Frustratingly WordPress won’t display embedded Storify content, so you’ll have to click the link below.
Apologies.
Frustratingly WordPress won’t display embedded Storify content, so you’ll have to click the link below.
Apologies.

So if Sir Robin was able to tell Labour members back in February what would be in the party manifesto for the local elections, why are voters still being kept in the dark?
With less than a month to go to polling day there’s no sign of it on the Newham Labour website. Where is it?
Sir Robin and – in all likelihood – his 60 councillor candidates will be elected in May. Shouldn’t we have some idea, beyond a few bland bullet points on a leaflet, what they plan to do for the next four years?
Other local parties have produced excellent manifestos, with detailed proposals. For example, Plymouth Labour Party and our neighbours in Tower Hamlets.
The difference is that those parties are in genuine contests where they are fighting for every vote; where there is competition between competing visions for the future of their areas.
But Newham is a one-party state and the local Labour party’s contempt for voters is staggering: they think it better we don’t worry our little heads about trivial things like policies and just gratefully vote them back into office.

The candidates for the two Forest Gate wards are:
Forest Gate North
Forest Gate South
There are eight candidates standing for mayor of Newham:
One name obviously missing from that list is George Galloway. Despite his thunderous promises last year about a ‘Newham Spring’ that would sweep Sir Robin and his Labour administration from power, there is no Respect Party candidate for mayor. In fact there are no Respect candidates at all in any of the 20 wards.
As if it wasn’t already obvious, I think we can safely conclude that Galloway is a buffoon and a blowhard. Newham is far better off without him.
The full list of council candidates for each ward is on the council website.

The Left Vote has a list of Green and other left-of-Labour candidates standing in this year’s Newham mayoral and council elections:
Mayor:
Council:

Image from The Economist
Despite the building boom across the borough the proportion of residents living in overcrowded households has risen by almost 50% in the last four years.
In 2010 the Office for National Statistics reported that 17.9% of households in Newham had fewer bedrooms than they needed, as defined by the ‘bedroom standard’.[1]
The 2014 report, published last week, showed that this is now 25.2%.
That’s not a happy statistic, especially when coupled with the fact that there are 24,000 families on the council house waiting list with almost no prospect of ever being offered a home.
So you have to ask how has this been allowed to happen? How can so many new homes have been built – look at the shiny new apartment blocks in Stratford, the Olympic village, the developments in Canning Town – yet the number of overcrowded households has gotten bigger?
Despite all the rhetoric about cracking down on rogue landlords and driving up the quality of housing in the borough, this is a damning record of failure by the mayor.
[1] ‘Bedroom standard’ is used as an indicator of occupation density. A standard number of bedrooms is allocated to each household in accordance with its age/sex/marital status composition and the relationship of the members to one another. A separate bedroom is allocated to each married or cohabiting couple, any other person aged 21 or over, each pair of adolescents aged 10 – 20 of the same sex, and each pair of children under 10. Any unpaired person aged 10 – 20 is paired, if possible with a child under 10 of the same sex, or, if that is not possible, he or she is given a separate bedroom, as is any unpaired child under 10. This standard is then compared with the actual number of bedrooms (including bed-sitters) available for the sole use of the household, and differences are tabulated. Bedrooms converted to other uses are not counted as available unless they have been denoted as bedrooms by the informants; bedrooms not actually in use are counted unless uninhabitable.

Back in October the Newham Labour party website went offline. The domain registration expired and no-one bothered to renew it.
It seemed no-one had any reason keep it – West Ham CLP set up their own WordPress site; Lyn Brown already had hers and Stephen Timms had his.
But with council and mayoral elections looming in May, it’s back!
And as before it features a picture of Sir Robin on every single page. No matter where you go, Sir Robin is always there, staring back at you. Inescapable.
It is – quite literally – all about Robin.
Newham Labour a personality cult? Oh no. Not at all.
Back in October 2013 Forest Gate councillor Ellie Robinson and Plaistow councillor Forhad Hussain were appointed to the mayor’s cabinet as ‘deputy executive members for community affairs.’
Their detailed job descriptions have recently been published on the council website, along with the allowance they will be paid: £31,000 a year, on top of their £10,800 basic.
That might seem a lot, but every penny will be spent funding development of the time machine they’ll need to fulfil one of their key responsibilities:
“Inspire residents across the borough to ‘get the party started’ in 2012 and work closely with all Councillors to maximise enthusiasm and participation.”
I’ve written before about the slapdash attitude of the mayor and his councillors towards record-keeping and accountability. In particular about the register of interests.
This is a significant public document: it’s how we can tell if our elected representatives are looking after our best interests or theirs. If it’s not accurate or kept up-to-date we can’t know.
So it’s troubling to discover another example of an inaccurate declaration.
Councillor Ayesha Chowdhury has represented Beckton ward since 2002 and is currently the ‘lead community councillor’ for the area. Councillor Chowdhury owns (or co-owns) a large number of residential properties in the borough, from which she derives income from rent. In June 2006 she added to her declaration of interests a property at ’39 Albert Rose Close, E6.’
In January 2008 the spelling was changed to ’39 Albert Roase Close, E6’. And it has remained on the Register ever since.
But there is no Albert Rose (or Roase) Close in E6. Or in Newham. Or London for that matter.
In fact, there is no street of that name anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Presumably Ayesha Chowdhury knows how many houses and flats she owns. One of them must correspond to the Albert Rose Close entry in the register of interests, but it’s actual location is hidden. The net effect is that she has an undeclared property interest.
So if the councillor sits on a planning committee, or a licensing committee, or in full council and considers a proposal that affects her interest in this property we won’t know about it. We won’t know if she’s voting for her constituents or herself.
Ayesha Chowdhury is plainly a talented business person; she’s built up and now manages a substantial property portfolio and rental business. That requires considerable organisational skills. So it’s a mystery as to why she hasn’t – in 8 long years – made sure the list on the register of interests is correct.
As a member of the council’s Standards Advisory Committee she should know better.
UPDATE:
Following the election in May Councillor Chowdhury has updated her register of interests. The property in question is now listed as ’39 Albertross Close’.
There is no ‘Albertross Close’ in Newham, but there is an Albatross Close. Number 39 is a leasehold flat.