Archive | Newham RSS feed for this section

Super diversity in Plaistow

14 Oct

Diversity and cohesion in Britain’s most mixed community – John McDermott writing in the Financial Times about Plaistow

“If London is the most diverse city in the world, and Plaistow is the most diverse part of the city, Plaistow might be the most diverse place in the world,” says Forhad Hussain, a local councillor. When Hussain came to the area in 1983 with his Bangladeshi-born parents, this part of the city was mostly white and working-class, home to dockers and their families who had stayed put as Plaistow was rebuilt after the devastation wrought by the Blitz.

A few St George’s crosses can still be spotted in the windows of terraced houses or tower blocks, but the English-born population is on the wane. As late as 2001, 62.2 per cent of Plaistow residents were born in England, according to census data provided by Newham council. A decade later, that share had fallen to 47.3 per cent. 

Well worth a read.

Tags: , , ,

The fix is in

14 Oct

Someone has kindly forwarded me an email sent this morning to East Ham MP Stephen Timms by the chair of Boleyn ward Labour party. It concerns ‘unusual activity’ by the mayor and leading councillors in the ward over the weekend, following the death of councillor Charity Fiberesima.

Dear Stephen Timms

I hope you are well.

Boleyn ward held a condolence meeting for Cllr Charity Fiberesima at 8pm on Sunday 11th October who sadly died on Tuesday 06 October 2015.
At the meeting, Boleyn ward members observed a minute silence followed by a few words dedicated to Cllr Charity’s life and her hard work as the ward Councillor. The ward members present also donated money to buy a card and a wreath. Members are extremely upset and in shock and say that Charity was a very kind, always smiling and a friendly person.

Now I am writing to you that members present also discussed an unusual activity that occurred within just few days of Cllr Charity’s death.

On the Sunday morning of 11th October 2015, just five days after the death of Cllr Charity, the Mayor and a number of other ward Councillors mostly Cabinet members and or Mayoral advisors from West Ham and East Ham CLPs were walking up and down the streets of Boleyn ward questioning Labour party members some very uncomfortable and personal questions such as what were the reasons for joining the Labour party, what did they do for living, what did they think of the new Labour leadership Jeremy Corbyn, do they regularly attend party meetings, are their parents active party members (the member replied, I am sorry but they are old now and couldn’t be active but they still contribute to the Labour party, whether they knew the Labour party values? 

I, the Chair of Boleyn ward, condemn this very unprofessional act. The ward officers, ward Councillors and the members believe that they were kept in dark of this secret mission. No ward will allow other ward Councillors to come so secretly on a Sunday morning and ask these kinds of personal questions without even engaging the ward officers or the ward Councillors and so will therefore not the Boleyn ward either. Members are finding it hard to understand that why was it kept so secret and why was it so necessary for it to happen just within a few days of Cllr Charity’s death?

The Labour party ward members of Boleyn are absolutely outraged about this matter and believe the Cllrs involved showed no respect to Cllr Charity and her family and did not even wait for the funeral but flagged up their true emotions all of a sudden. They found this extremely rude and disrespectful as she had just recently passed away, her blood is still hot, her children are still in great pain of their loss, however the senior Labour members did not have any courtesy and had already thought of starting the by-election process. Members feel that the whole ward is being undermined.

Let us remind ourselves that Boleyn ward is a fully functional ward with a very diverse and committed group of dedicated ward officers where the very enthusiastic and passionate members meet regularly promoting Labour party values as well as discussing important and vital concerning issues within the ward and the borough. It is also important to understand that only the Boleyn ward members have the right and are capable to select their own Labour party candidate for the by-election following the death of Cllr Charity and no one else. Undermining Boleyn ward members in selecting their own candidate will not be acceptable and will not be in the wider interest of the ward.

Therefore, on behalf of the Boleyn ward Labour party members, I demand the Labour Party, Labour London region, East Ham and West Ham MPs Stephen Timms and Lyn Brown and the CLP officers to investigate the matter and ask those involved (we know which Councillors/people were involved) as to who sent out the email to only a few selected Councillors to carry out this very unusual, disrespectful and secret activity and who prepared the questionnaire. Was this decision approved by the East Ham CLP’s EC and GC members or even the East Ham MP Stephen Timms? Why the unprofessional behaviour? Is this the manner at which our local Labour party’s run and is this how democracy should/is being promoted within the Labour party?

I look forward to an urgent action taking place.

I have absolutely no doubt that Sir Robin and his trusty sidekicks, councillors Clark and Desai, were on the case almost the moment they heard the news. They will have paused barely long enough to issue their brief tributes before putting the fix in. 

Back in 2013 Boleyn members were prevented from taking part in the main candidate selection process for the local elections because of ‘concerns’ (real or imagined) about the viability of the ward party. So it’s notable that the email refers to Boleyn being ‘fully functional’. Whatever the truth of that claim may be, it won’t stop Sir Robin finding a seat on the green leather benches at East Ham town hall for a compliant and trusty supporter.

Tags: , ,

Double bubble

12 Oct

Unmesh Desai and friends

Unmesh Desai and ‘Team Newham’ celebrate

Back in September, overshadowed by the results of the leadership election and Sadiq Khan’s selection as the party’s candidate for mayor of London, Labour also announced the successful candidates for seats on the London Assembly – the body that scrutinises the activities of the mayor.

And it was good news for Newham’s Unmesh Desai, who won a six-way, almost all-male contest for the City & East nomination (just one woman made it to the shortlist – and she came last). Fittingly, he received exactly 666 first preference votes, and then enough second and third preferences to ensure he ultimately prevailed.

Barring an electoral earthquake Desai will take his seat at City Hall next May, where he will pick up an annual salary of £55,161 – a substantial rise on his current Newham pay of £43,711.

But happily for Councillor Unmesh – as he likes to be known – that is not the end of the good news. There is the enticing prospect of double-bubble.

There is no legal or party requirement for him to resign his council seat, so he will continue to collect at least the basic £10,937 allowance every year on top of his GLA salary. Should Sir Robin decide he cannot live without his friend’s sage advice on crime and disorder he can shovel yet more cash into the Desai bank account in the form of a ‘special responsibility allowance’.

This will then justify thousands of pounds more in pension contributions under Newham’s recently established (and legally dubious) ‘executive members’ scheme. London Assembly members are barred – like local councillors – from joining the Local Government Pension Scheme, so the timing of this new scheme is a happy coincidence.

Public service can be very rewarding, can’t it?

CORRECTION: The original version of this post stated that the City & East shortlist was all-male. Someone kindly pointed out that Hackney councillor Feryal Demirci is a woman – my sincere apologies to her for the mistake.

Tags: , , ,

No standards

11 Sep

The mayor has received a complaint about the behaviour of Cllr Ken Clark at this year’s Newham Show.

The email contains considerable detail about the incident, in which Cllr Clark swore violently and at some length at Ahmed Noor in front of other councillors and members of the public. It claims that Cllr Clark’s actions have bought both the council and the Labour party into disrepute. It concludes:

 I request you start an independent enquiry and the Standards Committee considering (sic) the nature of the misconduct by Cllr Clark 

There is a procedure for handling complaints against elected members. It is described on the council website and it is set out formally in Part 2, article 9 of the council’s constitution:

The Monitoring Officer shall be the Proper Officer to receive complaints of failure to comply with the Code of Conduct…

The Monitoring Officer shall, after consultation with the Independent Person(s), determine whether a complaint merits formal investigation and arrange such investigation.  

If there’s an investigation it’s carried out by the Standards Advisory Committee. Not the mayor. In fact the constitution explicitly excludes him from membership of the committee. 

So, even setting aside any concerns about a conflict of interest because of his close working relationship with Ken Clark, Sir Robin only had two options when he received the email: he could have told the complainant that he was not the right person to deal with the matter, and that they needed to write to the Monitoring Officer directly; or he could have passed the matter to the Monitoring Officer, telling the complainant that this was what he’d done.

But of course the rules don’t apply to the mayor and he did neither of those things. Instead, this was his reply:

I am writing to clarify a few things following receipt of your email. Just a couple of questions:

  1. You provide a considerable amount of detail which raises a number of questions. Given the detail I assume you were present and I need a few questions answered. Could you please provide me with contact details, telephone, address etc., so that I can arrange to meet you in person and discuss these questions.
  2. I note that you appear to have used a Council distribution group for all members of the Council which is only available through the Council’s email system. I presume that you got this from a councillor or perhaps a member of staff? If you could provide me with their details I can have a chat with them about the issues.
  3. Just to clarify, you make several references to the Newham Labour Party but I do not believe you are yourself a member. Is that correct? Perhaps you are a member in another Borough?

A quick response so we can meet in the very near future would be very helpful.

Regards,

Robin Wales

There’s no acknowledgement of the seriousness of the allegation, no suggestion that this is matter that needs to be put through the proper channels. Just a bullying and sinister tone. How do you suppose that ‘chat’ with whoever provided the email addresses would go?

Replying to Sir Robin the complainant says:

I am very much puzzled as to why you were far more eager to know my background instead of starting the investigation thoroughly against Councillor Ken Clark

Well, they might be puzzled, but I’m not.

Sir Robin holds the code of conduct and the Standards Committee in absolute contempt. When he was investigated by the Standards Committee last year he refused to even acknowledge the investigation, much less provide any evidence. He and his chums are untouchable. They can behave as they like, without fear of the consequences. 

And as we see in this case, he’d much rather pursue the complainant than any complaint.

Tags: , , ,

No concessions

14 Aug

Freedom of Information request posted on What Do They Know:

I understand that you provide a discount to concessionary groups at leisure centres. I attended East Ham leisure centre recently to register my children and myself for swimming lessons and other activities. I brought necessary proofs but was refused concessionary payments facilities as your staffs confirmed that asylum seekers or asylum support are not included on their system.

Therefore I urgently request you to review your scheme and add extra concessionary groups such as asylum seekers as you actually do for students and those who receive council tax benefits. You are aware that asylum support is offered by the Home Office and as an asylum seeker and his family supported by NASS, we are entitled to free services within the borough. In this particular case, I am not asking you for free services but merely requesting you to add this particular group of applicants in your system to avoid future complications in this respect.

I will be thankful if you could provide me your policy in this respect as I have checked other boroughs which do give concessionary payments to asylum seekers supported by NASS under Section 4 or 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I am concerned to note that Newham council do not have this in place.

Contrary to the myths peddled by the popular press, life is pretty tough for asylum seekers while their cases are being processed. If this is the result of a deliberate policy decision by the council it is appallingly mean-spirited and petty. If not, it’s something that can – and should – be put right quickly.

Tags: ,

Paranoid

13 Aug

Unmesh shopping

Making sure no-one’s listening in

The mayor is famously intolerant of dissent, to the point of paranoia, and it seems that this has now infected those around him.

At the end of a budget briefing session last night at Newham Dockside Unmesh Desai decided to hold a briefing of his own, not on council business but on his campaign to be the Labour candidate for City & East in next year’s London elections.

He asked council officers to leave and then noticed a 17-year old ‘A’ level student who had been shadowing a councillor for the day, getting an insight into how local government works. He insisted she leave as well.

He then said he didn’t want any non-supporters in the room. So three councillors walked out, along with the bemused teenager.

Not exactly a great introduction to local politics, but a perfect illustration of how Newham Labour party works.

Not just the paranoia but the use of council property for party business. The “Desai 4 City & East” campaign should be getting a bill for the room, although history suggests they won’t.

Tags: , ,

Snouts in the trough – 2015 edition

27 Jul

Newham has published its annual report on the allowances paid to councillors in the previous financial year – April 2014 to March 2015.

The report lists all councillors who served in the financial year 2014-15 and as this was an election year it includes those who left office in May 2014, as well as those who were re-elected and those joining council for the first time.

It’s further complicated by Alec Kellaway dying shortly after the election and his being replaced by Tonii Wilson in a by-election a few months later. And by Charlene McLean being removed from office for non-attendance in March. She re-elected in May 2015.

Altogether 81 different people served as elected members in the period covered. Between them they claimed a total of £1,234,457 in allowances. Of that, £638,712 was paid as basic allowances, £592,869 as ‘special responsibility allowances’ (including the whole of the mayor’s £81,029 allowance) and £2,876 in other allowances (travel, childcare, phone etc.).

Though you wouldn’t know any of this by reading the report. It doesn’t provide totals for individual members or overall.

As ever – and quite deliberately – it has used a format that makes it unnecessarily awkward for anyone to work with. Would it really kill them to give us an Excel or .csv file?

So who gets the most? Well obviously that’s the Dear Leader. But look at the top ten earners among councillors:

Name Basic £ SRA £ Other £ Total £
R WALES 0 81,029 0 81,029
L HUDSON 10,734 36,977 0 47,711
R CRAWFORD 10,734 34,012 240 44,986
I CORBETT 10,734 34,012 0 44,746
F HUSSAIN 10,734 32,977 184 43,895
C FURNESS 10,734 32,977 100 43,811
E ROBINSON 10,734 32,977 100 43,811
A BAIKIE 10,734 32,977 0 43,711
U DESAI 10,734 32,977 0 43,711
K CLARK 9,118 27,458 180 36,756
A McALMONT 10,734 24,542 750 36,026

All but one are men. The only exception is Ellie Robinson. Yet again.

Aside from Anthony McAlmont, who is the ‘independent’ chair of Overview and Scrutiny, all those listed above are full-time councillors with ‘special responsibilities’ that require them to work 5 days a week on council business. Including Sir Robin that’s 10 full-time politicians we’re paying for. If the mayor is serious about finding £50 million in cuts I can think of one easy ways to make savings!

Don’t feel too sorry for Ken Clark: his earnings are suppressed by the fact he was only elected in May 2014 and therefore has seven weeks’ less pay to report than his peers.

For those of a nostalgic bent, here are the previous editions of ‘snout in the trough’:

  • 2011 edition – “Newham Councillors Paid More Than £1.2 million in Allowances”
  • 2012 edition – “Snouts in the trough – again”
  • 2013 edition – “Snouts in the trough – 2013 edition”
  • 2014 edition – “Money (that’s what I want)”

Tags:

Baikie Grove

9 Jul

Andrew Baikie

In a press release issued by the council today, Andrew Baikie, Sir Robin’s ‘5-days-a-week’ mayoral advisor for housing is quoted as saying:

We are experiencing an acute housing shortage in Newham and our council housing stock is imperative to helping us tackle this.

Indeed, councillor. Well said.

So it’s mystifying that you are deliberately leaving hundreds of council properties empty on the Carpenters Estate and why you are working with Countryside PLC to sell off ‘surplus’ council homes under the NewShare scheme.

Perhaps you could explain?

Tags: , ,

Forgetful

15 Jun

 

Dame Tessa Jowell with the Mayor of Newham, Sir Robin Wales and Cllr Ken Clark (pic: Newham Recorder)

Two more bits of bad news for Councillor Ahmed Noor.

He has now been suspended by the national Labour Party, not just by the Newham chief whip, pending an external investigation into his conduct. The procedure is called “administrative suspension”. He is still a councillor but until the investigation is complete he can’t attend Labour group or West Ham constituency meetings. He can still turn up at local ward meetings, but I gather he’s never much bothered himself with that anyway.

And last week London mayoral hopeful Dame Tessa Jowell toured the borough, accompanied by Sir Robin Wales and his new best friend, ex-London Labour party regional director Cllr Ken Clark.

She was there to inspect the work being done by local enforcement officers tackling ‘rogue landlords.’ Newham’s private rental licensing scheme would be a template for a London-wide initiative under a future Jowell administration at City Hall. Perhaps led by someone with lots of relevant local government experience?

Following the tour Sir Robin said

“The vast majority of landlords are doing their best but some of them are simply preying on the weakest, we have to tackle this issue head on.

“Tessa is absolutely right that we need to crack down on criminal landlords who are exploiting people across London.”

And what better way for Sir Robin to prove his mettle – and avoid potential future embarrassment – than by prosecuting an unlicensed landlord sitting on his own council? Ahmed Noor may find himself on the wrong side of the mayor’s wider political ambition.

Meanwhile an FOI request has been made to Newham council about whether or not Cllr Ian Corbett has declared all gifts and hospitality he has received. Cllr Corbett is a close friend of Noor and they have attended many West Ham matches together.

I wonder if our Cllr Ahmed Noor was the same person who gave the following gifts to Sir Robin Wales back in 2010?

22/12/2010 – One bottle of whisky, one bottle of Champagne and one box of chocolates – valued at over £25; Name of donor: Mr Ahmed Noor 

If so, did he also give any gifts to his friend Ian Corbett that the councillor has forgotten to declare? 

Tags: , , ,

Upton downs

8 Jun

That the leaders of Newham council are arrogant, duplicitous and contemptuous of residents will not come as news to most people. But it is rare that their cynical manipulation of the public for their own ends is quite so fully documented as it is in the case of the Upton Centre.

The centre was closed in December 2014

…after specialist engineers advised that the boilers were no longer compliant and the heating system could not be used. Following the closure, a review of the building has been carried out by independent surveyors and engineers who have established that a significant amount of work would be needed to bring the centre back in to use in the short term, including an overhaul of the heating system as well as a complete rewiring of the electrical system.

Works which would extend the life of the centre by 12 to 24 months are estimated to cost £750,000. Refurbishment to the whole building, which would make it accessible and fit for community use for an additional 15 to 20 years would be in the region of £3.5million.

In April 2015 the council started a “consultation” on the future of the centre. This was clearly rigged to deliver the answer Sir Robin and his chums want to hear – that the centre should be closed and the site handed over for redevelopment.

Perhaps a predictable piece of opportunism in response to an unexpected event? Not at all. A report has emerged that shows this to have been planned down to the finest detail.

That report was written in September 2013 by Graeme Betts, then Newham’s Executive Director for Strategic Commissioning and Community, for a meeting of the now defunct Operational Executive. Mike Law has tried unsuccessfully to extract details of this secretive committee via Freedom of Information requests. According to the replies he got, it is not in the public interest to reveal what was discussed and, in any case, the meetings were not minuted and no record of attendance was ever kept.

The aim of Mr Betts’ report was

…to update Members on progress and timescales for the possible closure of the Upton Centre and to secure possession of the One Love centre in the context of a wider development proposal for the site.

As previously reported there are three issues officers are progressing:

  1. The possible closure of Upton Centre as the level of investment required to maintain a safe and reliable service is unaffordable;
  2. Securing vacant possession of the whole site to allow for a future development; 
  3. Regularising occupation of One Love to ensure it does not affect future development options for the Council.

Having considered the options officers are proposing the following recommendations, subject to Member agreement:

  • If there is unscheduled breakdown of boiler or plant the Upton will be closed whilst officers seek to necessary resources to carry out repair
  • the nursery, within the Upton centre would be provided with temporary heating and access to the site to ensure they can continue to deliver services
  • officers seek to secure 2 year “lease” with 2 year development break clause to ensure vacant possession of the site is obtained
  • officers to continue to work on development options with members prior to a wider consultation on the options with the wider community

With a plan in place to close the centre, the council could then move onto to what it wanted to do with the site. Mr Betts sets out “an initial exploration of the redevelopment option”:

The assumptions as to the potential mix of uses on the redeveloped site are:

  • 44 private residential units (10 x 1 bed flats, 12 x 2 bed flats, 8 x 3 bed flats, 6 x 2 bed houses, 8 x 3 bed houses)
  • 0 affordable housing units (0%)
  • 300 sqm NIA nursery
  • 512 sqm NIA community centre 

The report evaluates three options for how this might be achieved, the last of which is the council doing the work itself via its ‘private rental vehicle’, now known as Red Doors Ventures. This was judged to be riskier, but offered the council the best return and greater control in delivering the project quickly.

All that remained then was to convince the public that this was all in their best interests. The section of the report dealing with ‘Communications Considerations’ is worth quoting at length:

…there needs to be clear and simple messaging around how and why decisions have been made about the centre and future steps. The closure of any community facility is always sensitive and its users and the wider community need to feel they have been kept informed and been part of the process. A key lesson learned from the decision to develop Atherton was the need to have coherent messages to develop the wider community understanding of the council’s vision and also to ensure the council could demonstrate openness in its decision making.  

Once future plans for the Upton Centre are determined, all communications would include reference to the development options and, if appropriate, residents and users invited to input into these options.  

If a decision is made to close the facility due to unscheduled maintenance, communications would focus on the following messages:

  • Financial state of local government finance means Newham has to make tough decisions
  • No final decisions about the site have been made and Newham will consult with residents as options are developed
  • The condition of the building is in a significant state of disrepair
  • There are a range of other facilities that people can access

Unless critical to the timeline for the future of the site, it would be unwise to begin proactive communications regarding the closure of the centre until the future of the site as a whole has been determined. This would avoid creating any unnecessary concern for users. However reactive messages would need to be prepared should the information become public.

The cynicism is breathtaking – don’t tell residents anything until future plans for the site are determined; then tell them no final decisions have been taken. The consultation process is a fig-leaf to persuade residents that they have been kept informed and part of the process.

In the end the boilers at the Upton Centre declined to play their part and failed to ‘unexpectedly’ break down. So the council got in some ‘specialist consultants’ to tell them they were no longer safe or compliant, necessitating the shut down of the heating system and the closure of the centre. That this happened in the middle of winter is no coincidence.

When the outcome of the consultation is published there will be no surprises. The recommendation will be for the Upton Centre to be torn down and replaced with housing for private rent at full market rates. There will be no social housing on the site. And precious little for the local community.

Tags: , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →