Queens Park, in the City of Westminster, has voted to set up its own local, community council:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/28/peoples-republic-of-queens-park…
Good news for local democracy.
London Mayor & London Assembly Election 2012 – Newham Results
16 May
The ward-by-ward and borough-level results from the recent Mayoral and London Assembly elections have been released.
In the mayoral election, Newham voted (unsurprisingly) overwhelmingly for Labour’s Ken Livingstone. On first preference votes, the results were:
Siobhan Benita (independent) – 1,536 (2.33%)
Carlos Cortiglia (BNP) – 918 (1.39%)
Boris Johnson (Conservative) – 12,139 (18.42%)
Jenny Jones (Green) – 1,630 (2.47%)
Ken Livingstone (Labour) – 47,388 (71.89%)
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrat) – 1,413 (2.14%)
Lawrence James Webb (UKIP) – 893 (1.35%)
In the London Assembly election for the City & East constituency, the results were:
John Biggs (Labour) – 47,226 (71.18%)
Paul Borg (BNP) – 1,773 (2.67%)
Paul Davies (Communist League) – 447 (0.67%)
Richard Macmillan (Liberal Democrat) – 2,064 (3.11%)
Kamran Malik (Communities United Party) – 3,677 (5.54%)
John Moss (Conservative) – 6,578 (9.91%)
Chris Smith (Green) – 3,078 (4.64%)
Steven Woolfe (UKIP) – 1,505 (2.27%)
For the election of the London-wide members:
BNP – 1,428 (2.15%)
Christian Peoples Alliance – 1,701 (2.56%)
Conservative Party – 6,753 (10.14%)
Green Party – 2,988 (4.49%)
Labour Party – 48,241 (72.47%)
Liberal Democrats – 1,620 (2.43%)
National Front – 247 (0.37%)
House Party – 245 (0.37%)
Trade Unionist & Socialist Coalition – 400 (0.60%)
UKIP – 1,569 (2.36%)
Rathy Alagaratnam – 227 (0.34%)
Ijaz Hayat – 688 (1.03%)
So, what do we learn from all this?
Across London Ken Livingstone polled behind the Labour Party, which is why he lost the mayoral election when his party made big gains in the Assembly. But that didn’t happen in Newham. His vote and the general Labour vote were all but identical.
That wasn’t true for the the Tories though. Boris was close to twice as popular in Newham as his party. The Conservatives continue to be – in vote terms, at least – the main opposition party in the borough, although their share of the vote was somewhat lower than at the general election (around 10% this time compared to 15% in 2010).
It’s also worth noting that Labour’s share of the vote was up from the 2010 general election, where Lyn Brown (West Ham) took 62.7% and Stephen Timms (East Ham) took 70.4%.
The Liberal Democrats did hopelessly badly. It’s hard to see even a spark of life for a party that finished with fewer votes than the Christians and barely beat UKIP.
These results, along with those from the general and council elections in 2010, confirm that the far-right has no meaningful presence or support in Newham. We should be grateful for that.
How many Trots does it take to change a lightbulb?
15 MayHow many Trots does it take to change a lightbulb?
- 15 on the central committee to issue an edict denouncing broken lightbulbs and calling for change…
- 10 to hand out “hands off *insert country*” placards to passers by…
- …and 50 to try to sell them papers…
- 25 to collect signatures for a petition demanding the government do something about changing the lightbulb…
- 30 to set up a front group called “Right to Light”…
- 30 Student’s to set up a front group called “Youth Fight For Light”…
- …and 15 to form a break-away group demanding a return to candle light.
So about 175 at conservative estimates.
But the lightbulb remains unchanged.
via @majsaleh and @RooftopJaxx on Twitter.
Cannes Update
30 AprThe Newham Recorder has published the list of sponsors for the Mayor’s trip to Cannes.
These were:
- Bougyes Development
- Strand East
- Westfield Stratford City
- Countryside Properties
- Swan New Homes
- the Ballymore Group
- Capita Symonds
- the Cathedral Group
- the University of East London
- Ardmore Construction
- Urban Initiatives, and
- Savills
According to the Recorder, all “have denied any suggestion that their involvement in the trip would mean they received favourable treatment when it came to future development opportunities.”
They’re all just very generous, public-spirited people… obviously.
Cannes of Worms
17 Apr
Back in March, Ted Jeory, writing in the Sunday Express, reported that various local councils in the UK had been represented at an international property convention in Cannes, a resort town on the French riviera, including Sir Robin Wales at the head of a 6-man delegation from Newham council.
The story was repeated by Mike Law on his blog, highlighting the presence of Sir Robin and the revelation that the trip had not been funded by local taxpayers but by private interests.
The Newham Recorder picked this up and asked who had paid for the trip. Predictably, the council declined to say. The Recorder’s reporter claims this has been followed up by a request under the Freedom of Information Act, though as far as I know no response has yet been forthcoming.
In a comment posted on Mike Law’s blog I said that if there was a genuine and compelling reason for Newham to be present at this conference I’d have no objection to the trip being funded from public money. I’m entirely prepared to believe the trip was a worthwhile way for Sir Robin and his entourage to spend their time.
In fact, if the mayor’s presence was so vital it absolutely should have been paid for by the taxpayer. Drumming up business for Newham is part of his job. And there’s plenty of building to be done around the Olympic Park, plus a large number of brownfield sites across the borough that could be usefully redeveloped. If going to a global property conference is the best way to meet developers, then that’s the place to be. The fact that the event took place in the south of France is neither here nor there. Sir Robin didn’t choose the venue.
Public officials travelling on public business should have their expenses met from the public purse. That way everything’s above board and there’s no question about whose interests they’re representing.
But this trip wasn’t funded with public money. And that is extremely worrying. No-one provides hospitality on this scale without some expectation of getting something in return. The fact that Newham is refusing – so far at least – to disclose who picked up the tab indicates that they feel there’s something to hide.
Perhaps Sir Robin is pleased with himself for saving the public purse a few pounds, but it may end up being a poor bargain for Newham.
Until we know who paid for his trip the mayor must recuse himself from all discussions about regeneration and redevelopment in Newham and from consideration of all planning applications. Otherwise how can we tell if he’s doing the right thing by residents or repaying a debt to his generous sponsors?
It is a mystery to me why Sir Robin has chosen put himself in this position. It is a massive lapse of judgement.
UPDATE:
The mayor’s register of gifts and hospitality has been updated to include the trip to Cannes:
- 07/03/2012 – Hospitality: Olympic Park Legacy Dinner. offered by Olympic Park Legacy Company, 29-35 West Ham Lane, London E15 4PH; Hospitality received at MIPIM 2012 International Conference, Cannes. Value: at least £25.00 ; Value £25
- 06/03/2012 – Hospitality: Olympic Park Legacy Lunch offered by Olympic Park Legacy Co., 29-35 West Ham Lane, London E15 4PH; Hospitality received at MIPIM 2012 International Conference, Cannes. Value: at leat £25.00 ; Value £25
- 06/03/2012 – Hospitality: City of London – The London Reception evening event. offered by City of London, Guildhall, PO Box 270 London EC2P 2EJ; Hospitality received at MIPIM 2012 International Conference, Cannes. Value: at least £25.00 ; Value £25
- 06/03/2012 – Hospitality: London First Cocktail Evening Reception. offered by London First, Whitcomb Street, London WC2H 7HA; Hospitality received at MIPIM 2012 International Conference, Cannes. Value: £25.00 ; Value £25
- 05/03/2012 – Travel from London to Cannes France: MIPIM 2012 Internatiional Conference offered by Various sponsors.; Travel via Eurostar – St. Pancras to Cannes, via Paris. Value: £362.28p ; Value £25
- 05/03/2012 – Accommodation at the Croisette Beach Hotel, Cannes; MIPIM 2012 International Conference offered by Various sponsors.; x3 night accommodation 5-7 March 2012. Value: £687.00
- 05/03/2012 – Hospitality – London First evening reception offered by London First, 3 Whitcomb Street, London WC2H 7HA; Hospitality received at MIPIM 2012 International Conference, Cannes. Value: at least £25.00 ; Value £25
Although the people paying for the various meals and receptions are named, the big ticket items – the cost of travel and hotel accommodation – are listed as “offered by various sponsors.” And there’s no mention here of a conference registration fee. The MIPIM 2012 website states visitor registration as being €1,590 (excluding VAT). That’s £1,312 at today’s exchange rate, plus French VAT at 19.6%.
Taken together these come to over £2,361 (excluding the VAT on the registration fee). Assuming all the other members of Newham’s delegation travelled together, stayed in the same hotel and attended the conference these “various sponsors” have stumped up well in excess of £14,000.
I repeat the question: who are these people and what do they expect in return for their largesse?
Big Brother
11 Apr
As reported in today’s Newham Recorder, there’s more CCTV cameras in Newham than Waltham Forest and Barking & Dagenham boroughs combined.
We have an average of 16 cameras for every square mile of the borough.
And, not content with this, Sir Robin wants to take over the fleet of mobile enforcement cameras being deployed for the Olympics.
Residents of Newham are the most spied on citizens in our supposedly-free country.
Via 5 Questions for Newham Councillors
26 MarOn Wednesday 28 March Newham’s 60 Labour councillors and the mayor will meet to consider the latest developments in the proposed joint venture with the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC). If this goes ahead Newham – one of the country’s poorest boroughs – will invest £40 million and take an ownership interest in the Olympic Stadium.
At the meeting councillors will vote to exclude the public and the press. Key sections of the papers for the meeting have been restricted, so the public – whose money is going to be spent – will have no idea what is going on or why.
So ahead of the meeting here are 5 questions that councillors should answer before they vote on this:
- What additional benefits will Newham people derive from the proposed £40 million investment that they will not get if the stadium legacy is wholly funded by OPLC?
- If these benefits of ownership are so substantial – and so obvious – why aren’t the other Olympic boroughs taking a similar stake? For that matter, why isn’t the Greater London Authority?
- Having read the business case for the investment (you have read the business case, haven’t you?) are you confident that it is built on solid financial and commercial foundations, that the investment is therefore low risk and Newham people are not going to be stuck with a bill for a white elephant?
- Why are the public and the press excluded from all discussion about the new £40 million offer to the OPLC? This is an investment by one public body in another – there is no legitimate claim to be made for ‘commercial sensitivity’.
- According to the draft statement of accounts for 2010/11, the council’s “total external borrowing at 31st March 2011 was £1,186 million. Given the current financial situation, is this really the time to be taking on another £40 million in debt?
Newham’s Debt Timebomb
28 FebLast year I wrote about the enormous debt racked up by Newham council in the ten years since Sir Robin Wales was elected as executive mayor.
As the result of recent correspondance with a local Labour party member, I thought I’d revisit the issue and explain a little more why it makes me feel so uneasy.
Of course public debt isn’t like personal debt, much as the Tories may try to persuade us otherwise. But equally local government debt isn’t like national government debt either. National debt for a country like the UK, which has a sovereign currency, is always ultimately repayable through creating new money (this is what the recent rounds of quantitative easing basically involved – creating new money to buy back old debt). Obviously it’s a last resort and can go disastrously wrong, as Mugabe demonstrated in Zimbabwe, but it means the UK can never go bankrupt and will never default on its debt.
But the same does not apply to Newham. We can’t print new money to pay off the debt, so the only options are taking on new loans to pay off the old ones or ensuring revenues exceed expenses and using the difference to pay down the loans. This latter option means raising taxes, cutting costs or a combination of the two. The former option will only work for so long, as eventually your line of credit runs out or the interest payments on the debt swell to an unsustainable point.
And it’s really the question of the interest that bothers me at this point. Sir Robin has been extremely fortunate to have been able to borrow and spend at a time of record low interest rates. If you look at the council’s accounts you will see that the cost of servicing the debt today, in cash terms, is the same as it was ten years ago despite the fact that there’s almost twice as much of it. But only a fool would believe that today’s historically low interest rates will last forever – or even for as long as the life of Newham’s loans.
So when interest rates start to go back up, the cost of servicing the debt goes up.
Where are those extra interest payments going to come from? Either more borrowing – which would be extremely foolish – or from revenues. Either council taxes have to go up sharply, or services have to be cut yet further. In Newham neither looks an attractive option: make some of London’s poorest people pay a lot more tax, or cut the services they rely on.
What Sir Robin has created is a debt timebomb. If he’s lucky, or astute, he’ll have moved on to bigger things (Lord Wales?) before it goes off. But the people who live and work in the borough will be stuck with the consequences.
forestgatedotnet 