A response of sorts...

Councillor Gray has responded to my invitation (sort of) on his blog. Here it is with my comments:

“The problem with BBM [Big Bad Mikey - yawn] is that he is completely unable to comprehend that there are two sides to an argument. Its Mike's way or no way. If he gets an answer he doesn't like then he calls them liars, corrupt, bullies, ar.....e C...s etc. I'm all for polemic arguments but it is impossible to have any sort of rational debate with him.”

I am aware that there are two sides to an argument (even though I’m not putting forward an argument – I’m setting forth an analysis of the mayor’s decisions; and although there may be two sides, there is only one truth), which is why I’m trying to get Gray or any other sitting Newham councillor to explain why they support the more contentious of the mayor’s decisions. I’m not advocating a “way” so that statement means nothing. As for responding to answers I don’t like: whether I like a response I get from the Council via Freedom of Information requests - or a statement I read on the Council’s web-site, in the Newham Mag or elsewhere - is neither here nor there. What is important is that any response sufficiently addresses the query raised.

Occasionally the authority’s representatives do bend the truth; the rationale for the sudden increase in Councillor Hudson’s allowance after he was no longer in employment outside of the Council and the £30,000 plus allowances of Councillors Desai and Corbett following them to whichever portfolio they hold have never been explained to an extent that dispels the suspicion that they are in receipt of the allowances because they are close friends of the mayor. I’ve seen the bullying firsthand; I admit that I’ve called Gray an arsehole twice because he was acting like one IMO (to borrow an expression used by Gray as his standard get out clause), I thought he was thick-skinned enough to take it. And yes, I did accuse the mayor of being a cult. Rational debate… Gray has never tried.

“As a former cllr he knows perfectly well that you can only prudently borrow money for capital investment against a income stream not for revenue. Yet he (and others) pretend otherwise.”

This is nonsense. There are guidelines to how a Council raises funds and how it utilises those funds, but they are just that, guidelines. The government body that local authorities borrow money from is the Public Works Loan Board. I phoned the PWLB and spoke to the Secretary, Mark Frankle. He said that, in essence, once an authority has the money from a loan it can use it any way it wishes. Obviously, if the authority has borrowed from a source other than the PWLB then the terms of the agreement may determine how the funds are used. I asked if a loan from the PWLB could be used to prevent making council staff redundant. He said this was possible if the authority applies for a capitalisation direction. He did say that, ultimately both the PWLB and any other lender will be primarily concerned with the authority’s ability to repay the loan.

“I am amazed that there is anyone who can question the huge overall benefit from the Olympics and that any council (especially a Labour Council) would not want to have a direct public ownership stake in the stadium.”

Again, why would a council (and especially a Labour council) want to have a direct ownership stake in the Olympic Stadium? If it is to be a publicly owned stadium, why not include the other London boroughs in taking responsibility for the cost? More so in such times of economic uncertainty and council cuts.

“I was a Council officer (in a different council) for over 15 years and political groups have always debated and voted on policies in private. As a life long trade unionist and collectivist I stand totally 100% behind the principle of collective responsibility.”

Debating policies in private is fine, but where is the public debate? When do members of the public get the chance to study the pros and cons of the mayor’s policies?

“I have also as an Council officer been to countless council and committee meetings where the public and press were excluded when contracts and commerically sensitive information is being discussed.”

That may well be so, but why should Newham’s Labour Council follow the trend? What this means is that PUBLIC money is discussed in private. I think there is a good argument against confidentiality when full Council is discussing the merits of a commercial contract with an external body. By all means, all tenders should remain confidential up to the point when their respective merits and shortfalls are discussed by Council. Newham could be bold and innovative rather than secretive.

“I totally accept that there is indeed an issue regarding the lack of an elected opposition in Newham. But with respect this is hardly the fault of the Labour Party but rather responsibilty lies with the completely rubbish opposition in Newham which BBM typifies to a tee.”

I agree with Gray on this… but I’m not the opposition.

“I have been active in politics for over 30 years in Wales, Leeds, Edinburgh and London. I have never come across such a shower of pompous, self regarding egotists with the emotional intelligence of stick insects. I know that there are thoughtful and intelligent people in Newham who are not Labour supporters but they tell me that they despair of being associated with the rag bag of right and left green ink obsessives who claim to speak in their name.”

If Gray has been involved in politics for such a time he should know better. I do not claim to speak in anyone’s name and should those non-Labour supporting, thoughtful and intelligent Newham residents (and I’m sure they are legion) wish to participate in the comments on this blog they are more than welcome.

I guess that’s as much as I’m going to get with regard to a response from Gray.

I have one final thought: what would be his view if he were a Labour councillor on Newham Council with a Tory mayor who was implementing the same policies as the current Labour mayor?

In essence, Newham may well be the only authority in the country that has a Conservative mayor sponsored by the Labour Party, and no-one in the Labour Party has noticed.