After highlighting Rabina Khan’s live BBC London interview on this blog yesterday, it’s only fair to point to Lutfur Rahman’s rare live TV outing last night.
He granted BBC London political correspondent Karl Mercer some three minutes at 6.45pm. That’s way too short a time to interrogate him on matters of detail….and that’s the advantage the interviewee gains doing live TV.
The clip, which is available until 6.30pm, can be seen at 18minutes in here.
Karl suggests to him that weaknesses found by PwC included £407,000 of grant money given to organisations that failed to make the minimum requirements in application assessment process. Karl also suggests that some £100k was given to Bengali/Somali groups which didn’t even apply for grants.
Lutfur, in combative mode, replies:
Absolute rubbish. That’s not the case. If someone didn’t apply for grants they would not have got a penny. The assessment that this council, our officers gave awards to organisations that didn’t apply is absolutely wrong and it’s absolutely misleading, so let me correct that for the record.
People have to apply in the first place and a [r]/vigorous assessment process which is overseen by officers then is awarded the grants.
And on it goes with more defences of council processes. He said the applications went through proper processes, “overseen by officers” and via appeals channels to his cabinet.
As it happens, his interview came immediately after his monthly cabinet meeting in the room next door. It was the first one I’d attended in a while and while they always were, even under Labour, something of a rubber-stamping exercise I was struck by the lack of interrogation and the intellectual timidity of his members.
Of those cabinet members, who get paid £12,000 extra a year for their roles, only former deputy mayor Cllr Ohid Ahmed dared to ask a question of a senior officer. Good for him.
The only other councillor to ask a question was Lutfur’s old ally, Marc Francis of Labour, who welcomed a new council housing strategy but wanted reassurances on affordable homes numbers.
I wonder how happy these cabinet members are and what powers, if any, they genuinely have. Are they there for show…and the status and money of course?
This all comes down to governance. Is too much power invested in Lutfur and his unelected advisors and mayoral office?
Does that inner circle fully respect council processes?
In the area of grants, at least, PwC found that not to be the case.
I am going to write more detailed analyses of this report, but for the time being here’s a selection from the executive summary on mainstream grants (MSG) The last paragraph is revealing…or not, as the case may be.
(By the way, I think the BBC were confused in their assertion that some grants were given to groups which did not even apply. I think they were probably referring to 32 cases where the mayor intervened directly to increase their officer-recommended grant without the group itself actually asking/appealing for a review. See para 2.35 and 2.36 below.)
Development of MSG grant proposals
2.30 Officers from the relevant directorates evaluated grant applications in accordance with agreed criteria and scored each application on a consistent basis. Based on these evaluations, which were subject to moderation through discussion amongst officers and a degree of adjustment to reflect their analysis of gaps in expected outputs or outcomes as defined in MSG grant Service Specification documents, officers put forward a set of award recommendations in early August 2012. This was later than originally envisaged, owing to the higher than expected number of grant applications, which considerably exceeded that experienced in the previous MSG round (2009-2012). The August 2012 officer recommendations were for awards to 255 organisations totalling some £8.2 million across eleven different funding streams (covering a 30-month period, equating to £7.4 million pro-rated for 27 months).
2.31 During August and September of 2012, an iterative process took place, whereby one Member in particular who sat on the CGPB [Corporate Grants Board] intervened to make significant changes to the officer recommendations prior to their being presented to the CGPB. This has been explained to us as the application of “local knowledge” to achieve a wider spread of grant monies across more organisations, as well as seeking better to address key areas of need and promote a thriving third sector across the Borough (we have also been told that there were “errors” in the officer recommendations, albeit that the nature of these has not been specified). Taken together, these aims would in principle be unobjectionable in themselves, however the process by which they were pursued lacks transparency and is inadequately documented. Further, without a record of what local knowledge was applied it is not clear how this is linked to the assessment criteria for the MSG 2012-2015 awards.
2.32 There is evidence that officers were concerned as to what the basis for the proposed changes were and, indeed, evidence of a concern that such changes might reduce the effectiveness of the use of grants in terms of securing viable services from third sector organisations. Concerns of a similar nature were also raised by the chairman of the Tower Hamlets CVS, the sole external member of the CGPB. There was also an acknowledgement by the senior in-house legal adviser considering this issue that the changes were significant and that care would need to be taken to ensure that the process and its outcome could be justified.
2.33 The result of this process was a new set of recommendations which were significantly different from those made in August. Out of a total of 431 initial applications, the updated recommendation was different in 347 cases (81% by number). This included 15 applicants who had not met the minimum eligibility criteria even to undergo evaluation and scoring by officers. These applicants were recommended to receive aggregate awards of £243,500. A further 18 applicants were recommended who had, on the basis of officer evaluation, failed to reach the agreed minimum score to qualify to receive a grant and had therefore not been recommended by officers for an award. These applicants were recommended to receive, in total, awards of £407,700.
2.34 We note one example of Member input into the decision making of MSG 2012-2015 awards whereby Members recommended £40,000 of funding to an organisation despite identified manipulation in the documents provided to support the applications of the organisation and an Internal Audit report assigning nil assurance to the organisation’s control environment in September 2012. This organisation was not scored by officers as it failed to meet eligibility criteria. In addition to this we note that three other applications to the same funding stream, were turned down for funding with the following comment “this was a reasonably good scoring project, however there was very high demand for funds from higher rated proposals which meant that this project was not able to be supported”. Given the scarce resources available and the apparently good quality capacity already in place it is not clear how seeking to build capacity within this organisation was the best use of resources within this funding stream.
2.35 The new recommendations were put forward at a Cabinet meeting (open to the public) on 3 October 2012. At this meeting, the Mayor indicated that he was minded to accept the recommendations, however he was announcing a seven-day review period, during which grant applicants could ask to have their proposed award (or lack of award) reconsidered. In the event, some 177 applicants asked for their award to be reviewed. Of these, 76 were awarded an increased grant. In addition, a further 32 applicants received increases although we have not seen evidence that they had in fact asked for a review of their award.
Degree of involvement of the Mayor
2.36 In interview, the Mayor told us that he had not been involved in the detail of awards, although he had kept abreast of things generally through occasional high level discussions with one Member in particular. This is somewhat at odds with an email dated 8 August 2012, shortly after the initial circulation of the original officer recommendations, which stated that “the Mayor has requested a vastly expanded Appendix 1”.We also note that a press statement dated 1 April 2014 put out by the Mayor’s office in response to the BBC Panorama programme included an assertion to the effect that the Mayor, acting within his powers, had intervened in 32 specific cases (details of some of which were also given). We consider it likely that the 32 cases referred to in the press statement concern largely the same applicants as the 32 applicants, included in the final award, who received an increase without requesting that their awards be reviewed. In response to our request for clarification of whether or not the Mayor intervened in the manner suggested in the press statement, neither the Mayor’s office nor the Authority has been able to shed any further light on the matter.
Trial by Jeory 
Lutfur should have highlighted the dodgy accountants that authored this report.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/05/-sp-luxembourg-tax-files-tax-avoidance-industrial-scale
Why should Tower Hamlets listen to a firm in bed with the government
http://www.vice.com/read/adam-ramsay-lutfur-rahman-pwc-corruption-031
Did you come up with that one yourself or did Team Lutfur issue it to you?
who are you
no i didn’t write those articles. they are in the national press. Nice of you to think so though. I am touched.
Poplar, What point are you trying to make? If it’s true it’s perfectly legal unlike some of what Lufur may have been up to.
so what has Lutfur done that is illegal then? Pray do tell.
Sounds like Takki under cover. Think he doth protest too much
Takki’s not from Poplar, he’s from Muswell Hill.
Since when does one have to live in Poplar to use a ‘Poplar’ name ?
So Lutfur’s line now is that PWC – a global accounting firm which serves many multinational firms and has a long and successful track history – is incompetent and tells lies?
Or am I misunderstanding the implications of what he says in direct contradiction of what the PWC report states?
Some questions:
1) When exactly did Rahman get his audit qualification for making these assertions
2) When did he gain his expertise in designing and developing adequate information systems for grant awards?
3) When exactly did Rahman do his own personal research and validation of the methods used by his officers and his councillors in order to arrive at these conclusions? How did he document this?
Just as a matter of interest when is somebody going to query the audit fees paid to KMPG (the official LBTH auditors) and the firm which has signed off systems as being OK in the past?
I am not sure Lutfur has said this at all my friend. The point I am making however is that PWC are frankly in no position to advise on best practice or value for money given the devious methods they deploy to defraud the british public.
I didn’t say he had. I think you’ll find PwC are in a very good position to advise on best practice. How have they defrauded the British public?
I think you’ll find that global accounting firms which break the law cease to exist – see for example what happened to Arthur Andersen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen
Any professionally qualified accountant knows that they owe their existence to their reputation – and that depends on observing the law and never ever being criticised in a way in which people lose confidence in their services.
I’m sure this commission was a difficult challenge for PWC. On the one hand it’s clear from the outset that Pickles was a man on a mission. On the other hand PWC ran the risk of becoming a laughing stock if the words they used could not be validated by documentation and processes used to arrive at their conclusions.
Nobody is going to risk the value of the UK Audit market for one man – even if he happens to be the Secretary of State!
who are you and what planet are you from?
who are you and what planet are you from POPLAR??!
perhaps read the guardian article
Which one?
clearly you’ve never worked at PwC. They rely on operating in the grey areas to extract for their clients “best value” at the expense of the exchequer.
I refer to articles i posted at the top of this thread
Clearly you’ve got no idea who I’ve worked for! 🙂
However I do understand the difference between:
* tax avoidance (i.e. the right to manage one’s tax affairs in compliance with a tax regime in such a way as to minimise liability to pay tax) and
* tax evasion (actions to avoid paying tax which are illegal and/or not compliant with a tax regime).
But maybe you don’t?
Note the sentence in the Guardian article “These arrangements, signed off by the Grand Duchy, are perfectly legal.”
There are always completely nonsensical tax loopholes which will always be exploited by companies until governments eliminate them.
The thing is the very best tax accountants and tax lawyers tend to work for those who work out to save tax while remaining perfectly legal.
I’m very much in favour of the UK and the EC cracking down on any tax loopholes which current regimes have left gaping – but I won’t blame those who are providing professional advice for using them if a government is stupid enough to leave them there to be exploited.
Just as I’m all in favour of Pickles reintroducing a regime which would act as a considerable deterrent to Councillors misbehaving and acting in a way which is not compliant with the law, conditions of grant funding and the financial regulations of a Council
BRING BACK THE SURCHARGE would be my main recommendation arising out of this current debacle.
It serves to concentrate Councillor’s minds wonderfully on the impact of rejecting the advice of their officers – assuming they’re advised in the first place by officers who actually understand all the relevant law, regulations and conditions of grant funding.
Judging by one or two actions in the High Court at the present time – and highlighted in the PWC report – that assumption might be dubious…….
Ted,
Is this the start of your new book,
Lutfur : The Mayor
An everyday story of Tower Hamlets
?
Maybe a prize for the best title suggestion? 😉
Surely it should be “Lutfur: the NightMayor – an everyday story of Tower Hamlets” ?
Attack is the best form of defence. Isn’t it Poplar?
There will always be a question whether devising the tax saving structures is morally correct. Well, taxpayers have the right to structure their affairs to pay less tax and if PWC helps them to do so legally then so be it. I don’t have a problem with it.
What I have a problem with is our “thick skinned” mayor taking our money and “filling” pockets of his chums with them.
Now this is hardly just morally incorrect……….. I do question legality too.
There surely is a difference between not paying more than what you have to and the blatant misappropriation.
Did Rahman respond to Pickles’ request to not award any grants or jobs by the deadline yesterday? If so, is there a copy of it somewhere?
Yes he did. Assurance given.
The BBC, in this instance, were not confused. You need to be clear on this; refer item 2.46 of the report ‘….None of these organisations had applied for grants under the MSG 2012-2015 programme’.
Further, Karl Mercer did not ‘suggest’ malpractice with regard to £407k in grants. He quoted from the (PwC) report, which states, in part:
‘2.33 …..Out of a total of 431 initial applications, the updated recommendation was different in 347 cases (81% by number). This included 15 applicants who had not met the minimum eligibility criteria even to undergo evaluation and scoring by officers. These applicants were recommended to receive aggregate awards of £243,500. A further 18 applicants were recommended who had, on the basis of officer evaluation, failed to reach the agreed minimum score to qualify to receive a grant and had therefore not been recommended by officers for an award. These applicants were recommended to receive, in total, awards of £407,700’.
It is against this factual evidence that Rahman indignantly exclaims, ‘Absolute rubbish’. So, who is lying? PwC or Mayor Rahman. If you are still undecided, Rahman’s body language may help.
The above aside, the interviewers of both Cllr Khan (was the news reader/ interviewer, Sarah Orchard?),and Rahman were woefully inept. Cllr Khan should have been nailed time and time again on the fraud issue, as one of your contributors has already pointed out on that post, and Karl Mercer was clearly never up to the job – allowing Rahman free reign to unload promotional diatribe, and again totally unable to nail the man on fact.
It’s taken the PwC report, and a Parliamentary airing to drive home the reality that we have a serious problem here in Tower Hamlets with a Council that is totally out of control. In this short interview, Rahman had the gall to call it a ‘learning Council’. What balderdash! Not only have residents lost confidence in the Council, we have also lost confidence in the local MPS as well, as it is seen to have unhealthy links with the Administration – a point hinted at by a Member during the Parliamentary debate.
I’ve not heard that any Member of the Council raged about the current situation during Wednesday’s Council meeting. I find that astonishing. For the record, I stood as a local Candidate in the last elections. If I had of been elected I would have made a bloody good job of airing my views!
Suffice to say, Rahman and his gang no longer warrant air-time or so called ‘balanced’ commentary, even in blogs.
It was a cabinet meeting, not full council. You’d have had no say there either
Oh. Is that called “Gagging the Public” ?
Why have a meeting that is to the pubic if the public are forbidden to ask questions about the activities of the ?
Where exactly is the alleged and and hiding ?
What Rights have the public to get back their money ?
Curious Cat.
There’s usually a public petition/deputation section at the start of the meeting where people can make a statement and ask questions by prior arrangement
Re para 2.46, that was to do with lunch clubs. They hadn’t applied for mainstream grants but were awarded money from a separate fund called the 954 Fund. I think these had applied to this fund.
Perhaps, but we’re not reading the runes here: we’re basing our comments on the evidence submitted by PwC. Specifically, the Lunch Clubs, as part of the 954 Fund, were/are intended ‘for those that had applied through the MSG programme but had received no money or less money…’. PwC revealed no evidence of any Application, whether through the MSG programme or directly to the 954 Fund.
Notwithstanding this, 2.43 states, ‘in practice no open process for the solicitation, submission or evaluation of applications from third parties has been established. …… All proposed uses of 954 Fund monies have been derived from elected Members, in particular the Mayor and Councillor Asad’.
The questions the BBC ought to have posed, in response to ‘Absolute rubbish’ were – (1) where are these applications? and why weren’t they revealed to PwC?, and (2) if they exist, what open process was applied to evaluate them?
In other words there were no applications to the 954 Fund – they all depended on being an organisation “known” to those making the decisions?
If that’s the case then that’s:
(1) a major and blatant breach of the Equal Opportunities legislation and
(2) also underlines why Pickles made his medieval largesse comment
i.e. there is no underlying rationale for this distribution other than the whim of the person handing it out.
That is emphatically NOT something any politician can do at any level in the land with respect to public money.
This is OUR (taxpayers’ ) money not Rahman’s. The Council are allowed to distribute it on our behalf only if they do so according to objectives which relate to approved Council Business and according to strict process with respect to accountability.
This is where the Mayor’s “way of doing things” fell down so badly.
He obviously doesn’t have a solid and comprehensive grasp of the simple tests which have to be satisfied before you can award and pay out grants.
Frankly if I was Pickles and the interviews and the documentation had established that
1) the Mayor and Cabinet don’t understand what they can and cannot do
2) they have been badly served by officers who have REFUSED to let them do things they cannot do and/or
3) Even when told, the leading politicians still will NOT listen and adhere to due process
– then I’d definitely be sending in the Commissioners for a lengthy period because the rules for spending public money have not being followed and there is a very clear and significant risk that this behaviour will continue into the future.
Telling politicians that they cannot do what they want to do is a routine part of the job responsibility or any local Authority Chief Officer and, in particular, the Chief Executive Officer.
The problem arises when those who advise don’t know how to step up the wording to instruct the politician that what they want to do lies outside their power and that they MUST follow due process. People in temporary posts are often likely to soft peddle the necessary words if they want to keep their appointment and hefty pay cheque.
The dangerous politician is the one who gets rid of CEOs who do know how to instruct politicians about what they can and cannot do – but the politician still doesn’t want to listen. IMO that is the backdrop to the story of political decision-making in Tower Hamlets in the last few years.
One day somebody is going to count up how many people have held the post of Chief Executive and/or Head of Paid Service in Tower Hamlets in the last 25 years and then compare their average length of stay to the average length of stay of a CEO/Head of Paid Service in other comparable local authorities.
It tells any analyst of local government performance an awful lot about the extent of respect for the role of the CEO and the level of dysfunctional behaviour by politicians in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
The £954K surplus was meant to go back to the MSG; it didn’t.
There was a call on reserves of £714K to cover the MSG overspend.
A positive difference of £240K.
The grants that were made from the £954K were not advertised or applied for but allocated by ‘local knowledge’ to Bangladeshi & Somali lunch clubs.
How do we know that these organisations were real and not fictitious since no MSG applications were made or scoring was applied?
Also, in general, there was no follow up to ensure that the grant money was being used for the purpose it was awarded.
This is corrupt and not within the remit of any politician. This all seems to have arisen by allowing elected mayors too much power and with only one ‘Call in’ allowed by the full Council, the mayor could and did reject any criticism of these decisions.
Why exactly are we council tax payers funding lunch clubs for the over 50s?
The retirement age is 60/65 and rising. Those between 50 and 60/65 may have private incomes or being on benefits, get a raft of things from reduced Council Tax, Housing Benefit, tax credits, working tax credits, child support etc.. It would appear to me that this is an unnecessary expenditure when Nurseries are being closed and disbaled people’s work is being cut,
Ted, you say
“He granted BBC London political correspondent Karl Mercer some three minutes at 6.45pm. That’s way too short a time to interrogate him on matters of detail….and that’s the advantage the interviewee gains doing live TV.”
That’s untrue. Mayor did a live piece and a longer in-depth interview that was pre-recorded after the live interview and shown at half 10.
Not seen that. What did he say?
Can’t remember what he said but accepted parts of the failure and said Eric was too mean.
I’ve only got the first minute or two recorded. It was too long to record it all. I’ll post it on here soon.
By your English you are Bangladeshi.
It’s like an Ealing comedy in here, The entire planet knows Rahman’s rabble are bigoted, biased, racist, sexist, sectarian, bent, buckled and corrupt, but the mouthpiece, poplar is proclaiming innocence. So far, the entire country, looney left BBC, ITV, Dispatches, Panorama, all news outlets BBC London, London Tonight, every news editorial in the UK and everyone this side of care in the community declares that Rahman is bent. However on the other side, Poplar and the odious apologist for Islamist terrorists, Scumbag Galloway, give support to Rahman, puts it all in to perspective then, he must be innocent. Ah Poplar, pity the plonker, eh! you do provide that missing link between stupidity and terrorist.
The interview the morose,charisma free with Rabina Khan was certainly toe curling,she must be having nightmares over it.
As Pickles went to great lengths to highlight value for taxpayers money, i don’t think he went far enough and should send more inspectors in to investigate the sheer waste perpetrated every week.
A prime example would be to investigate the gross incompetence and extravagance of Tower Hamlets Homes.I and many others believe the area of service charges to tenants and leaseholders is a scandal waiting to happen.
These sums are no more than figures plucked out of the sky and residents are being grossly overcharged.How can you produce accurate figures when a grossly over staffed caretaking workforce barely work more than two hours a dayTheir lunch times are longer,yet TTH produces figures on them working a full thirty five hours!What a rip off.Perhaps Khan should concentrate on sorting this organisation out,rather than embarrassing herself on TV.
Did notRahman promise to cut waste and have a smaller workforce, yet recruitment and creation of non jobs has continued unabated.Nepotism and cronyism are the buzz works with this council.
A few years ago, Rahman appointed a town centre manager to oversee Roman Road market,ha sanyone seen her,in fact what does she do to justify the large five figure sum she receives to do what you would be hard pushed to class as even a part time job.
While the council satff have never been hives of industry,since Rahmans election they all appear to be afflicted by the inertia displayed by the Mayor and his “rent a quote”cabinet.They and the numerous managers on Tower Hamlets council are taking shirking and skiving to a new level.
When we keep hearing on the unspent millions in the councils “rainy day fund”rather than good housekeeping, does it not really mean we have been grossly overchargred in council tax for years.
Pick;es new crusade is to put a end to taxpayers funding council staff to work all day on union business.I think first stop should be to the town hall,he wont believe what the tax payer is funding in this area.
There’s nothing to stop people writing to the email address identified in the report lbth.inspectors@uk.pwc.com and making suggestions of new areas to look at.
If you feel strongly about a matter which is under the Council’s control then you should marshall your evidence and send it off with an explanation of why you think an investigation should take place
I understand that Tower Hamlets Homes was investigated. Although it is not specifically mentioned in the report the criticisms apply equally to THH as it is inextricably linked to THH.
It may be that some of the evidence of fraud that PwC found and passed to the police involves THH.
Tam, you are utterly right, I am a leaseholder, if you want to join in a class action against THH let me know
Friday 7 November 2014, distributed at 18:28 GMT.
Letter to Tower Hamlets council: property disposals and transfers
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/letter-to-tower-hamlets-council-property-disposals-and-transfers
A letter from Paul Rowsell, Deputy Director, Democracy at the Department for Communities and Local Government, to the Head of Paid Service at Tower Hamlets council.
The letter highlights the undertakings received from the council in relation to grant making and the appointment and/or designation of statutory officers, and requests further information and undertakings in relation to property disposals.
Curious Cat
You may have missed this, Ted, although I imagine the Morning Star is somewhere in your office. It is really the mixture as before. I have given a succinct reply http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-82a0-Pickless-hit-squad-has-wrong-target#.VF4Ix_nGrJc
This paragraph is laughable:
Despite newspapers screaming that I sold off a council-owned building to a friend (I didn’t and am horrified by that assertion), the report doesn’t even make such an accusation. Like tens of thousands of others, one of the people involved in the bid for that building supported me in the 2010 election.
End
To describe Mujib Islam as merely one of tens of thousands of supporters is disingenuous in the extreme.
It seems the more Lutfur (or more probably his younger speechwriters) shout and write about this, the more silly he looks.
Despite these Kennite advisors’ little dreams, he is no Ken.
Ted – Have you asked for the record of the donations of those who contributed to Lutfur’s election campaign when a candidate for Mayor?
Nice clear layout on the Morning Star. Very easy to read …………….
Article appears to have lost some facts. Obviously written not by the Mayor but by a professional Spin Doctor.
Seems like the Coronation of St Lutfur of Tower Hamlets, Defender of the People, is on the way. Wonder where the venue will be ?
Curious Cat
Probably November 12th at 6pm at the Waterlilly according to Mahbub Alam’s twitter where he says:
Save democracy in #TowerHamlets meeting in Water Lily E1 on Wed 12th Nov 6pm- guests @ken4london @georgegalloway @MayorLutfur and many more
Even he clearly thinks democracy in Tower Hamlets needs saving. Odd choice of venue though which is the venue of choice for extremists but at least the extremist linked Mayor should feel at home.
Wonder if they will allow filming ?
Panorama & Dispatches might buy the video.
Must dust-off my covert filming and audio recording gear 🙂
CC
And yet another blow!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/local-elections/11218290/The-full-story-of-the-medieval-monarch-of-Tower-Hamlets.html
The Telegraph article is the final fatal, pre-trial, blow ?
The hearing of the election petition will be packed-out with no standing room. St Lutfur of Tower Hamlets wanted publicity and now he has really got his wishes, ultra big time.
I feel sorry for Mr Lutfur Rahman because it is going to be increasingly distressing for him. He will experience severe emotional difficulties coping with the strain.
Curious Cat
He’s going to experience very severe strain in the pocket if he loses!
I wonder if he’s got his backers signed up to “a cast iron no going back definitely underwriting all the expenses agreement” – on paper?
Does anyone know if the excrutiatingly toe curling defense of Rahman by Dave Hill in The Guardian is still on line? It was by far the worst thing he has ever written and that’s saying something. It seems to have disappeared. Surey the Guardian isn’t censoring stuff? I think we should be told.
This one – or something else?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2014/nov/10/tower-hamlets-lessons-of-the-lutfur-rahman-affair
Livingstone on BBCI on Sunday How dare we ask questions og the good Mayor Rahman . Because its our money !!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04ncm4n
Livingstone is a spent force living off his past reputation and becoming even more eccentric by the day.
Being supported by Livingstone these days is no recommendation at all.