Tag Archives: newham

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: , , ,

Discourteous, aggressive & threatening

18 Sep

“Discourteous, aggressive & threatening.”

“Discourteous, aggressive & threatening”

Tucked away at the bottom of the agenda for Monday’s council meeting is a Decision Notice of the Standards (Hearing) Sub-Committee. It is the outcome of an investigation into a breach of the code of conduct by councillor Ian Corbett, mayoral chum and ‘full-time’ advisor on environment and leisure.

Here it is in full:

The Complaint

On 26 August 2015 the Standards (Hearing) Sub-Committee considered a complaint made by a member of the public concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor Ian Corbett towards a Council employee at Newham Town Hall, East Ham on 3 September 2014.

A general summary of the complaint is that Councillor Ian Corbett acting in an official capacity spoke in an inappropriate manner and acted discourteously towards a member of staff in the reception area at Newham Town Hall. This conduct also took place in the presence of a member of the public.

The Independent Investigator’s report concluded that Councillor Ian Corbett had breached the Member Code of Conduct by his behaviour towards the member of staff which was discourteous, aggressive and threatening.

The Decision

Having sought and taken into account the views of the Independent Person the Standards (Hearing) Sub-Committee resolved that:

i) Councillor Ian Corbett had breached the Code of Conduct by not engaging with the member of staff in an appropriate manner and not treating the person with respect;

ii) The Monitoring Officer write to Councillor Ian Corbett to advise him on his future conduct and place on record the Sub-Committee’s disappointment and concern that he had failed to engage in the investigation process at any part of the procedure despite numerous requests which went against the spirit of the Code of Conduct.

iii) That the decision of the Sub-Committee be reported to the next available meeting of Council.

Just like the mayor last year when he was investigated – and found guilty – over his behaviour towards the Focus E15 mums, Corbett has completely blanked the Standards Committee investigation. Refused to cooperate in any way. The committee’s observation that this goes “against the spirit of the Code of Conduct” is barely begins to cover it.

Standards, like scrutiny, is being treated with utter contempt.

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: , , ,

Return on investment

3 Sep

“If you look around the table and can’t tell who the sucker is – it’s you.”

The mayor has been on week-long trip to China with council chief executive Kim Bromley-Derry, paid for by Chinese developer ABP, and now he’s looking at investing in its Royal Albert Dock project.

The Newham Recorder asked him about the plans:

“We’re always looking at opportunities to invest in projects,” he said.

“…we will always look at opportunities to make money out of projects.

“Each project is judged on its merits of course, but if we can make money and there was an opportunity we’ll do it.”

Sadly this is not the first time the mayor has decided to use public money to play ‘Investment Bankers’ after being sold a dodgy business plan by a man in a shiny suit.

Back in 2012 the London Pleasure Gardens was, according to one of its directors

“going to be one of the coolest places to watch live sports, chill out and catch some amazing events.

“This isn’t just a commercial proposition – we want to be a whole new cultural hub for London and beyond.”

It turned out to be a fiasco that cost Newham council taxpayers close to £5 million for the five weeks it was open.

The company was bankrolled by a £3.3 million loan from the council, plus a further £800,000 because of interest and costs. The council also ended up paying £444,000 to Deloitte for administrators’ fees (graciously discounted from the £1 million they actually racked up) after the business went bust.

Unable to accept the reality of the situation a Newham council spokeswoman insisted:

“The council is continuing to discuss the future use of the site with relevant parties and remains confident that we will see a return on our investment.”

That, of course, never happened.

And awkward questions about what happened to the money, why what was delivered by LPG was so far from what was promised and the evidently hopeless quality of the due diligence carried out by council officers were never even asked by our feeble and supine councillors, much less addressed.

With £40 million of our money on the line with the Olympic stadium ‘loan’ and another £5 million already earmarked for ‘retail opportunities’ in the Queen Elizabeth Park councillors should be wary of indulging the mayor’s next investment fantasy.

Tags: , , ,

Leader Knows Best

27 Aug

by Rachel Collinson


“I know how this vote is going to go. If the motion was ‘the earth is flat’ councillors Rokhsana, Seyi, Kay and Susan would vote 4-2 for it,” thunders Lester Hudson, as he eyes the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting.
 
I’m so offended and shocked by this that I can’t help snorting, despite being in the public gallery.

Hudson continues as though nothing has happened. “If the motion was ‘Geoffrey Boycott is useless at cricket’ they would vote 4-2 for it.” Nobody’s laughing this time. His tirade continues: “I sincerely hope this time, common sense will prevail, but I doubt it.”

There is general uproar, and the female councillors who have been the subject of these personal attacks are rightly livid. (Later on I realise that John Gray – also a member of the rebellion against the Robin Wales regime – is spared the vitriol. Could it be that the Y chromosome is a safeguard?)

A chap to my left passes me a sheet of lined A4 notepaper, with “Attendance Sheet” scrawled at the top. There is a name and one signature on it so far. I pass it on without signing.

A few minutes later, an unnamed lady shouts “Has everybody signed the attendance sheet?”

“I’ve never been asked this before as a member of the public in a council meeting,” I say, annoyed. “It doesn’t say on it how the data will be used, so I didn’t.”

“I just need to know who is here,” she replies.

Well, that much is obvious.

This meeting has been called because Newham Council’s Cabinet have seemingly approved a dubious investment proposal without oversight of the Investment and Accounts Committee. Councillors heard about it in passing and were horrified. They have decided to ask the Mayor to reconsider spending £500,000 without due process.

Council Officers will not let members of the public (or even certain councillors) see more details of what’s proposed. All we know so far is that the Cabinet are attempting to reduce payments to the council’s pension fund –  which already has a £238 million deficit – using a ‘Special Purpose Vehicle’. We understand that the council is using some of their buildings as security on a risky investment. How do we know it’s risky? Because their financial advisors are warning them against it.

It seems common sense to me that if the proposal were common sense, then the Cabinet would not resort to bending the rules to avoid scrutiny.

What I am seeing in action here is the Labour belief that Leader Knows Best, and democracy is merely a frustrating blot on the master plan. The belief that the people ought to shut up and take their medicine. The belief that is shown up at its worst in the Executive Mayoral system.

This is further confirmed when a member of the public stands up and questions whether the chair should be asking loaded questions of his own committee. The offender, Anthony McAlmont, says that members of the public are not allowed to speak, despite having allowed an earlier question. For some reason this breach of meeting protocol goes unnoticed by the Legal advisor present.

I hear the words ‘p&%$-up’ and ‘brewery’ emanate loudly from elsewhere in the public gallery.

With dogged persistence, the female councillors draft a resolution that no more money should be spent until the investment and accounts committee has had a chance to review the proposal in more detail. In the end, the meeting vote is 5-1 for this motion.

Hudson warns this is a waste of time. What does he know that we don’t?

During this fiasco, I am reminded of the botched Labour leadership elections. You can vote for anything, as long as it’s the right choice.

As if to reinforce this, the Mayor rejects the motion day after.

It would be easy to despair right now. But I’m seeing a new movement emerging amongst the people of Newham. I see it in the snowballing, hopeful tweets about Jeremy Corbyn. I see it in the growing bravery of left-wing councillors against their bullying leaders. I see it in the swelling numbers of Newham Green Party.

And it’s almost reassuring to observe some councillors in utter denial of this growing trend. It means we will win, and soon.

If you’re interested in helping the Green Party challenge Labour’s one party state in Newham, do sign up here. (NB: We have a No Purge Promise™)

Rachel Collinson is acting membership secretary for Newham Green Party, and a former General Election candidate. 

Tags: , , ,

More pensions malarkey

18 Aug

Bankers can’t believe their luck as Newham buys into another crazy scheme

Newham Council’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee will meet next Monday (24 August) to discuss the council’s pension arrangements. Not the new scheme for councillor pensions this time, but the fund that pays for ordinary staff pensions.

Despite the current state of the council’s finances and the need to make significant cuts the Mayor has decided to spend up to £500,000 developing an asset-backed ‘special purpose vehicle’ (SPV) to finance its defined benefit staff pension scheme.  The idea is to give the scheme security over some of the council’s property portfolio, thereby allowing it to reduce its cash contributions.

At its last valuation in 2013 Newham’s pension fund was found to have a £298m deficit.

The decision to spend money developing the new asset-backed SPV was made without the agreement of the Investment & Accounts Committee, whose principal purpose is to oversee the council’s pension funds.

Cllr John Gray, who sits on the IAC, has raised concerns about this proposal and one pensions expert described it as “bloody dangerous”:

Have they learnt nothing from the City as to how not to do it? SPV-financing mechanisms were a significant part of what caused the financial crisis. 

[This] feels like they have been sold a pup by some City whizz. And where does this kind of financing arrangement (off balance sheet most likely) end?

Another expert, Judith Donnelly, told Professional Pensions magazine the half-million pound price “sounds excessive” and that

she would not normally expect it to cost that much to put an asset-backed structure in place

The government announced in its summer budget that if local authority pension funds do not pool their funds they will be effectively forced to do so. So any money Newham spends now investigating changes to its pension scheme could be wasted.

After the dreadful publicity surrounding the £560 million of hugely expensive LOBO loans the council has taken out and the stench emanating from West Ham United’s Olympic stadium deal, not to mention the naked self-interest of the new executive pension scheme, some backbench councillors are finally taking a proper interest in what’s going on. As Cllr Gray put it when speaking to Professional Pensions:

We should be extra careful not in invest in such complex products without the highest level of scrutiny.

That is why Overview and Scrutiny have ‘called in’ the decision. The request to do so was made by Little Ilford councillor Farah Nazeer, who also sits on the Investment and Accounts committee:

I am writing to request that you support my application to “call in” the decision by the Executive at the Cabinet Meeting on Thursday 23rd July 2015 (item 5) to spend up to £500,000 of public money on setting up an “Alternative Asset backed Financing for the Newham Pension Fund”.

I believe that this is the wrong sequencing for this decision because the proposal has not been consulted upon and agreed beforehand with the Newham Council Investment & Accounts Committee.

As a member of this committee I am concerned that this proposal may not be in the best interests of the Council nor the staff Pension fund and we might waste this £500,000 if the Committee decide that this proposal is not appropriate. I understand that the alternative asset proposal has significant risks attached to it which I feel merit proper scrutiny. 

It is inappropriate in principal for any such proposal to go ahead without the agreement of the Investment and Accounts committee beforehand.

I request that the Overview & Scrutiny committee should examine the arguments and consider making a recommendation back to the Executive that no further expenditure of public funds is made until the Investment and Accounts committee have had a chance to fully consider the proposal and are made aware of all  the possible costs and benefits of the scheme.

All Overview and Scrutiny meetings are open to the public. Next Monday’s is at 6:30 at East Ham Town Hall.

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: , ,

Landlord news

12 Aug

Chowdhury & Noor

Two bits of good news for Newham’s landlord councillors.

Beckon lead councillor Ayesha Chowdhury has added yet another property to her extensive buy-to-let portfolio. The acquisition of 58 Alma Street, London E15 1QA means she now owns 19 homes in the borough.

And the planning case against Plaistow South councillor Ahmed Noor has been closed. He complied with the terms of the enforcement notice served on him at the end of April.

It remains to be seen if further action will be taken against him for operating a private rented property without a licence.

Tags: , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →