This is a guest post by John Ware, the BBC Panorama reporter who fronted the Mayor and Our Money programme on March 31. This is the first proper response by the Panorama team to some of the accusations and smears directed towards them from senior officers and politicians in the town hall, both before the programme and since.
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.”
It is striking just how much The Facts have become flattened in this process – and how tenuous has been the relationship to truth in some notable cases.
Having now observed the sectarian politics of Tower Hamlets at close quarters, it seems to me that some of the poison might be drawn if those in positions of responsibility had a more scrupulous regard for facts and truth.
Yesterday, Mayor Lutfur Rahman’s adviser, Kazim Zaidi wrote on this blog:
“And then there was Panorama, aired just two weeks before the purdah period. Panorama claimed dodgy dealings with grants; it cited the Mayor’s car as an example of his profligacy.”
We made no mention of the Mayor’s car.
And:
“.. and highlighted his apparent reluctance to attend scrutiny meetings..”
What we actually highlighted was the Mayor’s failure to answer questions in the council’s key scrutiny forum: Overview and Scrutiny. O&S minutes show this to be a fact.
The Mayor also seems to have been reluctant to attend O&S. Since the Mayor took office, we could find records of only four attendances: two as a non-speaking attendee, and two when he gave a verbal presentation on his work.
And:
“…and answering questions in council, failing to point out that Rahman has attended more scrutiny sessions and answered more questions in council than his Labour counterparts in Newham and Lewisham.”
Mr Zaidi cites only “attendance” in respect of Overview & Scrutiny – presumably because he knows that the pertinent issue here is not attendance but willingness to answer questions.
And, as my commentary said:
“…In the last year Mayor Rahman is the only one out of all England’s 15 directly elected Mayors not to have answered questions at O & S.”
According to Newham Council, its Mayor “attended two overview and scrutiny meetings in the last 12 months and has answered questions at both meetings”; and according to Lewisham Council, its Mayor attended “on 20 June 2013” where there were “informal questions”.
The marked reluctance of the Mayor to answer questions at Overview and Scrutiny was especially relevant to our examination of his record on governance. After all, in firing the opening shots of the election campaign, the Mayor claimed to uphold the “highest standards of probity and transparency”.
And:
“As for the rest, police found ‘no new credible evidence’ of fraud……”
As for the “rest”? Once again, as Mr Zaidi knows, we made no allegation against the Mayor of criminality or fraud in the programme. Like the Mayor and the Council, Mr Zaidi has conflated the Metropolitan Police statement of 16 April that there was “no credible evidence” of fraud or criminality in Panorama files (which the DCLG sent to the Met Police) with the quite separate contents of the broadcast Panorama programme.
The Police statement was not, as the Council’s misleading statement said, “in relation to recent allegations made in the BBC Panorama programme”, thereby quite wrongly implying that the Police had cleared the Mayor of fraud allegations “in the Panorama programme”.
The Mayor, the Council and Mr Zaidi know perfectly well that no allegations of fraud or of criminality were made against the Mayor personally by the BBC, nor in our files.
However, as the council also very well knew, Panorama’s files DID contain evidence that raised allegations of fraud in respect of a youth organisation that had been grant funded. The reason the Police did not attribute this to Panorama was because the council – not Panorama – had referred the case to the CID at Tower Hamlets.
What the council did not say, however, was that they only referred the case to the Police just days after we had submitted 25 very detailed questions to them about the alleged fraud, thus alerting them to the possibility the programme might disclose the fact that the council had known about the case for months – but not referred it to the police.
Our attempts to persuade the Council to correct the misleading impression from their partial statement at the height of the election campaign were ignored by the Council – the same Council which spent tens of thousands of taxpayers’ money trying to stop the BBC from broadcasting the programme in the first place by claiming it would “reduce the chances of a free fair and credible election.”
The BBC’s duty was not only to be fair, factual and impartial to the politicians contesting the election – but also to inform the electorate. Judging by the record turnout – which pushed up both the Mayor’s vote and Labour’s – the evidence suggests that far from undermining democracy the BBC might actually have helped reinvigorate it.
Trial by Jeory 
On behalf of everyone in Tower Hamlets I would like to send my sincere gratitude to John Ware. He single handedly won Lutfur the elections. Thanks John. Please remember to do the same thing in the lead up to 2018, if the BBC will take you back that is. Thanks in advance.
special mention to everyone who helped make this happen, TH Labour party, Cllr Peck, Cllr Saunders, Fitz, Biggsy, dodgy dossier. Of course Cllr Gold, Gilligan for setting the ground work and of course our very own Ted. You guys are awsome, LR couldn’t have done it without you
That’s a bit harsh! All of those people are in opposition to Rahman and have worked hard to demonstrate Lutfur’s shortcomings. I don’t think it’s their fault at all.
Lutfur has certainly played it very well and got himself elected as a victim.
I wouldn’t argue that the tactics haven’t worked but they are hardly to blame and either way, we now have an almost national discussion about TH which i believe will shine a light on any dodgy dealings or intimidation that may be happening.
Well fingers crossed anyway!
Do not forget ex councillor Helal Rahman – special thanks to him for his part in re-electing Lutfur by making a guest appearance on Panorama.
This guy made huge sacrifices too. His hopeless wife and son stood for Labour so that they could be easily defeated by THF candidates. That is two councillors Labour could have won if they had fielded two strong candidates.
Sirius, just want to add that Ted is now on a path of redemption. Let’s give him a chance. Let’s not mix him up with the other lot you mentioned. They are lost causes.
I hope someone will wipe that satisfying smirk of your faces very soon you disgraceful bunch!
No one is smirking Mr Kay. We are just happy for John
Mrs. Kay
So you think Sirius that a large proportion of those voting for Rahman were doing so just because he came across as a victim? I’m glad Panorama has put him under the spotlight and he can now look forward to the British media and half the population of Tower Hamlets being on his case.
If he’s lucky he will get kicked out of office soon, otherwise he has four years of really being made to feel like a victim.
Interesting how both BBC Radio London and LBC have repeatedly asked him on this last week but he hasn’t answered their calls.
It’s times like this you wish the News of the World was still around. For all it’s faults it could flush out a sly fox when it saw one.
John Jee, News of the World is still around in a different guise – it is called Sun on Sunday. We could tell that your views are typical of what are expressed in these comics, which masquerade as newspapers.
Where is your evidence for this wild claim?
Hey John, I didn’t get a chance to say thanks for helping defeat Labour in Tower Hamlets. I can’t say I am happy with Lutfur Rahman becoming a living legend among residents because of your film, but at least Labour are learning hard lessons.
Panorama also exposed the toxicity which emanates from the likes of Josh Peck – no doubt Labour will be scrutinising his role in their post mortem examination of the most disastrous results since 1990.
Also I can guarantee you, 70% of the people in this crowd did not know who Lutfur Rahman was before your film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYCDkilFhjA
Oh they did – most would have been given student handouts by him or been promised a big house.
John Jee, you should be ashamed of yourself if your comment was an attempt to undermine EMA for college kids, uni grants and social housing. These are some of Lutfur’s achievements that we should all be proud of irrespective of who we support.
Tories abolished EMA; Lutfur introduced it in TH – the only borough in the land to do so.
Tories brought in the highest levels of university tuition fees ever – Lutfur has introduced grants to assist uni students with their astronomical fees. Again, the only borough in the country to do so.
TH was awarded over £50m in housing bonuses for building the most affordable homes in the country. We should all be proud of this.
TH residents are certainly appreciative of Lutfur’s record in office. They re-elected him for another 4 years.
Ashamed? Not at all. I am skint and can’t afford lots of things. I pay my taxes, have no children and a significant amount of my taxes go on education. The EMA is around £400 per year per student isn’t it? That’s around half my council tax and as you know around 45% of the bangladeshi population are under 20. That’s a lot of money to be dishing out.
I don’t need a statement from Lutfur’s press office to tell me money doesn’t grow on trees.
Incidentally my grandmother had 11 children and didn’t claim a penny.
My gran brought up her 6 siblings from the age of 14 after her mother died with no handouts. My other gran had 10 children, no handouts and no free, big house. Families mucked in with older siblings living with their gran in her small accommodation. This was common back in the day.
EMA was seen as extra spending money by the teenagers who were eligible for it and it was capped by parental salary. Absolutely no need for it in London where transport for minors is free.
Presumably you benefit from Lutfur having absorbed – unlike practically every other London council – the government’s cut to the council tax benefit into the council’s budget rather than passing it on to recipients then, John?
More absurd claims.
So let’s get this right. The very day after you broadcast your views on Lutfur, the Secretary of State sends in the police. Yet anyone who comments on this is a smear merchant, while you are a man of integrity? Have I got it right?
Who are you addressing this to Dan?
John is the broadcaster, but you are the one who chucks the word smear about.
I’d chuck a kettle at you Dan if I could. Come back tomorrow with your latest position eh.
Ted, let me guess, the colour of the kettle is black.
I’m colour blind. Might be red afterwards.
I agree that Ware’s familiar refrain of ‘we never alleged criminality’ misses the point. He handed files to PIckles, Pickles (in what appears to have been a stunt) handed files to the police the day he announced his response to the Panorama programme. It was the subsequent (and abortive) investigation that made the front page of the Evening Standard that day, ‘Mayor in Fraud Probe’ or something to that effect. There was no similar prominence afforded to the police’s announcement that there was ‘nothing to see here.’
John Ware wants to take credit for reinvigorating democracy in TH for boosting voter turnout with his Panorama programme.
What a noble man with such noble intentions!
There has long been a problem with voter apathy and low turnout in elections in British politics. Guess what? There is now a solution. Get John Ware to shoot a film in your area.
John Ware, I want to know how much taxpayers’ licence fees you spent on making your film ‘Mayor and our money’?
Lead actor: Lutfur Rahman
Supporting actors: TH residents i.e. Lil Collins (Poplar Baths), ‘Bollard’ guy
Lead Villain: Josh Peck
Supporting villain: ex councillor Helal Rahman
Now available on YooChube.
Dave Hill has provided a helpful summary of the sort of journalistic approach adopted by Ware and Panorama in preparing their documentary on Lutfur Rahman’s administration:
“The method is well established and widespread: one, identify your target; two, use every fact and quote you can dredge up to assemble the case you want to make (the word ‘links’ often comes in handy here); three, ignore or downplay any material that complicates or dilutes that case; four, make your language as dramatic as possible (frequent use of ‘secret’, ‘plot’, ‘fears’ and so on); five, get as much of it as past the lawyers as you can. This insulates you against claims that you’ve told lies. But your story is a distortion just the same.”
=> Man on the Clapham Omnibus.
The cost shouldn’t bother you. It was only a tiny fraction of the taxpayer’s money spent/wasted by LBTH 🙂
Panorama have totally lost it just like New Labour, spun out of control with no substance.
I wish someone would do a documentary examining Robin Wales in neighbouring Newham. Local people think he is much more sinister and underhand.
But they re-elected him. And he got in on first choice votes alone. And his share of the vote was streets ahead of the other parties (unlike in Tower Hamlets where more of the population voted against the current Mayor than voted for him.)
I have seen Robin Wales in action and he is no saint. But whoever thinks he is sinister and underhand is clearly in a minority.
listen idiot, Lutfur Rahman also won on first preferences alone. He beat John Biggs by 10,000 votes in the first round. It was only because Labour who pushed for a second round – trying to hide their embarrassment.
=> Sirius
Till now I was only disappointed with your lot. Now I am getting seriously irritated!
Before you call anyone idiot on this forum get your facts right!
The rules works like this. If one candidate gotmore than 50% of the first-choice votes he became mayor. If not, second choice votes are counted.
Robin Wales got 61.18%, your Lutfur not!
That’s why second round, not because labour wanted.
Your idiot!
sure sure Mrs Kay, thank you for educating us ‘lot’ about your democracy. thank you master. We are all philistines after all.
Well you obviously didn’t know the rules of the election.
Hoho….Mrs Kay is irritated in a sirius way.
Mrs Kay, please try to understand the point that Labour were siriusly embarrassed being so far behind Lutfur after the first pref votes. Do not forget:
1. Bookies had Biggs as favourite
2. ITV headline couple of days before election was along the lines of Labour poised to evict controversial Lutfur Rahman in TH
3. All the mainstream media were against Lutfur. Gilligan ran a piece along the lines of 30 things about extremist-backed Lutfur two days before election.
Every trick in the book was applied against Lutfur. John Biggs still came a distant second.
=> Man in the Clapham Omnibus
Why don’t you just cut the crap!
I don’t need to understand how embarrassed Labour was or what tricks were used.
I explained your fellow how rules works as he was wrong in his “assumptions”. Simple.
As for the labour I don’t give a shit.
All I care about is right and wrong.
Simple again.
Mrs Kay, how can I cut the crap? Remember you branded us pigeons who just do a big crap on your head? I am just doing what a good pigeon is supposed to do.
You say that you are a foreigner? It is very strange that a foreigner would have such racist views. Where exactly are you from?
First, I didn’t brand you pigeons. I used a proverb.
Second, it is none of your business where I come from. I come from somewhere but I love and respect this wonderful country.
Third, it didn’t take you long to call my views racist. Well I have views and if you call them racist so be it.
I somehow don’t see a point trying to persuade you otherwise…..
Mrs Kay, that is a really poor attempt at doing a U-turn. You sound more ridiculous as a result.
First, you did use your ‘pigeon and crap’ idiom to refer to us ‘lot’. You said – this country welcomes them, feeds them, shelters them and this is what you get in return. What are you talking about? We put up that ridiculous dog crap poster?
Second, it is irrelevant where you come from, but you should know that your views are typical of those expressed by members of the EDL – ‘us and them’ mentality and somehow this country welcomes, feeds and shelters people who were born and bred here, work here, pay taxes here etc.
Third, you want us to believe you are not racist. No comment.
Have a great day!
John Ware অনেক ধন্যবাদ আপনাকে! (many thanks to you).
If I could hand you the freedom to Tower Hamlets I would; it was you wot won it! I hear Nick Clegg has got himself in a spot of bother, perhaps you could run his campaign in 2015?
Someone buy the guy a longhi!
John Ware will be hight on the Christmas card list for Lutfur Rahman and PwC this year. Without his stirling work on Panorama Rahman would not have had the resounding election success. Not only has Rahman won but he won on a high turnout.
PwC are also laughing all the way to the bank because of John. I wonder if he or any of his family have any shares in PwC. Do the Pickles have any shares?
The fact is, because of a few persistent grumpy old men, TH will pay out 100s of thousands of pounds to PwC for an audit which will discover nothing new.
PwC will discover poor processes, inefficient management, lack of documentation, ineffective governance etc etc. None of which is criminal or could be attributed to Rahman. It might result in loss of a job or two but certainly not his. Is this what Pickles sent the inspectors for? Or did he hope by sending them just before the elections, it would somehow affect the results.
Rahman will almost certainly request an explanation and review of the reasons and timing of the inspections. I think Pickles has some serious explaining to do. Galloway no doubt will keeping his hawkish eye on the outcome and might pop a question or two should nothing material come out of it.
I have a personal vendetta with John Ware. I had been planning to vote for Biggs because I thought TH would be better under Labour. However, following his bullying Panorama program, I was so vexed that I vowed I’d show two fingers to the establishment. In hindsight, it probably was the wrong decision as I still believe TH would be better off under Labour. Although I think Rahman is a good mayor, he is surrounded by some very unsavoury characters and there’s more of them now.
TH is better under Labour and Labour better off with Lutfur. Unite the two for the good of this borough!
Imran, I suspect there were a lot of people who voted for Lutfur instead of the Labour candidate for Mayor. We know that quite a lot of people voted for Labour councillors, but Lutfur for Mayor.
Lutfur is the winning brand here. Residents associate him with success. He has a proven track record of delivering for all residents irrespective of their background. The BBC London reporter, Anna Cookson reported on this when she spoke to diverse residents who all supported Lutfur. She talks about it during Cllr Peter Golds’ car crash interview on BBC London 94.9 FM.
Type in Cllr Peter Golds’ car crash interview into google and have a listen. Trust me, it is worth putting in an effort to listen to the most spurious and frivolous claims of voter intimidation made by Golds. The interviewers do a really good job of probing him and he just exposes himself. He keeps digging his grave deeper and deeper….
Please refer me to an interview where Lutfur (or any other THF supporter) copes as well as Peter with hostile and difficult questions.
PS I do not believe the clams that the BBC have pulled out of interviews with Lutfur and Rabina – it was Lutfur and Rabina who pulled out.
If they had been denied the opportunity to put their case, they would be justifiably angry about it.
Andrew, Lutfur did not have a car crash on Panorama to give you a recent high profile example. Lutfur and some residents highlighted what Lutfur had achieved as mayor.
Peter Golds’s car crash is going to be quite memorable. A complete write-off. No longer roadworthy.
Lutfur did not have a car crash interview on Panorama? I don’t know what you were watching but to me he was all bluster, repeating rehearsed lines, failing to answer the points that John Ware put to him and not discussing things particularly coherently.
I have yet to listen to the interview with Peter Golds that you (and others on Lutfur’s Facebook page) have described as a ‘car crash’ – I shall try to do so later today.
‘Eastenders script writer’ – it is pretty much a consensus that Lutfur did not have a car crash on Panorama. His opponents said ‘?’ after watching how it failed to land a knockout blow. Lutfur came out of it unscathed rather than battered and bruised, which is what you would have expected if there was a car crash. Some analysts are even saying ‘it is Panorama wot won it’. His supporters are thanking John Ware and Panorama for their role in re-electing Lutfur.
It is John Ware who had a car crash docked by allegations of racism from the researcher they had hired and being forced to air a watered down version of Panorama rather than the original ‘all guns blazing’ version that they had planned. Ware was severely battered and bruised in the aftermath.
perhaps that is because you were watching with your Gilligan blinkers on. If you had an impartial view you would have noticed how Lutfur handled himself particularly well in response to Ware’s annoying habit of interrupting at the most ridiculous points and his attempt to raise the volume of his voice to look like a “serious investigator” like Tintin. When in fact we all know he is a charlitan propagandist
Sirius, there is no need to insult Tintin. He is my favourite investigator.
You’ve nailed it imran. PwC are certain to find some control failures and governance issues, which would have been picked up by the Council’s own internal auditor’s Deloitte. Can you imagine PwC not uncovering something? Pickles would be left with egg on his face and PwC would never pick up a contract from Pickles or his department ever again. These auditors will definitely find something or the CLG cash will dry up. The odds are heavily stacked against Lutfor and not entirely out of his own doing. Just as they spun “spilling out on to the streets” to meaning a threat of violence, the right wing media, Gilligoon and his oiks, will spin a few control issues into the next Maxwell, Enron or Parmalat type failure.
The real sad thing is people will buy into it and continue to peddle and fan the flames of discord within Tower Hamlets…With Cllr. Peter darkies-in-groups-outside-polling-stations-intimidate-me-and-im-the-only-gay-in-the-village Gold at the forefront.
*awaits accusations of homophobia*
Doshnombororsassa, Imran et al – I agree with what you guys are saying. PwC will uncover some inefficiency within the council which will then get blown out of all proportion by Gilligan and co.
My question is simple. What is the point? People don’t buy this stuff. It is not damaging Lutfur in any way. It just increases his popularity and he has now acquired almost like a cult status or a living legend in certain quarters. Gilligan has been smearing Lutfur as ‘extremist backed’ and continuously making scurilous remarks over the 5-6 years without any end result. I would be pretty depressed right now if I were Gilligan.
The following poster was put up in Burdett Road. (now removed).
DO NOT WALK YOUR DOG HERE
MUSLIMS DO NOT LIKE DOGS
THIS IS AN ISLAMIC AREA NOW!
The poster was not hastily scrawled in felt-tip, it was printed. I am not so worried about the contents (dogs, but I am a dog lover), its the threat behind it. Hopefully all commentators on Teds blog will reply either by comment or by using the thumbs up or down.
f*ck me. shall we call John Ware and investigate. Try and pin this one on Lutfur too.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/muslims-dont-like-dogs-dont-walk-them-here-police-probe-sign-in-east-london-park-9458867.html
These guys behind the poster are missing the point. It is dog poo which is the problem, not dogs. Both Muslims and non-Muslims do not like dog poo on the pavements and in our parks. We have some of the best parks in the country, which have won the prestigious Green Flags Award under Lutfur’s mayoralty. Let’s keep our parks clean and dog owners make sure to clean after their dog.
Agreed – and I hope the new administration will ensure that dog waste collection machines operate throughout the whole borough.
http://www.towerhamletslabour.org.uk/deputy_mayor_puts_his_foot_in_it_41k_a_year_spent_on_cleaning_up_dog_mess_on_the_street_he_lives
That would explain the anomalies in pavement snow clearing! All small streets cleared, Cable Street – only the cycle highway!
This country welcomes them, shelters them, feeds them and this is what it gets in return.
That phrase again………..”Feed the pigeon and all you get is a big crap on your head”
PS: Left speechless after reading some reports last night on Tower Hamlets website.
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/search.aspx?cx=008280465879053608327:251xeiiz6ey&cof=FORID:11;NB:1&ie=UTF-8&q=unemployment%20bengali
Rather shocking that 75% of Bengali females are unemployed. One could only question whether this is at all possible……….
What a typical arrogant response from a wannabe colonialist to compare Bengalis to pigeons. Bengalis do not live out of the hands of the British. It’s Britain that needs Bengalis, Bengalis never needed the British.
The British legacy in Bengal was starvation, death to millions and in effect ethnic cleansing.
You’re just bitter because there is such a group as British-Bengali and they are emerging confidently and achieving in Western life too.
Let’s hope these people have learnt from your massive failures of the past and are not in the business of starving natives.
=> Sikander
You don’t need Britain?
Feel free to return to your glorious country.
I don’t have much…….. But will pay for your flight!
I am a foreigner who feels sorry for this wonderful country being abused so much 😦 ……
=> Sikandar
Now……..let’s go and analyse those reports………
Kay, I am born in this country with mixed-parentage. I’ve studied about how when the British administrated Bengal its wealth also diminished and eventually lead to famines, killing millions.
Srry that your UKIP-style, ‘one man on his own island’ nonsense do not fit well with my life and how the UK is today, but you’re just one person in a world of billions.
Well Sikander….. In order to get a wider picture I would recommend that you also study about Bangladesh existing only because of the stolen land and millions of murdered Indians……
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus
Thanks you this country for all you have done for us Bengalis. We really would be nowhere if you hadn’t invaded our country all those years ago and starved our population; stole our natural resources; raped our mothers and sisters; forced us to serve in your armies. Thanks you England from the bottom of our heart.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/lutfur-rahman-tower-hamlets-mayor-smear-campaign this is pretty spot on
Written by the arch smearer Richard Seymour. Would take his views and version of the truth with a pinch of salt, regardless of what this piece says. His forays into LBTH politics in the days of Respect were invariably inaccurate. See his blog Lenin’s Tomb.
Ted, everything Seymour and Kumar say is true, backed up by evidence. Please try it. It will give you a break from reading Gilligan.
Add to your reading list – Kumar’s piece published on Ceasefire.
It seems to me that local councillors and ex councillors blame Lutfur Rahman for everything that’s wrong with themselves and everything that’s wrong in the entire borough. It’s laughable politics.
All the accusations against Lutfur Rahman appear to be unfounded and just trivial rumours.
No wonder people became sick and tired and voted differently… good on the people of Tower Hamlets !
DO NOT WALK YOUR DOG HERE
MUSLIMS DO NOT LIKE DOGS
THIS IS AN ISLAMIC AREA NOW!
This makes no sense to me if you read into the wording, seems like a fake if anything. If a “Muslim” had put this up, they would have called it a “Muslim Area” rather then an “Islamic Area”.
But it’s hit the media – let the scaremongering begin!
To be fair the reporting has on the whole been circumspect: if it is EDL then that’s worthy of attention. And I’m sure it’s some lowlife trying to cause trouble.
Ditto! You hit the nail on the head there.
It is probably that new group Britain First. They ‘invaded’ East London Mosque and a few other mosques. Watch their video on YouTube – it is hilarious!
Or they would have called it the “Muslamic area” if it was done by some from the EDL.
The jokers who are taking the dog sh*t poster seriously should get their heads checked. It’s all empty up there!
Imran, it’s a trick which presumably works wonders for certain scare-mongering and hate-preaching journalists. A poster will mysteriously go up. This will then be written about and referenced subsequently reminding everyone a poster had appeared after Lutfur’s re-election. A further reminder will be given about Gilligan’s Dispatches programme ‘Islamic Republic of TH’. It is all part of the same set up designed to weave a particular narrative.
Yesterday, extremist right wing American blogger Pamela Geller (banned from the UK) came out of the woodwork. She wrote a piece regurgitating most of what Gilligan had been hate-preaching for years. She quoted Cllr Peter Golds who cried of voter intimidation three days after the election. She also quoted Cllr Rachel Saunders, who has been repeated Cllr Peter Golds’ lines about voter intimidation.
It is all part of the same nexus: Cllr Golds – Cllr Saunders – Cllr Peck – John Ware – Andrew Gilligan – Pamela Geller – Telegraph – Evening Standard – Daily Mail – the Sun. They are part of the same neo-con ideological set up. They’ll reference each other’s quotes to establish their sick, deluded, divisive ideas.
However, there is hope. People are not stupid. They can see right through these evil right wing, neo-con plots. This is why 12,000 more people voted for Lutfur than 2010.
Readers who are not familiar with Pamela Geller, she was invited to attend an EDL event, but was refused entry to the UK for her divisive, neo-con, Islamophobic views.
Much like the extremist-linked Lutfur then.
Cllr Saunders and Cllr Peck – right wing neocons??? That’s given me the best laugh I’ve had for days. Even Peter Golds, despite his political views, I wouldn’t describe as neocon.
Jay Kay, to answer your question, yes, Lutfur is just like Pamela Geller.
Geller was banned from entering the UK. Lutfur is a directly elected mayor in the UK with supporters from Muslim, Christian, Jewish and gay communities to name but a few.
Jay Kay, how are you related to Mrs Kay with her ‘pigeon and crap’ views about Bengalis? It’s not just your names, but your views suggest that you may be of the same ilk.
Eastenders script writer – I will not say anything about Cllr Golds. Hopefully, you’ve now had a chance to listen to his ‘car crash’ interview and you’ll know what I am talking about.
As for councillors Peck and Saunders, they’re probably worse than known right wing neocons, because they do their damage standing on the Labour platform.
MOTCO
Until a few days ago, I thought of you as one of the more rational THF contributors to this site. you were willing to engage in sensible debate with those who took a different view. However, your latest contributions are absolutely paranoid. All those different people are a conspirancy against you! This sounds almost as insane as the “Islamic conspiracy” theorists who contribute to the Gilligan blog.
You have won the election, but large numbers of Tower Hamlets residents (in fact a majority) voted against Lutfur and the THF candidates.
Many residents have genuine concerns about the administration in Tower Hamlets. I won’t go through them all again, they have been discussed many times here and elsewhere.
Regarding the “car crash” interview, Peter was subjected to hostile and aggressive questioning, with a supposedly neutral journalist chipping in continuously to contradict Peter. When John Ware subjected Lutfur to this style of questioning, his supporters referred to it as “bullying”. Peter Golds has given several media interviews over the past few days, most of which were very successful.
Regarding your claim that THF had support from Jewish, Christian and gay communities – the evidence for this seems to be based on very small numbers of people. Virtually all the THF supporters I saw at the polling stations and at the count were from the Bangladeshi community, as were 36 out of 41 council candidates . During the campaign, Lutfur was interviewed many times on Bangla TV, visited many mosques, but was very engaged little with the rest of the community. Furthermore, the successful THF council candidates were concentrated in wards with a high Bangladeshi population; and EVERY non Bangladeshi THF candidate polled lower than Bangladeshi candidates in the same ward. (See results for Bow East, Canary Wharf, Island Gardens, Lansbury, St. Katherine’s & Wapping).
You forgot to mention others who were unhappy with the conduct of the election – Jim Fitzpatrick and Green candidate Chris Smith. Presumably they are also part of the “neo-con” conspiracy.
Of course any elector can vote or campaign as they please, but there is strong evidence of an ethnic divide in Tower Hamlets, which should be a matter of concern for everybody. Lutfur would be wise to address these issues.
Andrew Conway, you appear to be a very big fan of Cllr Golds. You’ve always popped up defending this ‘car crash’ of a councillor. Please have a listen to the interview again and you’ll realise that there was no hostile questioning. Even if there was, he should have had the brakes on and not have such a spectacular car crash.
Andrew, your point about how the majority did not vote for Lutfur is not only desperate but makes a complete mockery of our democratic system. At the last general election, Tories got only 36.1% of the overall votes. This means that a staggering 63.9% of voters did not vote for the Tories. You’ll not hear anyone advance your theory to question David Cameron (by way of example). Lutfur polled a much greater share of the votes. He got 48% which means 52% voted for other candidates. This is how our democratic system works. We say that Lutfur has a mandate from the overwhelming majority of the voters. No other theory stands so please do not advance it.
Now, if we take Lutfur’s share of the votes and compare that to the percentage of the local population of Bangladeshi heritage, your other point looks, frankly, quite ridiculous. That is, it’s not just British Bangladeshis who voted for Lutfur. British Bangladeshis constititute about 32% of the TH population. 48% of the voters backed Lutfur. Even if we say that every single person of Bangladeshi heritage voted for Lutfur, this still means that 16% of non-Bangladeshis (including whites) voted for Lutfur. That is a lot of people – a sizeable number who should not be ignored in your sweeping generalisations.
Lutfur is extremely popular within the Bangladeshi and other communities in TH, which includes a large section of the white population. This is because Lutfur’s policies are colour blind – they benefit everyone in TH irrespective of their colour or ethnicity. Affordable homes are for the benefit of all sections of the TH population. Free homecare benefits whites, blacks, Asians and everyone else. EMA, uni grants and free school meals are for children and young people of all racial backgrounds. Do you have any children, Andrew? If you do, you’ll find that your children benefit from these policies too.
Lutfur’s opponents are very vocal which is why it might give the impression that there are very many people who are dissatisfied with Lutfur and the way things are being run in TH. Relentless vilification of Lutfur via Despatches, Panorama, Gilligan and other right wing media might cumulatively give the impression that there is something wrong, very wrong. However, wise people know how to interpret stuff from the media and distinguish between truth and fallacy. And the wise people of TH gave their verdict through the ballot box. Not only that, 10,000 more people voted for Lutfur than they did in 2010 in the highest turnout in London.
This is why I keep reminding everyone that Lutfur has just won the election. And you’ll have to wait for another four years to make any change happen. The wise thing would be to stop complaining about all your non-existent problems and let Lutfur get on the difficult job of making TH a better place to live for all (whites, blacks, Asians, pinks and so on).
Thank you for your attention.
MOTCO
Talk me through the maths again. Start from this premise: Census in 2011 states 81k Brit Bangladeshis in LBTH. About 30% are under 18 and illegible to vote, leaving 56,000 as the voting population.
Lutfur polled 37,000 votes in total.
Explain your maths.
Ted, thanks for your figures.
If there are 56,000 Brit Bangladeshi voters in TH and the suggestion from Lutfur’s opponents is that mostly Brit Bangladeshis voted for Lutfur, then why did Lutfur only get 37,000 voters? He should have got more. This brings us to the voter turnout.
There was 48% or so voter turnout in TH (let’s round this up to 50% for Brit Bangladeshis). That means 28,000 Brit Bangladeshis turned out to vote. John Biggs polled a share of those votes. Let’s say about 8000. Then, there were independent Bangladeshi candidates (less than 1000 votes) and Greens, Lib Dems and Tories who would have polled Bangladeshi votes too. Shall we say about 3000 between independents and others? This means about 11,000 out of 28,000 Brit Bangladeshis voters who turned out to vote did not vote Lutfur. So, Lutfur had 17,000 Bangladeshi votes and the other 20,000 votes from the white and other sections of the population.
Alternatively, shall we say Brit Bangladeshis had a higher turnout than others (let’s say 60%-70%)? Distribute the votes between Biggs and others, you will find that Lutfur polled a lot of non-Bangladeshi votes.
If the accusation is that 100% of Brit Bangladeshis turned out and they mostly voted for Lutfur, then where are all the other missing votes? Surely, it should be much much more than 37,000.
Sadly, it is time to surrender and accept the truth (this is directed at Lutfur’s bitter opponents, not Ted. Ted’s job is to ask questions and scrutinise).
Just to clarify:
These are my rough estimate of the voting pattern:
A B C D E (=BxCxD)
Ethnicity Electorate Turnout % Lutfur % of vote votes for Lutfur
Bangladeshi 56k 60 80 26880
Other 126k 40 20 10080
Total 36960
which is not far from the correct total.
I am not questioning the legitimacy of the THF victory. However, he should take account that a large section of the community are opposed to him. and BTW – so should Cameron.
I would also question your use of the term “bitter opponents”. The phrase “evil right wing neo-con plots” suggests that it is you who is bitter.
I know all of this is somewhat back of a fag packet, but surely a good way of looking at it this:
Lutfur polled 23k in 2010 on a much smaller overall turnout which most people I know think was dominated heavily by the Bengali vote.
He increased his votes by 13k this time. How?
In 2010, Abbas polled 11k. Some thousands of them would’ve been Bengalis who switched to Lutfur this time.
Say that figure was 4k just to be cautious.
That leaves 9k. It’s very easy to see how that could largely from new Bengali voters this time.
I think the more likely maths is there was 66% turnout among Bengalis and that 90% voted Lutfur. That makes around 33k votes.
Which means turnout among Bengalis would have been some 37%, which is much more in line with national averages.
Smells like something straight out of the new Labour camp to me.
Sorry, the columns did not appear in the right place – but I think you can get the picture.
Bottom line is that Mr. Rahman was only supported by the Bengladeshi population of the borough. I don’t think any non-Bengladeshi voted for him! Does he even have any non-Bengladeshi supporters?? Oh wait!! Then again, the only people on the infamous Panaroma programme who were supporting him were non-Bengladeshi weren’t they??? I counted three people on that programme who were in support of him – all of them non-Bengladeshi. The only Bengladeshi on the programme was anti- Mr.Rahman!!!
David, you will see from my estimates that I think over 10000 non-Bangladeshis voted for Lutfur, so it would not have been difficult to find 3.
Andrew, you say that over 10k non-Bangladeshis voted for Lutfur. Ted says about 4k. MOTCO’s initial estimate says about 20k. The truth is somewhere in between.
My problem is why so much spotlight on the BANGLADESHIS? They have a democratic right just as much as the next man. Their verdict is just as valid. If people do not like how the Bengalis voted, perhaps they should campaign to strip the Bengalis of their right to vote at the next mayoral election. John Biggs will become mayor and everything will be fine.
I bet if John Biggs had won with the majority Bengali vote, nobody would have batted an eyelid. There would be no debate or discussion about how Biggs had support from one section of the community. This is why the whole premise of this discussion when it comes to Lutfur is so pathetic.
I would suggest that most of Biggs’s votes came from the Bengalis anyway. He got 27k – most of these votes came from Bengalis. Only a minority of whites voted for Biggs. They voted for Tories 7k, UKIP 5k, Greens 5k, LibDems 2k etc.
Labour got most of the seats on the council with majority Bengali vote. I am not hearing anyone complain about this. Why? Why?
It matters because it’s about perception and mandate. It’s also linked to the way Lutfur’s campaign was directed almost exclusively at the Bengali community.
Even his team recognise this as a problem that needs addressing.
Fir John to have won, he’d have had more Bengali support so it’s fairly academic. However, he had a very diverse slate of councillors standing with him in any case.
Well, it appears that it is ok for Labour councillors to be elected with Bengali vote but not so ok for Lutfur. One rule for all, but a different one for Lutfur.
Ted, I can perhaps see your point about perception. What do you mean by mandate? Pls elaborate.
It is not the fault of Brit Bangladeshis that they come out in huge numbers and give their mandate to whoever they like. There are two solutions: (1) take away Bangladeshis’ voting rights as suggested by Mr A Miah above or (2) actively encourage Bangladeshis to stay at home and not vote in such huge numbers.
I mean that Lutfur campaigned and thus effectively sought a mandate from just one community to get elected. He needs to address that. It was a strategic error not to attend hustings during the campaign. If he felt he had nothing to gain from attending and much to lose, he was wrong. He didn’t venture from the bunker and people remember these things. He has a massive opportunity now to alter perceptions and address failings.
And re councillors, let’s leave that debate aside for the moment; far more complex. Let’s stick to the mayoral issue.
Hustings are one thing, but I think that Lutfur is genuinely aiming to shift towards a more inclusive and consensual form of politics in the borough. And I don’t think it’s entirely fair to suggest Lutfur only targeted his campaign at ethnic Bengalis, Ted.
Throughout the campaign Twitter was full of white people asking why they’d had a third visit from Lutfur campaigners trying to solicit their vote and why they hadn’t heard anything from other candidates.
Ted, unfortunately, we’ll have to disagree on this point. Lutfur did what he needed to do to get elected. He is like every other politician in this regard.
Also, you cannot keep saying Bangladeshi community. Lutfur got a significant number of votes from white and other communities. Based on the various calculations tonight, it is somewhere between 4,000 and 20,000 (truth lies somewhere in the middle). You cannot ignore that and keep saying Lutfur got votes from Bangladeshis only. Lutfur attracted white and other votes through his policies. He was very confident of that. He felt that he did not need to attend hustings. He said to people, ‘judge me on my record’ and they did.
‘Truth lies somewhere in the middle’
How do you know? Perhaps insert a could or possibly into that.
Truth is that your 20k figure is based on erroneous maths, so let’s discount it entirely.
If Lutfur felt he’d get anything like 10k votes from non-Bengali and Somali communities he’d had have attended hustings and been more engaged.
This is important and there needs to be some public honesty.
Regarding the hustings, I am sure it would have been better if Lutfur attended them. However, on the basis of the election result, we have to concede that he made the right call.
If what Oldford1 is saying is right, it looks like Lutfur concentrated his efforts on face to face, door to door. That is always a winner in my view and it has certainly proved to be so in this case.
Ted, let’s discount my 20k figure entirely, because it’s based on erroneous maths. Fine. Why discount Andrew Conway’s 10k figure? Why insist that your 4k figure is correct?
All our figures are ‘back of fag packet’. The truth is Lutfur polled a lot of non-Bengali white votes through his face to face campaigns. Hustings did not matter that much in the grand scheme of things. No need for public honesty, but there needs to be more public acknowledgment. Lutfur did it differently and it worked for him.
My natural response to everyone, majority of the Bangladeshis voted Lutfur, big fu**ing deal. We’ll vote whoever we like, if you can’t accept it, crawl back to your rat hole and come back out in 4 years. We don’t need to justify to no one!
My rational response is, Bangladeshis need to engage in mainstream politics, get involved in one of the main parties. We are natural Labour supporters but they have disowned us in TH. Hence the Lutfur phenomenon. THF can’t be along term solution for Tower Hamlets or the Bangladeshi community, the sooner its gets absorved into Labour the better for all concerned.
Just one more observation on Peter moan-a-lot Golds, he’s cried wolf too many times. The police ignore him, the electoral commission laugh at him and after the PwC report Pickles will block him out too. Poor Peter, looks like he will be lonely after all.
I read on this blog that Cllr Peter ‘Car Crash’ Golds does not have a job. So, crying wolf has become his de facto full time profession. If he has any self respect, he will put the brakes on now and prevent any future car crashes.
If the local Tory group have any dignity, they will replace him with one of their other three councillors as their leader. This will give them new impetus and fresh ideas so that they can win back some more seats at the next election. UKIP would have fizzled out by 2014 and will no longer pose a threat to the Tory vote. If THF gets absorbed into Labour, more chaos might be on the horizon and people will look to the Tories to provide a strong opposition in the council. This is only possible under a new leader who will command respect from across the borough and not alienate British Bangladeshis who are most politically active in the borough. It makes sense to have them on your side. A lot of Tory values are quite similar to Bangladeshis’ and young British Bangladeshis have shown an interest in Tory politics in recent years. Given that a significant proportion of the local Bangladeshi population is young who will become first time voters in 2014, the time to engage with them is now. The Tory group will miss this golden opportunity if they stick with Cllr Car Crash Golds.
It is time for the Astons, Woods and Dockerills of this world to emerge and grab the bull by the horn. The future could be bright for the local Tory party if they are prepared to act decisively and make the right call.
Like most of the extremist-linked Lutfur’s Councillors. No jobs, no experience, no qualifications and calling other names when they happen to disagree.
Residents are tired of the declining state of public discourse and civility in the East End, and are fearful that the current dysfunction will continue as a permanent culture. Let’s treat this as an aberration and not as a trend! Tower Hamlets is a borough with different cultures, religions and languages where groups have been indulging in divisive politics for personal and political gain. There is freedom of speech, but politicians should not incite residents against each other. I don’t think that any party which indulges in politics that divides us can bring development to Tower Hamlets. We must have faith in our ability to overcome all retrogressive and divisive forces in our midst and build a strong and united borough by turning our unique diversity into a source of strength. Our politicians can lead by setting a good example and displaying more civility, compromise and cooperation.
Man on the Clapham Omnibus
You real feel threatened by Cllr. Golds don’t you? He will remain a key player in the anti-Rahman brigade because unlike Rahman some of us want a council that serves all its residents not just those who occupy the East London mosque and the IFE and its front organisations
Hello Nice Rahman Supporter, far from feeling threatened by Cllr Golds, we just have a good laugh at the car crash that he is. The police treat him as a nuisance. The Elecroral Commission have consistenly laughed off all his wolf cries in the past. Three days after the most recent election, he said that he would be filing more complaints about voter intimidation.
If Golds is a key player in the anti-Rahman brigade, then we must also thank him for his role in re-electing Lutfur with 10,000+ more votes than 2010. Golds must keep up whatever he is doing in your brigade.
More seriously though, if local Tories want to engage with the huge number of first time voters in 2018, then they must ditch Golds and have a fresh perspective. Otherwise, they’ll be sleepwalking into disaster just like in the recent election when the Tories’ share of council seats halved under his ‘car crash’ leadership.
The vote fraud issue got national coverage thanks to Tower Shamlets, we need to keep the momentum up for serious change, ie the abolish of postal votes.
Then we will see next time how well Lucifer Rahman does in a proper election.
That’s supposing he ain’t doing time for fraud by then