This is a guest post by Professor Michael Keith, the former Labour leader of Tower Hamlets council
(This post has been amended following later election results: see * and update at bottom)
Following a conversation at the vote counting, Ted Jeory asked for a personal reaction to the outcome of last week’s local elections. It followed what I think was a sense shared that regardless of party affiliation the divisive politics of Tower Hamlets had reached a particularly worrying moment.
Occasionally boisterous, too frequently threatening, the scenes at the Tower Hamlets mayoral count prompted a storm. Shut inside the Troxy venue when supporters of the independent mayor Lutfur Rahman and his party Tower Hamlets First began pre-emptively celebrating his re-election, the mass surge to access the vote count prompted anger amongst council officers and campaigners alike.
Some with a longer memory may cast their minds back to similar scenes outside York Hall that greeted the success of Peter Shore in 1987 and 1992 and fairly protest that mainstream parties commented on this less at the time.
But in 2014 it followed a day, a night and a campaign in which the sense of polarisation between camps was particularly disturbing, confrontations and intimidation of voters on the polling stations and a level of abuse that was particularly fractious.
It was hard to avoid a sense that tensions that border on worrying divisions were on show.
As with much in Tower Hamlets, geographical proximity and cultural distance may be inversely related.
The ability of Lutfur and his candidates to appeal to 30-40,000 voters across the borough is impressive. But it might be more worrying if the demographic of his support is as monochrome as that of his successful candidates.
The East End has seen the outcome of a polarised politics before and it is not pretty. The claim that Lutfur’s regime speaks to an agenda of the left is confounded by the policy agenda that he has followed.
His popularity instead speaks more to the strengths of community networks, Sylheti ties and the mobilising forces of his political machine.
The strengths of these solidarities represent much of what is both best and worst about East End politics.
The ability of strong family ties and community links to generate both a sense of a communal collective identity and an overbearing sense of peer pressure is long recognised.
And it would be foolish to ignore the numbers of non (British) Bangladeshi voters that supported an incumbent mayor with an established publicity machine.
But the results are stark. It is doubtless possible for the Tower Hamlets First group of 20 councillors (as as May 28) and one mayor–all but one men, all of Bangladeshi heritage–to represent the rich diversity of the borough. But it will be challenging to do so.*
The 2011 Census counted that 17 ‘minority ethnic’ identities had populations over 1,000 and 33 per cent of households have more than one ethnicity represented at home.
And just as it was widely considered unrepresentative to have diverse parts of London represented by old white men over the age of 50 in the 1980s and 1990s, the same logic might be thought to challenge the newly elected members of Mayor Rahman’s party.
Trotsky allegedly suggested that if people voted the wrong way it might be necessary to abolish the electorate, an option open to few democratic parties. And so the challenges for the Labour Party are also enormous.
As well as losing the mayoral vote by a narrow margin there are fewer elected Labour councillors in Tower Hamlets than at any time since the borough was founded in 1964.
Quite simply, this is the worst election result for the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets in 24 years.*
More women will be elected by Labour, but proportionately significantly more of the successful Labour councillors are white than was the case after the election four years ago.
The collapse of the Liberal party nationally and locally has left easy pickings in parts of Bow where candidates were barely opposed but across the rest of the borough the outlook was bleaker.
In the longer term things will probably balance out as people mix, things move on, old people move out and new people move in. Indeed it is at times alleged that some of the councillors move to the suburbs before they let on about it to the returning officer.
Party politics is a minority sport and council life just one aspect of East End life. But in the shorter term it cannot bode well for the borough to have social divisions paraded in this way.
For the new mayor a challenge that sits along with the result is whether his party and his rule can reach beyond his core electoral base.
For the Labour party there is a question of whether it can learn again to understand and connect with the dynamics of community life that underwrite Lutfur’s appeal. It has to do more than tell the voters they made the wrong choice.
But for all of the borough’s residents, the hope has to be that all concerned identify the danger of the present moment.
People need to recognise that diverse roots that bring people to the borough must be respected whilst building a future that is shared.
To do so it will be imperative to develop a politics that transcends racial, religious or ethnic division or else the consequences for the East End could be serious.
UPDATE, Weds May 28
Following the late count result of the Bromley South ward last night, Labour now have 20 seats, an increase of two councillors from the 18 stated in the original piece. Accordingly, Prof Keith says this is the worst result for the local Labour party since 1990, ie 24 years, not the 50 as originally stated.
Trial by Jeory 
I see the whole ‘voter intimidation’ line is an agreed upon PR campaign by the defeated opposition. Ignoring the fact that Labour had 5 men outside John Scurr school telling bengali men and women to tick the ‘rose flower’ symbol. I’m sure this wasn’t one off.
This is truly disgraceful and will cause riots in a borough I live in. And I will blame Peter Golds and the Labour supremos for failing to take a defeat on the chin and instead are stoking further racial tensions in the borough.
Just type in ‘Tower Hamlets’ on Twitter and the the racist and quite often violent vitriol spewed on there. Unbelievable!
It’s a pity Lutfur and his camp are unable to accept victory with good grace. The jeering they gave Biggs at the result of the count was rude and disrespectful as were the vile comments on his tweeter feed and elsewhere.
Cllr Goulds tried this line on the BBC radio yesterday, it kind of fell apart under questioning though, the interview reminded me of Farage on LBC last week
The presenter seems to be more interested in arguing with Cllr Golds than interviewing him about what he knows. So much for political impartiality.
He says “there’s no evidence” when Golds is telling him what he’s seen with his own eyes, and then after Golds has provided the evidence, “Let’s leave that to one side…”
As for the idea that Lutfur Rahman is supported by the gay community – based on the reporter apparently speaking to two people – in the Banglatown Gay-Free Zone? Really?
Peter Golds gave a 20 minute live interview, and coped well with hostile questioning. Lutfur Rahman agrees to live interviews only with the sycophantic Bangla media.
Michael’s article is an interesting insight, but why does everything distill to race? His comment about “monochrome” voters and party does much discredit to his piece and to his own politics, why is it a surprise that Lutfur’s Bangladeshi support is large when given the demography of theBorough.
Many of Michael’s and Labour’s supporters are saying that Tower Hamlets First representatives started crying race first, are we in the playground “Miss, Miss, he started it” or talking about serious issues here?
Sorry moderators, may I edit my post before sending please?
Resend please
Love the fact you think there’s a team of moderators. Am going to get a donations button set up!
Peter Golds is one bitter idiot, representing only the quarters from which he is elected – the yuppy class.
Lutfur uses the tactics he learnt from Labour. Both Labour and THF were being aggressive on election day. It’s rich to use that as an excuse now that Biggs has lost.
Even with all the nonsense allegations of voter intimidation, Tower Hamlets still had one of the highest voter turnout in London and the country!
Labour has two options in the borough:
1. Take Lutfur head on and risk Rushy losing her seat to Rabina, which is a very possible outcome. THF would also have enough clout to block Jim’s re-election and let a Tory through at Poplar & Limehouse.
2. Readmit Lutfur and take in all of his THF baggage with him. This would return us to the days of vicious infighting and backstabbing, UNLESS they change the way they select council candidates.
For too long, the candidates have been allowed to run for as long as they wish and build their own fiefdoms.
All councillors should be made to agree to a two-term limit and then exit gracefully. There are way too many unemployed councillors, who rely on the allowances they get. for a salary.
Critical Observer – Peter Golds (love him or hate him) was asked for his version of events. We either accept his version or not. If his version is wrong please tell us which part. I must say that his version seems to correspond with many others views. I don.t know what happened inside the Troxy, but I did see Commercial Road blocked by people whether protesters or supporters. That is intimidatory and very wrong.
I regard what happened outside the Troxy as a major error on the part of the police.
They could have cordoned off the area outside and asked people to wait on the other side of the road while the Count continued – so people could come in and go out of the Troxy without being perceived by the Police to be under any sort of threat.
To have allowed a situation to occur where the Police then decided that it was unsafe to allow people to leave is a major cockup on the part of the Police and one for which people should demand answers from the Borough Commander.
I do sincerely hope the Minister will be insisting on an answer from the Head of the Metropolitan Police as to what on earth happened to create an inflammatory situation was created when it was entirely avoidable.
By all accounts when somebody finally got round to asking the crowd to wait across the road there were absolutely no problems at all!
An explanation is required for why so much undesirable and unnecessary bad press was caused.
I went down to chat to people outside the count. Many hundreds of Bengali men were there, three white men and two Bengali women, but I think they left after a bit.
I didn’t find the atmosphere remotely threatening. Mostly the Lutfur supporters were very keen to chat about it all. When I said I was hoping for Labour to win, the general response was that they felt themselves to be Labour really, but this was special circumstances.
From all accounts it was inside the count where things were fraught.
Agree. From what I saw in Whitechapel and Shadwell, it was all good natured. There was a slightly festival feel to it all. I wish more people would engage in politics this way.
Note I didn’t say the crowd was threatening – just that the Police perceived it to be threatening and treated it as such.
To my mind that says far more about the Police than the people in the crowd.
In terms of public order and the ability of people to freely go about their business, it would still have been a much better idea to have cordoned off the entrance to the Troxy and made sure those involved in the Count could come and go freely.
A situation was created where there was none.
I recognised several IFE activists in that crowd in the TV footage.
On the basis of your conclusions about representation above, Michael, do you think Lutfur should again invite Labour councillors (particularly who are not ethnic-Bengali and who are women) to join his cabinet? And do you think they should accept if he does?
I’d be genuinely interested to read your thoughts as someone who’s been around a while.
Michael Keith can’t suddenly play the ‘diversity card’ when it suits him. If I recall he was part of the Labour machine which failed parts of Tower Hamlets and were accused of large levels of corruption whilst they achieving very little.
If this ‘Tower Hamlets First’ party is anything to go by then they should be judged on the effectiveness of their policies, not the colour of the leader’s skin. You will be harking back to 1960’s America and the campaign against people of Afro-Caribbean heritage to find a more suitable comparison:
“White Americans must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society. The comfortable, entrenched, the privileged cannot continue to tremble at the prospect of change of the status quo. … There is no separate white path to power and fulfillment, short of social disaster, that does not share power with black aspirations for freedom and human dignity”
– Martin Luther King Jr.
We are talking about a very different context than those relevant to the 1960s campaigns in the USA
Or have you seen signs saying “White only” or requiring people with a brown skin to sit in specific parts of a bus in Tower Hamlets recently?
There are rather too many people out to make something out of this election for their own personal agendas.
I absolutely agree people should be judged on the basis of their policies and achievement – but not on their claims to have achieved things they had very little responsibility for.
I do wish you would stop slagging off Peter Golds! Ok, possibly he has made a few gaffs, get over it! BUT who else has put their head above the parapet and asked pertinent questions to council? Hopefully he won’t listen to his haters and continue to ask questions that need to be asked.
Judging by Peter’s performance on the Iain Dale programme last night and the interviews he has given to various journals and newspapers I don’t think there’s any chance of Peter failing to ask relevant questions any time soon.
A healthy government is one which can succeed and enjoy a good reputation despite the questions asked of it by others.
Oh let the games begin!
White Labour need to concede defeat and accept leadership from non-whites.
Simples.
Rahman are you a racial supremacist? You sound a little bit like Hitler.
He’s been a Biggs supporter all these days. He’s taking the piss.
“Quite simply, this is the worst election result for the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets in 50 years.”
Far from simple.
The results (so far- if they ever bother finishing counting these may differ) show Labour with 38.70% of the vote; Tower Hamlets First 35.23%.
The 2010 elections, Labour had 38.01% of the vote.
In 2006 Labour had 33.23%.
You have to go back to 2002 to see Labour having a better percentage of the vote, 46.49%.
What you’ve got is an increasingly polarised electorate / the opposition getting it’s act together / the consequence of running a Mayoral campaign and a council election campaign at the same time making it difficult to target seats effectively (delete as appropriate; or actually they all might be true).
Complicated by the fact that Bangladeshis campaigning for Labour emphasised the Labour candidates for Councillors and voted for Rahman.
This shows that people were exercising their democratic choice freely. They did not vote for THF councillor candidates where they thought Labour candidates were better. In the mayoral vote, they chose Lutfur instead of Biggsy, because Lutfur was the much better candidate for mayor.
John Biggs has always been Mr Second Choice. TH residents made sure Biggsy polled the most second pref votes.
Trying to work out the specialised meaning of ‘Tower Hamlets First’ as it appears to apply in the opinion of Lutfur. Does it mean he’s talking of the whole borough or that section which is not European and related to him by nationhood? That’s how it appears, regretfully. How many members of his ‘party’ are from other origins to his councillors?
Good point. None is the answer to your question.
1. Get a lineup of all ‘Tower Hamlets First’ Councillors and the Mayor.
2. Put a banner behind them saying something along the lines of how they’re representing all the people in the whole Borough
3. Countdown the seconds until it appears as the front cover of Private Eye!
Talk about an own goal…….
‘You could not make it up’ – this is funny only in your racist, xenophobic mindset.
People of TH voted for these councillors. Now, get used to it and stop insulting the people of this borough.
Which people were you thinking of?
The half that are women who are grossly under-represented by the Councillors who have been elected?
Maybe you were thinking of the two thirds of the borough who have no connections with Bangladesh?
The only point I’m making is that unless and until Tower Hamlets First has a range of Councillors elected who reflect the community at large they will never ever been seen as anything other than a special interest group.
They’ll also continue to be seen as a group that isn’t in the least bit interested in having women involved in politics
When Keith was grooming young Lutfur I wonder what tips he taught him.
Labour are finished. Bring on UKIP
UKIP did not actually win a seat in TH in case you had not noticed.
UKIP’s advice to their supporters not to cast a second preference helped Lutfur to victory. It was UKIP wot won it.
“It is UKIP wot won it” “It is Panorama what won it” “It is Bengalis who voted for Lab councillors, but Lutfur for Mayor what won it”
All of the theories above are wrong. The theory below is correct:
“It is Lutfur’s record as Mayor what won it”
Now, try and digest this simple theory and you will sleep better at night and lead a much happier life.
because you did really well didn’t you in Wapping.
I can’t see Tower Hamlets existing for much longer. It obviously cannot cope in it’s current form and it has become an embarrassment to Western Democracy.
John Baptiste, your reply in part reminded me of this quote from the great Black American leader we never had:
“A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. … A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, “This is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, “This is not just.” The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.”
– Martin Luther King Jnr.
…and the auditors will question whether the last Administration’s compliance with Standing Orders and Financial Regulations was right and just too!
Cllr. Peter Golds is probably the hardest working Councillor in LBTH. Tim Archer when he was on the council also had the highest casework load of any councillor in the whole borough.
Put yourself in his shoes. For the last few years Peter has had to put with racist homophobic abuse from people in the public gallery at full council meetings. We all know who these people support and who gets them their seats in the public gallery in the first place.
The police do nothing and say its ‘cultural’.
perhaps you haven’t realised the public gallery is erm. public. You don’t need anyone to get you seats there. Or perhaps you think that only white members of the public are allowed to excercise their democratic right to attend. If you are Bengali you must have an ulterior motive. The casual racism encouraged in this forum is shocking.
Hardest working racist islamaphobe you mean
‘You could not make it up’, Michael Keith and a few others who have a problem with all-Bangladeshi councillors in THF, please take note of the following:
1. It is the people of TH who elected these councillors. Get used to it and respect the will of the people.
2. People had a choice to elect ‘white’ councillors from other parties instead of these THF councillors across the borough, but people chose them. Respect people’s choice.
3. There are wards where people elected a mixture of white and Bangladeshi councillors, for example, Canary Wharf, Bethnal Green and St Peter’s. In these wards, people could have chosen an all white or all Bangladeshi line-up, but they elected councillors who they liked most. Please respect people’s choice.
4. TH have elected 42 councillors who are a rich mix of men, women, Bangladeshis and non-Bangladeshis. Why take THF councillors in isolation and say that they are unrepresentative? Tories have four councillors. All white. 75% men and 25% women. Is that representative of the borough?No. Is it silly to just focus on their sex and ethnicity. Yes. Please stop all your silly analysis based on sex and ethnicity. Grow up and respect the will of the people.
I would also add the Tories have 100% white councillors serving a majority non white community. Haven’t seen anyone bickering about this though.
The problems with voting based on ethnicity is not unique to Bangladeshi, I would argue fewer white voters voted for a non white candidate then then Bangladeshis did for non Bangladeshis.
I keep reiterating, only Labour has enough support amongst different communities to break this ethnicity problem. It’s a problem they created and only they can resolve. Mr Keith presented analysis of the problem but not solution.
Here’s a simple solution: Bring Lutfur Back!
Again, there’s a danger of harking back to some ‘golden age’ when Lutfur was in Labour.
There wasn’t one. Was a mess then as well.
Where did you get the notion that it’s a majority non-white community?
You miss the point completely – I’m talking about the choices made by party leaders – not the choices made by the electors.
I completely respect people’s ability to choose who they like – unfettered by any undue influence by any other individual or group. I’m talking about which candidates parties chose to put up in winnable wards – and the way the Council is made up as a result.
There’s no two ways about it Tower Hamlets First comes across very strongly as a one culture political party.
In terms of representing the mix of the population in Tower Hamlets, the numbers strongly suggest to me (and I guess most people who look at them) that Labour are doing rather well in terms of being representative of the borough as a whole and THF are very badly skewed.
I think it goes something like this – doubtless somebody will correct me if I’ve got it wrong. I know there is a Councillor with Somali origins in there somewhere but I don’t know who that is – so my apologies in advance to that individual.
We currently have a Council with 42 Councillors – 33 men and 8 women. The very low proportion of female members is entirely due to the THF party.
Labour
* 20 Councillors
* 13 men and 7 women (35%)
* 7 of whom have Bengali origins (35%) This percentage is approximately the same as the one third of people living in Tower Hamlets who declare themselves to be of Bengali origin.
Tower Hamlets First
* 18 councillors
* 17 men and one woman (7.5%)
* all of them have Bengali origins (100%)
Conservatives
* 4 Councillors
* 3 men and 1 women (25%)
* all white / no Bengali origins (0%)
Conclusion – The Labour Party is the party whose elected representatives best reflect the make-up of the population of the borough as a whole.
I think you miss the point. The Labour party are responsible for alienating a whole section of the Bengali community through the racial/islamaphobic undertones of their campaigning under Peck and their courting of right wing journo’s like Gilligan. This is what they need to rectify.
Hip hip hooray for the Labour party – the most representative party in TH. It does not matter that it is the worst result for the Labour party in TH for 50 years!
Would those be like the homophobic comments made about Peter Golds by the Islamic community?
You can’t complain about alienation while throwing sticks and stones yourself!
PS Re. Gilligan – In any other borough, the tensions would be between Labour and Conservative and they would each have their own pet journalists who would each be slagging off the opposition candidate. What I’m saying is “get over it” i.e. democracy means people have freedom of speech so long as they stick to the parameters set by the law and the electoral regulations. What this means is they engage with journalists and TV stations et al – that’s what happens. Welcome to the grownup world of real world politics.
I thought it was established yesterday that it’s not the worst result for 50 years.
But of course it’s MOTCO who never lets accuracy get in the way of a bit of opportunistic mud-slinging
MOTCO tantrums happen every time somebody comes up with an argument he doesn’t like or demolishes his argument with facts
So I’ll just reiterate my conclusion based on crunching the numbers.
The only Party whose elected representatives come closest to reflecting the population of Tower Hamlets is the Labour Party
Ted – Please forgive me if I turn the conversation to the worries of citizens living outside of Tower Hamlets(TH). Their worries are compounded by the flood of national bad media and especially the emergence and election of a new political party consisting mainly of one section of the community. I certainly don’t condemn this new party, because they succeeded in doing what our main political parties have failed to do – organise themselves cohesively! Where have all .the Labour, Conservative, Liberal, Working Men’s, and Trade Union Clubs gone? They were always very popular and busy and had huge memberships. These members were always galvanised into voting. But these clubs have mostly gone now, so who’s fault is it that THF did well? They did what we used to do well, organise themselves. Because of the TH result my friends in several towns and cities in certain parts of the UK have told me they are worried the same thing may happen to them. I am not saying this is a good or bad thing, but they are worried.
Ted – Time to investigate?
With due respect, Mr Wright, you spoke to 3-4 people outside of TH. This does not translate to worries of citizens living outside TH.
The thing that most people are worried about is the emergence of UKIP and this is getting a lot of coverage. All political parties are sitting up and taking notice.
I think you’re both right.
Taking the first issue first.
The groups which used to provide a coherent way of supporting and organising on a political front have largely gone by the wayside. Plus you simply can’t expect to turn up on people’s doorsteps once every four years and get a vote without doing some work for it.
The strong community ethos and organisational support within the Bangladeshi community certainly results in a lot of enthusiastic support for the elections
Some would say that’s one of the reasons why people became somewhat alarmed at the way the Mayor directed funds towards one cultural group organisations supporting those likely to vote for him.
We’ll let PWC reflect on that – we know the concern exists and the facts of the matter will be revealed by their report.
In terms of where we go from here, I think all parties should be mindful of what the Liberal Focus Group did to get themselves established in the Borough and to get people voting for them – from scratch to becoming the elected Administration in the 80s.
Bottom line, they organised as a group and then started working for people as if they were Councillors. They were fixing people’s problems before they even got elected – and then told people about it and invited more people to contact them with their problems etc etc. It worked.
Now I don’t think any member of the population of Tower Hamlets is going to mind if ALL parties try to get the local population to warm to them by getting out there and grafting away at getting people’s problems solved!
Casework is what makes the difference when it comes to getting votes to become a Councillor.
Personally I think there ought to be some sort of independent vetting of how many Cases a Councillor deals with and how many of them achieve a successful result and a satisfied constituent.
In other words proper feedback for the electorate.
In terms of new parties – there will be a lot of Councils watching both the result in Tower Hamlets and the UKIP results
There’s no two ways about it UKIP has more traction overall – and that’s because it collected the “none of the above party” vote. People were very fed up with the way in which all the parties were not listening to them
The turnout was up for this election because people came out to vote – because at last they had a chance to register that protest
I don’t think any of the parties should be unconcerned about UKIP.
The only reason they didn’t do so well in London was because they only put one candidate in some wards. If they came back with proper representation next time, fielding more candidates in all the wards and a lot more air time re canvassing for votes then it’s my bet you’d see a very different result.
If you don’t listen to the concerns people express or poo poo them or denigrate people (as Gordon Brown famously did re the lady who asked him the difficult question about migration) then you lose votes. I reckon in retrospect the way Gordon Brown treated that woman probably lost Labour the election in 2010.
Political parties need to listen to concerns – and to take them seriously – to get votes.
Why are THF supporters so unwilling to speak to the media?
The only person the Independent could get to put their case was a well known opponent of democracy Azad Ali. And on this and other blogs, they all use pseudonyms.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-watchdog-to-probe-tower-hamlets-count-delays-as-last-results-finally-announced-9442262.html
well Lutfur and Rabina Khan were due to speak on BBC Radio 4, but they were cancelled by the producers. I suspect what the Indy did was ask for a response 5 minutes before publishing their drivel. As is the media’s habit.
On another point. can you explain Peter Golds’ car crash interview? Did he have a few too many beforehand?
Peter Golds and others do respond at short notice, and sometimes interviews go well. other times not so well. But THF never respond to media requests for interviews, attend few events outside the Bangla or Muslim community, and Lutfur refused to attend hustings. They show virtually no interest in engaging with the public outside their own community.
Might that be because they’re not actually interested in representing or engaging with the rest of the community?
Behave like that and it’s certainly the impression that is given.
what nonsense. Did he not participate in the Panorama programme? was that bengali media? Rushanara did not attend a single hustings event during her campaign – i don’t remember there being an outcry over that.
Peter Golds has no job. Of course he responds to every single rag that asks him for his opinion.
Your a councillor now – you really need to get facts checked before you make public statements
Sirius: Andrew’s not a councillor – that’s another Andrew!
Andrew: I think your sweeping statements are unfair. Rabina Khan was booked to appear on the Today Programme at 7am, BBC Breakfast too and another show. They all pulled her at short notice.
If THF are not being permitted to state their case they need to take that up with the BBC. However, I have several times read news reports and heard radio presenters say things like: “We asked the mayor’s office to comment, but they did not respond.”
Oldford1: thank you for your correction. I am not a councillor, and not a member of any political party.
Panorama is a programme on Bangladeshi Broadcasting Corporation, which is why Lutfur went on Panorama. Lutfur only goes to Bangla or Muslim media.
ok i take that back. still the fact checking point still stands
Seats in the public gallery at full council meetings have been booked well in advance for people who come along to support Lutfur and jeer at his opponents. Members of the public who come along find that they have to sit in the adjacent room watching it on a crap projector screen because Rahman has got his mob into the chamber before anyone else had a look in.
This has been going on since Rahman became mayor in 2010.
Women have been forced to sit on the floor because men in the adjacent room did not have to decent courtesy to give up their seats for them.
That’s absolutely untrue. No seats are reserved apart from for people delivering deputations to the council. The council – and the opposition – will confirm this.
it appears this man has never met reality either
What on earth are you talking about? Has the opposition lost all hope that they will make up blatant lies?
Nothing of the sort ever happens. There is no adjacent room, nor have I ever seen someone having to sit on the floor. And seating is first come first serve. I’ve had the good fortune of laughing at many in the mayor’s office who weren’t able to come in because they left it too late.
I’m ashamed of this ‘opposition’ that feels the need to question democracy itself, and make lies to further it’s cause. Disgraceful.
There is a room next to the council chamber where the proceedings are projected onto a screen. It was here I saw woman sitting on the floor whilst men were sat in all the chairs. Don’t tell me this never happens because I saw it with my own eyes.
Seats in the public gallery are reserved for people. Council staff put pieces of paper on them saying ‘reserved’,
Lutfur’s opponents have been subjected to verbal assaults by people in the public gallery who support Lutfur. These have been sexist, homophobic and anti-Semitic.
They are likely to continue.
This is so interesting.. people just cannot take it. biggest turnout in London yet everyone is trying to discredit the results. People are behind Luthfur because for once a politician has actually served the people of Tower Hamlets. Built more houses than anywhere else in the country, Helped poor student at college and university. freezed council tax. turned schools into some of the best in the country. retained youth services, funded extra police officers. promised to arrest a dealer a day. his work is visible. people in the borough see hope. I guess maybe some people don’t want to see certain communities lift themselves out of the dump.
Brigg’s comment sums up the current mood of the “indigenous” people of Britain:
“be respectful. This is democracy and you listen to what WE say”
Hmmm WE? so who am I?
[…] The former leader of Tower Hamlets Professor Michael Keith observes that the Mayor’s “popularity…speaks more to the strengths of community networks, Sylheti ties and the mobilising forces of his political machine.” […]
Still no black. Councillor.