of our wonderful Borough, sadly mis-served by its current Mayor.
You need to get yourself an education in the Metropolitan Boroughs of:
* Bethnal Green http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Borough_of_Bethnal_Green
* Poplar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Borough_of_Poplar and
* Stepney! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Borough_of_Stepney
created by the London Government Act 1899. These are rooted in the very old geographical areas of this borough (as in back to the 1700s and in some cases
Have you never heard of George Lansbury? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lansbury
Have you never heard of the Poplar Rates Rebellion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poplar_Rates_Rebellion
and for what it’s worth I’ve lived in the Borough for a very, very long time – as in decades (emphasis on the plural!) and, I suspect, rather longer than you!
Front Page on LocalGov
http://www.localgov.co.uk/Tower-Hamlets-vote-count-in-chaos-cllr-claims/36377
I was at the count. I had to ask Rahmanites to not use their phones in the Counting Hall – they were not once challenged by Election Staff.
The counting staff were focused hard working and well meaning. There were many many labour and THF people forming a press on each counting table. On leaving the hall I was very concerned that basic rules were going out the window
I am not too sure the mayor – every counting staffs ultimate boss – should have been in the hall
Given the fiasco of previous counts, if it had been up to me I’d have allowed in two tellers and that’s it – apart from the candidates and their agents.
It’s one thing for the thing to be transparent. It’s quite another to have people ignoring rules and getting in the way of people doing their job.
Re abolishing boroughs: Just wanted to insert a reminder that boroughs do not only affect local government but also other public services. Police have borough commands, NHS bodies work within borough structures to a certain extent, I think the same may be said for the Fire Service (although I am happy to be corrected on that one).
I don’t know how this would work if TH were broken up and split between two existing boroughs but sorting it out could prove an undesirable extra layer of expense and bureaucracy for other public services.
It won’t happen
Well the former Strategic Health Authority of East London and the City (which was already much bigger than Tower Hamlets) has already been subsumed into NHS London.
While the command structure still exists (for the time being) at Borough level, the Metropolitan Police are also changing command structures and moving towards a One Met Structure. They’ve started with a new model for local policing structures in terms of Neighbourhood Policing Teams and I think it can only be a matter of time before they start to amalgamate borough commands.
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/The-Met-is-changing/1400016705241/1400016705241
It’s the classic organisational change model for public services – you go smaller to neighbourhoods and larger re the macro structures and eliminate one of the middle management layers. Been there, done that, got the T shirts!
That’s why I’m thinking “the ultimate solution” will be the break up of Tower Hamlets.
Re. the actual process and costs of sorting out a reorganisation…….
Speaking as one who was a manager who had to deal with the GLC transfer in 1985-6, it’s actually not that difficult if you are subsuming into already existing entities. I’m trying to remember how long it took – but not that long. I seem to remember ILEA took a bit longer.
You have a transition period and then transfer services in stages according to a programme. It all depends on size and complexity.
There’s always a small residuary body which does the tidying up of loose ends which typically takes a couple of years or so, but the bulk of it moves very fast and with, relatively speaking, minimum hassle.
You don’t need new systems – because they already exist. You just need to translate records from one system to another – and somebody writes a program to do that.
Nowadays, the paperwork would be filed and archived since most of what needs to be known is already online.
Legal sort the transfer of assets.
The biggest problems is always the transfer of staff – especially if the opportunity is taken to effect some savings along the way.
The demise of the GLC is actually a rather interesting and relevant example. It was a classic case of how government tries to rid itself of a “turbulent” organisation/individual.
I think Tower Hamlets should be broken up. The area called East Shoreditch together with proper Old Spitalfields (e.g. without north Whitechapel and Mile End New Town) where the people yearn for emancipation should be allowed to join Hackney.
I reckon that’s about as realistic as your submission to the boundary commission in the 2013 review.
Lutfurs camp are also guilty of breaking electoral law on the grounds of sending out many thousands of leaflets without an imprint on them.
There was one leaflet that featured quotes from several public figures saying that Rahman wasn’t such a bad bloke after all. All white middle class lefties like Giles Fraser et al. None of them live in Tower Hamlets.
I will be sending this on the the relevant people.
Another rule broken by Rahmans mob again.
If TH is artificial because it only came into existence in 1965, can we get rid of Milton Keynes (1967) too? And when you consider all the trouble that comes from Israel (1947) we should just declare it a non- country.
[…] other issue rightly pointed out by Ted here is the question of his councillors as well. Regardless of what people say of Lutfur, most of his […]