Election court petitioner Andy Erlam
We now expect John Biggs to ruthlessly root out the rest of the corruption at the town hall within the three years left in his mandate. If he starts to do this, he can be sure of my and many others’ co-operation. But he and the Labour Party must also now reflect on the fact that it was Labour that created the crisis in the first place.
That is why Labour was so hostile towards the Election Petition initially and made various attempts to sink it. Biggs himself was a very reluctant witness who had to be coaxed for months to provide an adequate statement for the court. Almost all other local Labour “leaders” looked the other way. One allegedly actively dissuaded people from giving evidence. What is the point of leaders who lead from the back?
There remains a question hanging in the air. Everyone knew that election corruption was rife in Tower Hamlets. It’s been going on for years, so why didn’t anyone, apart from Ted Jeory, Andrew Gilligan and Mark Baynes, do anything about it? Remember, Rahman was, and in many ways still is, a Labour man. So the choice in the election was really between Labour and Labour. Return of the One Party State of Tower Hamlets.
Rahman claimed in the election court that senior Labour officials such as Keith Vaz, Ken Livingstone and Len McCluskey had met him and his deputy Alibor Chaodhury and that they had agreed a “pathway” with the party leadership for Rahman to get back into the Labour fold. The Labour leadership has never denied this dirty deal behind the backs of both the Labour Party membership and the electorate. In my view, the only thing that stopped it being implemented was a spanner in the works in the form of the Election Petition. My reading of Biggs’ victory speech last Thursday was a hint at some form of reconciliation with Tower Hamlets First group councillors. Too eager, too much, too early.
Mayor John Biggs with Labour supporters
It’s all very well to talk about “drawing a line”, as Biggs does, but the body will only stand a chance of recovery if all the cancer is cut from the ailing body and we now know that election corruption was and is only the tip of the iceberg as regards corruption within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The cancer of corruption is still there.
Intimidation and violence in local elections has not stopped in Tower Hamlets either. A few days before this election a Labour councillor was badly manhandled and bruised outside a mosque because he refused to support Khan. In typical style, he appears not to be pressing charges “on advice from the elders”. So supporters of Khan can get away with a potential crime? And you want these people back in the Labour Party?
It’s my belief that numerous fraudulent and invalid votes were also cast again in Tower Hamlets and the police are investigating. If Khan is seriously considering her own Election Petition, who will it be directed at? My advice to her is: save other people’s money. It will fail at the first hurdle and “be laughed out of court”.
The police have acceded to my request to extend their enquiries to include the local councillor elections and the courts have agreed that ballot papers must be preserved a further six months. Complaints can be made direct to the Met at: SETelections@met.police.uk as soon as possible and before November at the very latest. I hear that local Labour leaders are already advising disappointed 2014 Labour candidates to leave matters – i.e. not co-operate with the police. And we wonder why so many local police enquiries run into the sand?
If people are now being discouraged from making formal complaints to the police about last year’s local councillor election fraud, they will live with the terrible consequences for years to come. Incidentally, it has never been clear why Chris Weavers, Labour’s then election agent and local Party chair, failed to challenge any of the poll counts on May 22 2014 at the time. Looking back, was his inaction wise?
It will also be especially interesting to see whether Biggs will root out corruption connected with local land deals. Scotland Yard is actively examining allegations of very serious fraud and misfeasance in public office on this aspect. It will be interesting to see if the new mayor opens up all the books to a serious and robust police investigation or concentrates on “reputational” issues like a public affairs consultant for FIFA. There is also the small matter of the fraud issues coming out of the PriceWaterhouse Coopers’ investigation. Why is Scotland Yard turning a blind eye? There must be a reason.
The only aggravation I had on the streets was from a few self-styled Biggs aides who criticised me for ‘splitting the Labour vote’. No vote belongs to Labour. Like respect, every vote has to be earned. Such arrogance has destroyed the ethical power of the Labour Party. It is anti-democratic and indeed illegal to seek to pressurise voters and candidates. Don’t they know? I take it as a badge of honour. Remember Labour created Rahman.
Furthermore, the spectre in the election campaign of both Peter Golds openly boasting in public meetings that he would “lend” second preference votes to Labour, and of Biggs “lending” Labour’s second preferences to the Tories beggars belief. Have these people learnt nothing?
The voters have decided and that decision must be respected. I would like to thank the 1,768 people who voted for me, the many others who (I am told) wanted to but didn’t and the many more who put me down as their second preference. Many wish to keep in touch and can do so at: andy@redflagac.org
We will now see if Labour will clear up, or cover-up, the mess of its own making.
Trial by Jeory 
There may well be a case to be made for wanting to root out corruption in the local Labour Party – except it’s my understanding that the local Labour Party has been run by the London Regional Labour Party on all matters electoral for some years (which has always suggested to me that London Regional Managers have been incredibly ineffective at managing the problem within Tower Hamlets.)
Speaking personally I’m not keen on any political party which displays an attitude towards past mistakes of wanting to sweep it all under the carpet – which is what Labour appears to have done to date.
Biggs has an opportunity to change this perception – and I think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one for the time being. Clean broom etc.
However I do think Andy Erlam is wrong on one thing.
The only way the administration was going to change was if John Biggs was elected. The only way he was going to be elected was on the back of Conservative second preference votes. I think most people understood this – after some explaining (from all sides) – hence the way the vote went. It was a totally tactical vote. Labour did NOT win this election for Biggs, the Conservative voters in the borough did.
Labour need to remember this with respect to the next election in May 2018.
We need to see a lot of change between now and then – this was the siren call from all parties – and it MUST happen.
So if we don’t see some change happening at a local level and in relation to co-operation with Police enquiries, I think we can all expect that the ‘gimlet eye’ of Peter Golds will very soon be turned on the activities of the Labour Party at both local and London level insofar as they effect both the elections and administration within Tower Hamlets.
There is, after all, a bigger prize to be won in terms of the London Mayoralty…..
Reputations matter. Credibility matters.
Plus of one thing you can always be certain – people talk. You can always be sure that someone will find out if you ever attempt to hide things which should not have happened……
London Labour is a cover up or London Labour is complicit, take it how you will. Whenever the local party has a problem they use ‘London Labour’ as a convenient way of solving it. That way choices are made and no one locally is seen to be responsible, very convenient indeed. For instance the By-Election in Stepney Green – who chose the shortlist, London Labour? what a joke. The ‘London Labour’ label is used whenever they want to do something so they can pretend they are not responsible, “it was London Labour they say”
There is definitely unfinished business – the findings in PWC report etc and Council staff now need to feel emboldened to come forward and speak out. But there is the bigger question of “how did this happen”? What happened to all the usual checks & balances? How could one elected official – the Executive Mayor – ride roughshod over the Statutory Officers, Scrutiny, and what was left of the Standards Regime (after Eric pickles had dismantled most of it). It’s not just Labour with egg on their face.
But let’s not be diverted by party point scoring. It’s about probity and honesty.
Maybe we need a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”?
I’m not sure whether I’m being serious or jocular! It’s certainly a thought worth thinking. It worked for South Africa…..
I wouldn’t use South Africa as an example of anything.
Not even for generous multi-million dollars football bribes ?
You mean you don’t think that South Africa today is an improvement on the South Africa of pre-Mandela days?
I didn’t say SA was perfect – I meant that the T&R Commission was a useful mechanism for avoiding an actual or virtual bloodbath in SA.
Just as the EU exists to avoid another war in Europe.
the South Africa of pre-Mandela days?
That’s a bit ambiguous. Do you mean the good old days when the British ruled and slaughtered, starved and tortured the Dutch settlers (de boren) and the native original inhabitants ?
Compared to that, I admit today’s Zuid Afrika is better.
Curious Cat
I meant ANY of the days prior to Mandela emerging from prison and what then followed.
There was appalling behaviour by a wide range of people over very many years.
The point I was making is that at least the T&R Commission pre-empted what could have been a very difficult situation
I’m not pretending things are easy now – but the question that must be asked is “How much more difficult might it have been without the T&R Commission?”.
I truly do not know.
CC.
Some of Erlam’s comments are premature and speculative. If he has any hope of perhaps being involed in cleaning up the borough he, like the rest of us should wait and see what happens before pre-judging the issue. Unfortutnaely, John Biggs’ mayoral term has been shortended by a year so what he can achieve in 3 years rather than 4 is more limited.
Andy Erlam seems to show little appreciation of the support he had from others in achieving a successful outcome to the petition.
Peter Golds has been working to expose electoral malpractice in Tower Hamlets since 2006, and was in court for much of the hearing, frequently briefing Francis Hoare. John Biggs prepared a 60 page witness statement and spent 2.5 days in the witness box.
Chris Weavers (Labour) and Craig Aston (Conservative) were amongst the others who provided evidence.
However, Andy insists on taking all of the credit himself.
Andy won much respect for the risks he took and his determination to achieve success. However, he was unable to convince many voters that he would have been the best choice for mayor. He needs to reflect upon that fact.
Peter also won support, but was aware that the only feasible winners of the mayoral election were Rabina Khan or John Biggs. Therefore his advice to Conservative voters to cast their second preference for Biggs was perfectly logical.
I thought Andy’s posting was primarily about the drastic need to clean-out residual corruption, concealments (of which they are many) and chuck-out all those associated with promoting and encouraging the Rahman regime.
About 1.1/2 years ago I wrote something like:
Rahman was nurtured by Labour
Rahman was fostered by Labour
Rahman was educated by Labour
Rahman was a creation of Labour
Labour, aware of Rahman’s Labour-roots and Labour being the political party involved in more corruption and sleaze than all the other major parties combined, failed dismally and totally to promote the rule of law.
I never knew about Labour’s attempts to sabotage the Election Petition. I did know, like everyone else knew, of Labour’s surprising and questionable decision – despite its vast assets and lawyers galore on constant tap – not to do its own election petition. Was Labour too scared that its own dirty tricks and electoral corruption would be exposed to the wider public ?
TH FOIs are being delayed without explanation.
See my Greek holiday-makers one for instance – submitted 2 months ago and absolute nothing from LBTH.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lbth_greece_visit_april_2015
Press Office Code of Conduct
submitted 2 months ago and nothing received from LBTH
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lbth_press_office_code_of_conduc
I doubt if Biggs is really up to the job of deeply cleansing LBTH especially as national Labour will probably try to control and influence / guide his actions.
LBTH needs an immensely STRONG leader. Biggs, despite whatever virtues he has, is not strong enough to do a first class job.
Labour shares with Rahman a dislike for bright exposing sunlight. Rats love the dark, the gloom and the stink of decay and corruption.
Curious Cat
=> Andrew Conway
The FACT remains Andy & Co. did it, for which almost all of us – including people who live in Spain – appreciate.
CC.
I live a lot of the year in Spain.
I know. I was hinting at you 🙂
Is your email system still broken ?
Here we go again with people trying to make some kind of link between Rahman’s wrong-doing and him havning been a member of the Labour party.
Jay Kay,
Just where do you think Rahman learned all the tricks invented by Labour ?
Surely Santa Claus didn’t pop down Rahman’s chimney one Christmas and leave a full set of DVDs on how to deploy election tricks ? It might have been titled “How to Win Elections the Labour way”.
Why did Labour fail to bring its own election petition ????????????????????????????????????
Why ?
Labour had the resources, the evidence, the manpower, the lawyers – everything. Except the courage to stand-up for the Citizens Right to free and fair elections. Labour are not saints. If Andy & Co had not have done it, no one would – that takes real balls, something arrogant Labour lacks.
Biggs could have, but he didn’t and he never ever explained why not.
To assert Labour are lilly-white is pure nonsense.
Curious Cat
No-one made Rahman into a lying, corrupt politician, He managed that all by himself.
I truly believe Rahman merely carried-on normal Labour procedures and then later
CC.
The ex Mayor may have learned a few tricks from the Labour Party but there’s a bit more to it than that
It takes a particular sort of EGO to ensure your image has to be advertisement hoardings and dustcarts and that you have a council newspaper devoted to your every move.
I never recall seeing anything similar in the days of previous administrations.
The worst excesses of most such administrations were usually an eagerness to name any new road or block of flats after one of the party faithful irrespective of whether they were good at their job!
In a town like TH, Labour named a road after a Labour supporter – the editor of a local newspaper.
He, despite being a Labour supporter, then put a full-size picture of the Labour mayor on his newspaper’s front page to highlight corruption by that mayor.
Some Labour people really do have splendid morals. Shame they are in a minority.
Curious Cat.
For all the reasons mentioned, I did not vote Labour in the last election as I believe that they in my opinion created a monster, which was pulicly backed up to the High Court finishing line by Labour people, such as Livingstone.
Question is: does Biggs have a broom that is big enough to sweep away the corruption? Or will he just lift the carpet and sweep in under that for someone else to deal with in the future?
Talking of the Police: They investigated my complaint, which provided evidence alleging that Council property was used by Khan in her election leaflet(s): but the Police have decided that it is for the council to pursue Khan on this matter of “copyright issues”. I am not hopeful that “The Council” and/or Biggs will pursue this matter based on the above observations.
Watch this space…
=> Madsvid,
Talking of the Police: They investigated my complaint, which provided evidence alleging that Council property was used by Khan in her election leaflet(s): but the Police have decided that it is for the council to pursue Khan on this matter of “copyright issues”
Are you really sure whatever Rabina, or Rabina’s helpers, did is actually a criminal offence rather than a breach of the civil law (also known as private law) ?
Curious Cat.
Good question about criminal law. I am not a lawyer, so can’t answer that. However the Police should know.
The question to the Police however, is whether under an election it is allowed to use pictures allegedly commissioned by the council to further that of one individual standing for election, over that of all of the people standing. Notwithstanding that the picture in question is that of a person barred from the same organization, and that the image have previously been used across official literature and press statements. Thereby suggesting that said person is still in office, and that he is endorsing this specific candidate in his (previous) official capacity. In effect, if the picture is owned by the council, who stole it? And who benefited from the use of it? – back to criminal law…
Let us separate your answer into two parts.
(1) whether under an election it is allowed to use pictures allegedly commissioned by the council to further that of one individual standing for election
(2) that the image have previously been used across official literature and press statements.
I am not a lawyer; merely an ordinary person – although that didn’t stop a stranger shopping in a supermarket last night asking for my help with a council problem. Which I did, obviously.
ANSWERS
[1] If those picture cost money to take, which they did, because of the staff’s, or outsider’s, time and effort, then a nominal cost should appear on the person’s election expenses. How much, I really don’t know.
[2] It would seem the picture belongs to the local authority. Local authorities are not supposed to promote the electoral chances of anyone especially in an election period.
SUGGESTION
FOI something like …..
XXXX, a candidate at the mayoral election held this month, published in his/her election literature what appears to be a council copyright photograph.
The photograph shows …….. (insert sufficient description) ……..
Please tell me:-
* whether the photograph belongs to the council ?
* whether the council licensed reproduction for election purposes to the candidate ?
* whether the council imposed a charge or cost upon the candidate for its usage ?
* the cost of the council taking the photograph including all incidental costs such as staff employment time, travelling costs, staff’s pension contribution costs for the time required, proportion of the camera’s and lens’ purchase price and maintenance
* who authorised the usage of the photograph by the election candidate and may I have a copy of that authorisation ?
Let’s see what comes back from London’s sleaziest local authority.
Curious Cat
Thank you, that was great and I agree with everything you suggested there.
Although I’m hoping that with the Police having already passed on the “case” to the local authority, that someone there will have all alarm bells ringing in the back of their head.
When I made the complaint, I copied in both the department overseeing the election and the office of the commissioners. I was going to give them a couple of days to sort out their response – will keep you updated.
Read what was said. It’s police corruption.
DR,
How do you work that one out ? Police corruption ?
Labour root out corruption? Labour are the root of corruption. Wake up Erlam.
I think Labour were involved in the invention and development of electoral corruption.
CC.
Once again, nonsense which questions Andy’s current stand upon this saga? It is wrong to claim a Labour party COUNCILLOR was apparently attacked and bruised outside a mosque of all places, but not reveal the identity? Afterall this is a elected councillor he speaks of so the public have a right to know if it involves an election. How do readers here know Andy is not merely cooking up a story to make Labourites continue look like victims of alledged intimidation and physical abuse by Lutfurites? However, it is interesting to see the obvious bias Andy carries here in favour of Labour. He states:
“The only aggravation I had on the streets was from a few self-styled Biggs aides who criticised me for ‘splitting the Labour vote’.”
So Any here chooses to use the word ‘aggravation’ when indeed he describes all other similar incidents as ‘intimidation’ when it concerns Lutfurites supporters? Why Andy do you feel this was not intimidation?
Congratulations to Biggs for getting past the SV winning line. But let’s not forget here, someone mentioned his term only being 3yrs instead of the usual 4yrs, hence less time to fix the council? You forget Biggs is also the full-time paid GLA member so hus job, although paid full-time by taxpayers, it a part-time mayor of Tower Hamlets.
A final thought on integration, institutional racism and discrimination. I do not believe a candidate should be judged upon their credentials of being being BME, gay or female. It should be judged on ones ability. But it is a fact the the Labour party ignores this in favour of their own all women shortlists, or women quota’s within their own party structures. If female representation is deemed appropriately based upon sex rather than ability, then why are BME candidates ignored? Especially in multi-cultural London, particularly in Tower Hamlets, it is sad that a Bangladeshi Labour party member is never considered by the Regional party as being suitable to hold the office of Mayor. We have three Executive Mayoral boroughs in London, all run by White men who have highest concentration of BME constituents. It is insulting to many that the best Labour can do here in Tower Hamlets is find none other than another white man in the form of already full-time GLA member Biggs to the join the white ranks of Executive Mayor, when they had opportunity to make the BME communities feel much more valued by allowing full-time commitment of a BME Mayor. But La out will not do so because they are too used to only handing out token gestures such as to the current useless breed we have in councillors Shiria Khatun and Shirajul Islam who are quiet content in being called a deputy mayor when infact the only person with executive authority is Biggs himself.
>i>A final thought on integration, institutional racism and discrimination. I do not believe a candidate should be judged upon their credentials of being being BME, gay or female. It should be judged on ones ability.
Yes certainly. Its the brains and determination that really count – not what ones does in the bedroom or elsewhere.
CC.
I agree – forget the ethnicity and the gender identification etc.
I’d settle for any candidate standing who is accredited as
1) intelligent,
2) honest,
3) diligent and
4) a man or woman of integrity
5) who has the interests of the WHOLE community at heart.
That W word gets my vote.
Now that Biggs is supposedly doing a FULL-TIME job as LBTH mayor, he should resign from the GLA.
CC.
Where does it say it’s a full time job?
The only jobs which are mandatory – and which are usually full-time in almost all Councils – are the Head of Paid Service, the Monitoring Officer and the Director of Finance.
Might you be trying to exclude all future candidates who already have a job?
Have you ever noticed that Boris seems to fit in writing a column?
Of course back in 2004 Boris was
Isn’t it more a question of whether you have the energy, attitude, intelligence and aptitude to fit in time for the obligations you have to fulfil?
I really don’t believe the Mayor is obliged to clock in and out!
Couldn’t
If Biggs had stated in his election material that he wants to be the mayor ‘cos its only an occasional part-time job and he simultaneously wants to keep collecting his GLA money – as well as the mayor’s money – he may not have been elected.
Boris is a pratt, a real buffoon. All MPs should do only ONE job and that means no government minister should be an MP. If Cameron wants them, then they should resign from Parliament.
Simple ain’t it !
Didn’t your mother ever tell you ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ ?
Greedy cash-seeking people whose primary commitment is to filling either their egos or their pockets or both, are useless in improving public services.
Curious Cat.
In my experience very intelligent people frequently do more than one job.
Boris is very clever – the buffoonery is all an act!
I understand John Biggs is also not short in the braincells department even if he could do with a wash and brush-up in the charisma and interpersonal skills department.
Like I said – the issue is about many hours are required to deliver the obligations.
For example, if Biggs chooses to delegate to Cabinet Members (and he’s got a few more people to choose from!) and/or run the Council in a way which is not far distant from the old Committee system then there would be no rationale whatsoever for him to give up his other role – just as there never was for the Old Leaders of whichever party was in charge of the Council.
Next year there are the London Mayor and GLA Member elections. Biggs may lose his seat on the GLA then. I hear that Oliur Rahman is thinking of standing against Biggs. So much for loyalty.
=> Couldn’t
Boris is very clever – the buffoonery is all an act!
Boris’ buffoonery is an everyday manifestation of the person’s true character.
Brain cells of the higher quality and their numerousness are insufficient. One also needs courage, tenacity, determination and a large dash of moral scruples.
Just whom, in the Tower Hamlets circus, possesses that ?
Curious Cat.
You’ve changed the subject – which is whether or not the Mayoralty is a full-time job and the notion that it all really depends on how it is executed.
What skills and talents are required is an academic issue for the next three years – we have a new Mayor.
The subject is Biggs will fail to deliver what is required to root-out residual corruption and nepotism and to radically improve the borough.
His deficits include insufficient brain cells, lack of determination, lack of character strength, lack of tenacity, lack of moral courage et al. After all, it is Tower Hamlets, can one expect anything better ?
On Biggs’ lack of success, I would prefer to be wrong. Time will tell, probably in a smog of excuses uttered by trusted spin doctors and professional apologists.
The mess started with Labour. Now Labour are continuing from where they originally paused.
😦
Biggs made it clear that he intended to stay on at the GLA so this had no relevance to the result of the election. Ina ny case he may lose his seat on the GLA next year so the situation will take care of itself.
Tower Hamlets is the size of a small country – it has similar population to Qatar and Iceland. Its governance requires full time attention. GLA positions on the other hand have mostly decorative functions- a pretence of democracy to cover up the autocratic nature of the London Mayor’s powers- on which the local authority executive Mayors’ powers are based. Hopefully his frustration at being sidelined and not being listened to at the GLA will have taught John Biggs the value of heeding advice and involving others in decision making. The community does not just want to be ‘consulted’- it wants its views to be taken on board. After all the decisions taken by the Mayor and his Cabinet (or Committees) will affect the ordinary residents most of all and they are sick and tired of having their views ignored and disrespected.
In the meantime – here is Peter Gold’s recipe for “what must happen next”
http://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2015/06/interview-cllr-peter-golds-calls-for-compulsory-integration-in-order-to-defeat-corruption-in-tower-hamlets.html
Biggs will not stand in the GLA elections. He is right to stay on the GLA until 2016. A by-election now would cost half a million plus!
How do you know this?
Is it because he stands for East London so the electorate is very much larger than for borough elections?
He stated this last year before the voided election was run.
It’s certain he won’t stand for the GLA next year. In fact there’s already a bit of scramble to take his seat. Cllr Unmesh Desai in Newham vs Abdal Ullah is one scenario.
There will be a lot more contenders than those two. Desai I know of and he has a track record but not Ullah.