It’s going to be a busy day for me today so apologies for being brief.
The PwC report is here.
I’m reserving judgment on exactly how “damning” it is. On a first glance there are serious criticisms on council process failures. These could amount, in series, to a damning verdict.
Eric Pickles is due to make a statement at 12.30pm but I suspect a new chief executive is inevitable. He’ll also possibly announce he’s appointing commissioners to take over the grants system and to oversee the sale of council properties.
PwC have certainly found governance failures.
They also hint that too much executive power has been given to one individual regarding the mayoral system. Tower Hamlets may be the extreme example which demonstrates a broader need for improvement in the system.
Politics in Tower Hamlets has been dysfunctional for many years. The arrival of Respect in 2005 blew apart Labour’s monopoly in the borough and that was the catalyst for instability.
The resulting revolving door of councillor defections and swapping of Labour group leaders created a factionalism that even highly regarded senior council officers found difficult to deal with.
We then had the worries over the influence of the Islamic Forum of Europe and its links with certain councillors. Then we had the Respect-led petition which paved the way for the directly elected mayoral system.
And then the Labour party imploded with the row over the selection of Lutfur Rahman.
So Lutfur became a powerful executive mayor as an independent without the checks and balances of a party group. He hired a brand new mayoral office, and that created its own power plays at officer level in the council.
On top of that, he was an angry man under extreme pressure, with one fundamental aim: to get re-elected.
I think he was then badly advised. He took direct control of grants and was surrounded by fawning bidders from external groups.
The dysfunctional politics also meant that when Kevan Collins resigned as council chief executive in 2011, we had an almighty bun fight over his successor.
In short, the successor never happened.
And we’re here today.
Note that East End Life was not examined by PwC and nor were nine examples found by the council of possible fraud in the delivery of youth service grants.
Gotta be a takeover by DCLG – anything less would make EP a laughing stock. But there will be trouble on the streets! http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tower-hamlets-damning-government-report-hits-out-at-use-of-public-funds-lutfur-rahman-9837585.html
I’m not so sure that it’s a definite, although I would be very happy to see a DCLG take-over.
I’ve not read much of that report but it’s pretty damning. There is no precedent for this, so no yardstick with which to measure it, but if there was an independent report on my organisation which was half as critical then I’d be seriously considering shutting up shop and doing something else with the rest of my life. But then, perhaps that’s the difference between other people and The Despicable Rahman; other people have a sense of honesty and some self-respect. Rahman, despite the name of his political party, doesn’t.
Let’s see what Pickles says at 12.30pm.
Tim.
REJOICE
REJOICE
REJOICE
They are sending in Commissioners
Where did you get that from GM? Pickles’ statement? I haven’t caught up with that end of things yet …
Tim.
He was saying in Parliament he was going to send in three commissioners
Thanks GM.
I’m wondering whether this will make front-page on the nationals tomorrow, although I slightly doubt it.
Tim.
I have heard that Lutfur Rahman MUST sign a document by 3pm tomorrow afternoon formally agreeing to the imposition of the Commissioners (who will be appointed by DCLG within the next fourteen days) and also formally agreeing not to hire anyone, spend any money or agree any grants before they are appointed OR he will face an immediate takeover by force. How can he agree to the commissioners and save face regarding his pointless legal attempts to have the basis for the PWC inspection overturned? He cannot do both things.
Will the government claw back the £400k given to ineligable organisations? They should… they would claw back far less from any person who did not pay their council tax wouldn’t they!
There’s gonna be fireworks tomorrow when it comes to the council signing the death war…sorry, letter to the DCLG…appropriately it’s November 5th too. Man the barricades!
GM,
That’ll be the bit on page 2 of this letter, in bold:
It will indeed put him in a difficult predicament. My guess is that he will sign at around 2.55pm tomorrow, under duress, while kicking off merry hell about ‘Racism’ and ‘Unfair process’ and ‘Court cases’. He will play the underdog for as long as he can, and will hang on in there until the last possible moment.
I noticed the question from Luciana Berger (Liverpool Wavertree) about clawing back fraudulently-awarded grants. Pickles said he is looking into it. I sincerely hope that it happens. Unfortunately I understand that such recompense cannot be extracted from the councillors who awarded them – more’s the pity.
Tim.
The government say they expect to run LBTH until the end of March 2017… but say they may extend that if they think it necessary.
ERIC – IF YOU ARE READING THIS – PLEASE DO IT FOREVER
No, I disagree, LBTH needs to be able to run itself. Fatty Pickles needs to have his men in there for as long as it takes to sort out the mess, and the whole thing then needs to be carefully scrutinised for the next few years, but we don’t want to become the borough that is incapable of running it’s own affairs.
Of course, the reason we need this intervention is because of the racist nature of the local politics, and how this is ended is a different matter. It is also clear that it will not have ceased by 2017. It’ll be interesting to see what develops between now and then, and how things are handled from the centre.
Tim.
Bonfire night …. who is going to be TH’s bonfire guy ?
So, do we know whether The Despicable Rahman signed that acceptance by 3.00pm today?
I expect we’ll hear more from Ted after the council meeting this evening. That meeting could be a bit stormy, eh?
Tim.
I haven’t read it yet.
From the summaries, and from my perspective, the instigation did not examine all the necessary matters. Perhaps their remit was too restricted ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29895568
There is probably more for the avid reader to digest.
Curious Cat
Written statement to Parliament
London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council: inspection report
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/london-borough-of-tower-hamlets-council-inspection-report
Eric: “We are sending copy of PWC to police. What has happened in Tower Hamlets is SHAMEFUL!!!!!!” Couldn’t be clearer!
If it is shameful, why are so many people smiling with joy and delight ?
Letter to Tower Hamlets council inviting representations about the inspection report published on 4 November 2014.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/letter-to-the-london-borough-of-tower-hamlets
Curious Cat
Call me cynical but just how much will change? Will those at the top just ignore the people brought in as the issue fades from national headlines?
I can already see the accusations of racism coming from some Rahman’s supporters, and who knows maybe organising some rowdy protests if election night is anything to go by. He’ll be going all out with expensive PR people too.
I don’t think I have ever screamed at my TV YES! YES! so much. For the UK Parliament to state “The Mayor should hang his head in shame” is amazing. But I expect the ostrich that is our mayor will keep his head firmly stuck in the sand and presume that all is well in TH. Glad to see Ted, Andrew and Peter Golds were highly praised. Well done, especially you Ted!
A David v Goliath contest – The Citizens versus Tower Hamlets Mayor.
The public strikes back !
John – you and me both!
Some amazing comments well worth watching for those who missed it on iPlayer – it’s currently listed as “available soon” on BBC Parliament on iPlayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04nw24f
It’s a “recommended watch” from me!
This is a fun game: What spin do you think the front cover of East End Life will run with? ‘No Evidence of Fraud’, ‘Mayor Exonerated’, ‘Tower Hamlets second only to Norway as best place to live in the world thanks to the Glorious Rahman’?
Maybe its, what East End Life?
I was rather hoping it’s “what mayor?”
Tim.
Where oh where have all the mayor’s supporters gone ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29895568
The council, in east London, said it “regretted” flaws in its processes.
But it added that the report showed “no evidence of criminality or fraud”.
Nice spin on that one.
They were instructed to investigate “allegations about governance failures, poor financial management and possible fraud”
So no fraud found (yet) but the report ripped them a new one (politely) over everything else.
And copies of the report to be forwarded to Insp Knacker.
With the three commissioners responsible for awarding contracts, how will TH pay for the PR to try and put a spin on this.
I’m sure that there are some weasel-words around precisely what constitutes ‘criminality’ and ‘fraud’ but I consider quite a lot of the behaviour reported to be deeply fraudulent. Having a pot of nigh on a million pounds for the councillors to spend as they choose, on whatever they like, with no accountability at all? And (surprise surprise) the Bangladeshi councillors decided to give it to Bangladeshi organisations who never applied for it and didn’t meet the standards for organisations to which grants should be awarded.
Not fraudulent? Of course not. And not criminal either? Not at all … if you are from Planet Zog.
One interesting question that is coming to my mind is how much longer Rahman will stay. There are calls from various quarters for him to resign; will he stick around or will he go? Answers on a postcard to E.Jeory, Town Hall, Mulberry Place …
Tim.
Sigh. Some people have short memories:
Nice attempt at re-writing history though.
CC – I think one of the Mayor’s supporters has just popped up, up there ^^^^^.
Last of the great spin doctors, eh, OldFord1? Keep digging – I’m sure Australia needs some dodgy politics, and the hole you are digging yourself into will get you there fairly soon …
Tim.
Brilliant comment Tim. It made me laugh a lot 🙂
I reiterate to everyone that If the evidence is missing for a variety of different reasons, then the
No evidence is not the same as exonerated innocence.
Curious Cat.
oldford must be GUTTED
Sorry – so you’re way of rebutting the correct point that PwC (auditors who cannot judge whether something is (a) a criminal offence or (b) capable of being prosecuted by the CPS) were not there to investigate criminal fraud is a news article’s headline which uses the word fraud? Do you think that PwC wrote the headline? If it helps, the sub-editor of the article is the person most likely to have written it.
No, you idiot. It’s nothing to do with the headline. It’s in the first line of Joe’s piece too, and that’s because it was a direct quote from Pickles himself who appointed the auditor in the first place.
Bonsoir cher Maurice,
Mr Oldford1 will not be gutted. Au contraire, he will state the Mayor has been exonerated 🙂
The report didn’t surprise except, as Ted mentioned, the 954 account. I’d like to know which over-50s lunch club I should have joined in Whitechapel (though I thought retirement was 60 and going upwards).
Sadly, Rahman will not accept he has done anything wrong. He will not resign. He is not of the Profumo school of politicians. At least Profumo had the good grace to apologise, resign and dedicate the rest of his life to the poor in the East End.
So, not proven!
John Profumo, RIP, was a nice person. He didn’t fiddle or divert public funds. Like the vast majority of heterosexual males he was attracted to a then desirable young woman. That is human nature – virtually all men are vulnerable.
I can not foresee any circumstances in which Mr Rahman could be considered to have, in my opinion, the same gentlemanliness, the same decency and the same honourableness as I believe John Profumo possessed at all times.
Curious Cat.
I read the article – which refers to “fraud and financial mismanagement”. The latter is clearly made out in the PwC report. The former cannot be proven by auditors – they can look into “claims of fraud”, report their factual findings, and leave it to lawyers and the police/CPS to determine whether criminal fraud can be made out.
I was pointing out that you’re joining the hilarious response from the Lutfurites that the report is fine because it doesn’t prove a crime took place. This misses the point because (a) that wasn’t the point of the PwC report and (b) the question of whether criminal fraud took place has not be determinatively answered.
Glad to see politeness in discourse is alive and well, by the way.
Nice one Tim LOL
your, not you’re. Oops.
Well it’s been an exciting day!!!!
Great to hear such strong and clear language from central government about our appalling mayor and very inadequate team.
Appalled as always by the council statement which is almost more damning than the report as it shows lutfer and the gang have got no grasp of what is right or wrong and have failed to understand the seriousness of the report…how can they possibly run a borough in the correct way???
A major step forward for those of us that have been working and campaigning to expose the mess.
Big thanks to Ted for all the alerts! The media machine is in full flight now!
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/370469/141104_-_Paul_Rowsell_to_Steve_Halsey.pdf – Here is the letter to Steve Halsey
Lutfur Rahman: The Movie
I see a Lutfur supporter has come out from under their stone and “thumbdowned” all the comments.
Hopefully the Courts will find in the favour of the People and ban these individuals from ever holding public office again.
It’s just a shame it took so long. I left the IOD in May, the election was the final straw for me.
‘The people’?
Do you mean this guy?
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/respect_backer_is_arrested_1_666390
Isn’t there a link between the Mayor’s Bunch and Respect individuals ?
Did anyone see this car crash interview with Rabina?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04ncm21/bbc-london-news-04112014
First time she has had a problem getting her point across. Wonder why?
Didn’t see it, no, so thanks for pointing it out.
To say she doesn’t come across well is a massive understatement. She sounded like a cracked record, and thicker than pig sh*t. Clearly not a shred of integrity, just pushing the party line.
Tim.
INNOCENT
The Mayor is innocent. I heard him myself on BBC 1’s London regional news tonight.
The Mayor used words like Absolute rubbish and Absolute lies.
No grants were given to groups that never asked for them. The grants were dished-out by OFFICERS.
And, NO, the Mayor ain’t resigning.
Bonkers, truly Bonkers
I’d be interested to see a table with something like 1. Allegation 2. Evidence 3. Lutfur response.
It is very hard going trying to pull out the above from the dense report but my initial analysis is a little like the Mayor’s (although, sure, I may have missed things).
No allegations of criminality. Allegations of disorganisation (I think).
Frankly there is disorganisation in many types of council and indeed I would expect such in Pickles own DCLG department (I’ve worked for several council and gov bodies.)
There is a large degree of naivety with many of the commentators here – Pickles is not some wise owl – he’s a hard-core Tory minister. Of course he will criticise people like Lutfur.
And some of the almost hysterical comments – LBTH tuned down most officers recommendationson grants (sometimes with lots of !!!!). Well, yeah, politicians should be deciding them, not officers – otherwise why bother with elections? The worst sort of council would be one that generally agreed nearly all officers’ recommendations.
So what do we have – an elected mayor (with faults) whose power is going to removed by fiat by a minister. A minister from a party that can’t even get a majority in the UK and, apart from the bankers of the near apartheid state of Canary Wharf, is a party despised in Tower Hamlets.
Some democracy!
(actually, some democracy!!!!!!!!!)
I think if you read the dense report you’ll see a rather laissez faire approach to agreed processes, dismissal of warnings from internal audit, persistent interference from members and q a lot of memory failures on meetings and detail.
As I said at the time, it was a mistake to take grants into a non-public decision and advisory body run by the mayor. And now the price is being paid. Terrible politics (at best).
More than that Ted. I’m actually surprised that the PWC report made no reference to the evidence of discrimination apparently evidenced by the distribution of grants i.e. discrimination against communities who are not Bangladeshi or Somali.
The notion that most of the community groups are in the west of the borough (re. the map of distribution of awards by value) is complete and utter tosh.
What Lutfur actually means is that most of the community groups that he and his THF councillors know about are located in the part of the borough where they have their seats.
The fact that he doesn’t know enough about the community groups belonging to other ethnic groups and/or cultural community groups in the rest of the borough is the real indictment of this administration.
Tower Hamlets in the past used to have a very rigorous process for reviewing urban programme grant applications against criteria and making recommendations to Councillors. This was done by a Steering Group which was made up of representatives of relevant statutory services/authorities in the borough plus representatives of all the main community groups and their overarching forums. EVERYBODY was able to express views as to needs and how these might be best addresses. The processes used were regularly commended by the (then) Department of the Environment for being an example of good practice in grants management and distribution. I seem to recall it was even highlighted in an official report as an example of good practice.
Absolutely with you as far as audit trails, record-keeping and agreed processes are concerned.
But you have to be very, very careful throwing around phrases like ‘interference from members’. They are elected. If you don’t like their interference, don’t vote for them.
Provided it was all properly supported by a clear audit trail – and some of it was not here and that’s something that shouldn’t happen again – it would be absolutely fine in principle if all of the decisions were ‘interfered’ with by members.
Precisely. No audit trail. Unjustifiable interference. Don’t downplay this aspect.
Oldford1 is legally wrong.
The High Court has ruled, on several occasions but I didn’t record the judgements so can not provide case numbers, that interfering with the professional decisions of local authority officers can be justified ONLY if there is a really good reason and the reasons for that interference are fully documented.
Well Mr Loyal Oldford1, can you or your hero produce the fully documented reasons for the interference? If not, then it does look bleak for the interferers.
Curious Cat.
=> YouCouldn’t but Rahman Could …..
The usual method is to avoid commenting on things being investigated by the Old Bill.
Who knows exactly what the Old Bill are looking at?
CC.
Don’t be an idiot. They’re not professional decisions, they are recommendations. Recommendations made to elected people who in law take the decisions. As for your second remark, I suggest you read my comment again and read it properly this time.
Oldford1 – can you stop calling people names?
Oldford1 appears to have forgotten that most of LBTH’s decisions are made by staff empowered by authority delegated from councillors/the Mayor.
If the staff were making decisions on, for example grants, whilst using their delegated authority. why did the Mayor and/or the Mayor’s crowd intervene ?
Just what is the point in the local authority making, and publishing for the public to see in the context of Open and Transparent local government, policies/rules for the good functioning and governance of the local authority if those policies/rules are then judged to be so defective the Mayor and/or his crowd then has to intervene and contravene ?
Surely Mr Loyal Oldford1, the correct procedure is to amend the existing policy/rules rather than tinkering with them on a highly selective basis ?
I note there was no publication of the context and formula used by the Mayor and/or his crowd when they selectively intervened. Thus there appears to be a worrying lack of Openness and Transparency.
Please remember Mr Oldford1, the local authority is not intended to be the Mayor’s personal plaything. If he wants to play, then let him do whatever he likes with his personal toys – the London Borough of Tower Hamlets is NOT one of them.
Call me an idiot if you wish. On this matter I am absolutely correct, as any court of law would unquestioningly agree 🙂
Curious Cat.
With respect to the table – I wonder how much of that table would highlight paper documentation which was missing and or never created in the first place. I wonder why not…….
Or processes which fall well short of what is common and routine in virtually every other council. (I don’t know which Council you’ve been working for but the processes PWC describe are embedded in most Councils and have been for years – as indeed they were in LBTH in the past)
You cannot distribute grants without a clearly evidenced paper trail as to:
* whether the organisation meets the minimum standards to handle public money (clearly many did not in LBTH
* whether there is a set of clearly agreed criteria which enable the authority to demonstrate transparently that they are observing equal opportunities as we’ll as matching funds to defined council objectives and priorities as to defined and agreed needs (clearly this did not apply in many cases in LBTH)
* how each grant matches up to those criteria (non-existent in many cases in LBTH)
Anything less leads to the type of metaphor used by Pickles of a medieval monarch distributing largesse at whim
The grant funds do NOT belong to Rahman.
Grant funding comes from the taxpayer. Taxpayers expect and the government are entitled to make sure that all grant funds are
* spent on an appropriate purpose
* by a credible organisation
* via a robust, rigorous and well documented system
* and is wholly untainted by notions of “payment for votes”.
Southpawpunch
Public funds MUST be dispensed fairly; primarily on the basis of genuine need. If that offends anyone’s existing policy then they are not fit to hold public office.
The issue is the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The issue is not about national politics in other parts of the UK.
Some might suggest you are attempting to ‘muddy the waters’ to protect your chum, when crystal clear transparency has been missing for years at LBTH.
Curious Cat.
Curious cat,
Not at all. And the Mayor is not a ‘chum’ – I’m a Trotskyist and so despise them all – but I also believe in pushing ‘democracy’ as far as it would go, so, for example if a Labour Government replaced a Tory or UKIP Mayor on the basis of unproven allegations – I would support that Mayor’s right to remain Mayor (and likewise not to have their council run by Commissioners).
There are many comments here about Lutfur. And if he is responsible for replacing a open system of awarding grants with one that is not open to scrutiny, I would condemn that. If.
But what do people think of Pickles’ actions? Is it a reasonable action of government to take such actions. Is he just being a disinterested observer, committed to helping LBTH?.
Or is he acting somewhat like people accuse Lutfur of acting – undemocratically, secretly, without consultation, for party advantage? The bigger villain (in every sense) here is Pickles
There is no if. He did.
In what way has Pickles acted undemocratically and without consultation??
yes we should certainly listen to PWC on how to extract best value. They have lots of experience in this
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/05/-sp-luxembourg-tax-files-tax-avoidance-industrial-scale
Is that your best POPLAR? You come across as desperate and delusional as Lutfur and his circus of parasites.